August 17, 2026
Who Owns Mother Earth?
Timothy Birdnow
At American Thinker Brian Joondeph argues for liberals to give back the land they claim was "stolen" by the white man.
His argument is simple; if the land was stolen you are morally obligated to give it back to the victims.
I have a more fundamental question; how did the Native Americans own the land in the first place"
First, most stole it from others who had in turn stolen it from earlier peoples. That was why Custer had Indian scouts with him; these were guys whose people had been kicked off their land by the Sioux and they wanted payback (they knew they weren't getting the land back, just that the Sioux would take it in the loinclths or whatever passed for shorts among them).
But we need a definition of "owned". Is passing through something adequate to bequeath ownership? My father lived in a neighborhood that changed and he wound up the last white person on his block. Now he passed through that neighborhood all the time before these new people moved into it. By this reasoning he owned the whole block and had a right to deny entry to these folks. It is the same argument used to say we "stole" the land from the Indians.
There is no definition of property ownership.
And the Indians did NOT have any concept of private property which could be "stolen" from them
From an article on the subject:
The very ground beneath our feet tells a different story depending on who is listening. For centuries, Western thought has largely viewed land as a commodity—a resource to be owned, bought, sold, and exploited for profit. This perspective, deeply ingrained in legal systems and economic structures, stands in stark contrast to the profound and multifaceted understanding of land that has permeated Native American cultures for millennia. To truly grasp the essence of Indigenous relationships with the earth is to embark on a journey that transcends mere property deeds, delving into realms of spirituality, community, and an enduring sense of reciprocal responsibility.
At the heart of Native American land ethics lies the concept of stewardship, not ownership. For most Indigenous nations, the idea of "owning" land was as absurd as claiming ownership of the air or the sky. Land was not an inert object; it was a living entity, a sacred relative, the source of all life. This perspective fostered a relationship of profound respect, humility, and gratitude. People belonged to the land, not the other way around. As Oren Lyons, Faithkeeper of the Onondaga Nation, eloquently states, "We are a part of the earth, not separate from it. Our history is recorded in the land, and our future depends on how we care for it."
So basically the land owned the People and not the other way around. What does that tell us?
It tells us they did not own any of the land which they claim was stolen. How can something be stolen from you if you never owned it in the first place?
John Locke, the 18th century philosopher, created the modern idea of property ownership. To Locke property existed in a state of nature and as such it was free for anyone to use. It was in the improving of that property - cutting down trees, building a cabin, farming it - that the place changed from just land into property. Once established the now owner had a right to keep it or sell it if he pleased. It was then HIS property.
The Indians largely didn't do that. Few in North America built truly permanent structures and in fact the Plains Indians were purely nomadic. Yes, I know; we had the adobe buildings in the Southwest, and the south-eastern tribes built wattle and daub houses. But by and large Indians built brush shelters or shelters covered with Bison skins - tents.
And most did not stay put. even the eastern woodland Indians often moved from winter to summer camps. Being nomadic did not give them much of a claim to anything except their camps.
So someone please tell me how we stole their land when they hadn't developed their land to begin with and when they themselves claim nobody can own land?
We built stuff and improved the land and that is what makes it ours. Also, many times we paid for it. Manhattan was bought and paid for even if the deal was a bad one for the Indians (who were just passing through and thought the white people were suckers). So if the Indians made bad deals whose fault is that?
Much is often made about how we used to give them nearly worthless stuff - nails, mirrors, axes, etc. in return for valuable property. But who says this is just cheap "beads and trinkets"? The essence of trade is that one party has something another party wants and can't get for themselves. The Native Americans wanted these things - including old top hats and mirrors and cheap trinkets - precisely because they didn't have any of these things and wanted them. To us they made bad deals - to them they got priceless artifacts. What good is a hammer without nails? If you want to use nails to better secure an object and have a hammer or something you can use as a hammer a nail becomes priceless, despite it costing a penny (back in the old days) to a white settler. For want of a nail the kingdom fell.
So to say we "cheated" the Indians out of their land is to misunderstand the nature of commerce. They got things they wanted, and often laughed at us for our foolishness in making such a bad deal. They thought the land could not be owned and so selling it to us what a great joke on some gullible white fools.
So how do we give the land back? You first liberals.
Joondeph goes on to discuss black reparations, which I've dealt with before here. Who gets them? Only the children of slaves are entitled to them. Who pays for them? Only the children of slave masters should. But how do we determine that with any degree of accuracy? And America has always said the sins of the father shall not be visited on the sons. We do not have generational guilt, or didn't used to anyway. That is what tore other places apart (like Yugoslavia).
Will the children of black slave masters get reparations? Will the children of Italian immigrants have to pay? It's a ridiculous idea.
Maybe we should charge the black people rent for being here. After all, they came here from Africa and have enjoyed a much higher standard of living then they would have in, say, Gabon. I propose we put a special tax on black folks for back rent owed!
Not on board with that,, are we liberals? Didn't think so, but your proposal uses essentially the same logic.
Maybe we should take all the real property away from black people and give it to the Indians? Fair is fair and it was stolen from them after all...
And what of mixed race people? Obama is half Irish; does he just get a half share then?
The Left is able to make proposals like this sound serious because they control the media and education. If anyone thinks about it with a serious mind they see how utterly ridiculous it is.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:23 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1247 words, total size 8 kb.
29kb generated in CPU 0.0565, elapsed 0.2843 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.2684 seconds, 187 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
35 queries taking 0.2684 seconds, 187 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
