Locke's approach to property rights was an early attempt at a definition, demonstrating that we can own a house, property, some land that we worked, but we can't own other people.
There are naturally flaws in his definitions of property, yet he was one of the first philosphers to clarify a consistent position against human slavery. Socrates dared at most to suggest that Greeks should not enslave fellow Greeks, and that was perhaps bordering a controversial stance at his time.
Yes, some argue that the famous chapter on property, which contains most of the references to Amerindians in the Two Treatises, was written to justify the 17th-century dispossession of the aboriginal peoples of their land, through a vigorous defence of England's ‘superior’ claims to proprietorship.
If I consider his rather strong position against slavery and his controversial defense against exploitation, via his term 'state of war' against oppressors, then I find it hard to believe that he would want to dispossess people. It seems that such a task would be more fitting for the philosophers of his time that he criticized.
Maybe he didn't intend for his words to be used in such a way, but I believe the interpretation of his work was used as such.
Thank you.
I decided to go over my book markings and wrote a short overview of how I interpret Locke's position:
