Confronting the Stolen Land Narrative
In the United States, the term “stolen land” is often used to describe the unjust colonization of the Americas by Europeans at the expense of indigenous tribes. This outlook on history implies that the land was the rightful property of the native peoples as an ethnic group, and that it was occupied by Europeans in an immoral way.
This perspective suggests an intrinsic connection between blood and soil, one justified by a universal morality. However, this is a postmodernist perspective, one derivative of the moralistic interpretation of history. The ethics which underlie the concept of “stolen land” did not exist when colonization happened.
Throughout natural history, land cannot be stolen, only lost. It is either conquered or defended. There exists no universal virtue with which one can judge nature’s entropy. Borders are drawn in blood, not morality.
War in Pre-colonial America
Native tribes practiced warfare; it was a central facet of their identity, especially for military-aged males. This is universal to premodern humanity. The assertion that native land was “stolen” is hard to parse with the fact that territorial changes happened for millennia as a result of tribal warfare. There were hundreds, maybe even thousands of Native American tribes, each unique in its linguistic and cultural practices with varying degrees of relation. These distinctions imply tribal competition and conflict. Native tribes went to war for a myriad of complex motivations, such as access to territory, resources, control of trade routes, tribal politics, or the natural militant ambition of young males culturally incentivized to achieve renown.
War in pre-colonial America was no different from war in any other time or place. As in all wars, there are spoils: economic, territorial, or political, regardless of the conflict's catalyst. A prominent argument exists, however, that Europeans and Native Americans had fundamentally different concepts of war. It asserts that while the Europeans were driven by the desire for economic gain and imperial motivations, the Native Americans fought only locally and as a ritualistic practice. Furthermore, the natives did not fight total war or wars of annihilation, while Europeans often did.
The reason for these different conceptions is not that the natives had a more noble conception of war; it is because they did not have horses, steel, gunpowder, or gunboats. These innovations allowed for long-range conflicts, decisive battles, and the expansion of localized political networks via horseback or shipping lanes. Battles that were once fought with stone axes and arrowheads could then be fought on horseback with guns and steel blades. The Native Americans adopted these innovations in time, and to great effect.
When the Spanish introduced horses to the Native Americans, it completely transformed indigenous warfare. The most apt example can be observed in the effects this innovation had on the Comanche, a previously minor tribal power with a relatively small population and limited influence. The Comanche, however, were very early adopters of the horse, using them primarily for hunting but, more importantly, for combat. By the 1800s, they had become maybe the most talented cavalrymen on the face of the earth. They lived on horseback. This enabled them to conquer their surrounding rivals and expand their territory across the Southwestern United States; both Native tribes and European settlers feared the raids of the Comanche calvary.
The same cultural virtues that incentivized young Native American men to go into combat to achieve glory were within men like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Hernan Cortez. It is human nature, and it is not unique or exclusive to any ethnicity or culture. The human affinity for war is analogous to the lust for sex; neither one is essential to an individual's survival, but they are instincts that reveal a primordial desire that supersedes mere existence. These impulses often prod individuals to abandon normalcy in pursuit of rewards beyond survival. Hence the proverb, all is fair in love and war.
War as a Constant
Wherever man goes, war follows. While military and political technology alters its expression, the ritual remains unchanged. Greece and Rome both idealized war; it is fair to say they even worshiped it. Every Hellenic Greek grew up hearing bards recite the Homeric epic of the Iliad, the tale of the Trojan War. The story’s hero Achilles, a godlike warrior who chooses an early death and glory over a long and prosperous life. The antagonist is Prince Hector, a family man bravely defending his home, but content with his life as is. The fact that Achilles is the hero demonstrates the virtues of ancient Greece. The tale of Achilles famously inspired Alexander the Great, and he is purported to have carried a copy of the Iliad during his conquest of the known world and beyond, changing history forever. Like Achilles, he died young in his pursuit of glory. His empire would collapse, and his homeland would, in time, be conquered by the Romans.
The Romans considered themselves the descendants of the mythical Trojans. Their Republic grew from a small city-state to a hegemon of the Italian peninsula through innovative tactics and the societal lust for warfare. Centuries later, it became an empire when one man driven by the lust for power and glory conquered all of what is modern-day France. He forged an empire overnight when he illegally led his legions across the Rubicon and installed himself as dictator. His name would be synonymous with emperor for the next two thousand years, Caesar, Kaiser, Czar.
Culture Clash
The Romans conquered the tribal peoples of Europe in a way analogous to the European colonization of the Americas. When the Romans conquered England, they founded Londinium, modern-day London. When the English conquered North America, they founded Jamestown. The Romans fought Indigenous tribes of Britons while being vastly outnumbered, yet with superior technology and tactics; the English fought Native Americans under nearly identical circumstances. Both the Romans and the English were in unknown lands and inserted themselves into ongoing indigenous conflicts on whichever side most benefited their interest. Divide and conquer.
The Spoils of War
It is thought that up to 95% of Native Americans died during colonization, almost totally by disease. They had no immunity to the germs of the domesticated livestock of the Europeans, such as smallpox, measles, and influenza. It is impossible for this calamity to have been intentionally devised, given the contemporary lack of understanding of diseases or their origins; regardless, the outcome of these plagues benefited the European colonists.
In the 1500s, the Spanish traded goods near the South American coast with the tribes they first contacted. These items eventually made their way through the native trade networks and into the Amazon, ultimately reaching inland cities, some estimated to have had populations comparable with cities in Europe; the names of these places are lost to us. These cities were never even discovered by Europeans, as the inhabitants rapidly perished to diseases introduced by contaminated European goods. These ruins have only recently been discovered; they remain beneath the dense canopy of the Amazon from which they sprung long ago, conquered by nature. This morose and tragic story played out all across the American continents, and had it not, the Europeans would very likely have been unable to colonize the continents.
Instead, they would have needed to cohabitate or ally with the native populations, possibly followed by an ethnogenesis similar to both the Roman and Anglo-Saxon conquests of England. Alternatively, they may have been entirely wiped out by native warriors and unable to remain in the New World, as the Icelandic Vikings were in Newfoundland centuries before.
Nature at War
Fundamentally, land is space waiting to be dominated. Plants compete for light under the canopy; the tallest and best-positioned receive the most sun and inch closer to the top, while the rest remain in the shade. If an ant colony detects a non-nestmate or dangerous predator, it organizes a large-scale war to defend itself and the surrounding space. Wolves respect the boundaries of other packs out of fear of conflict, and they mark their territory in order to make known the space for which they are willing to risk their lives. Chimpanzee troops have militant patrols that roam their land; if the patrol encounters a non-group member in its territory, it is likely to be killed.
Life and war are identical phenomena. Microorganisms are thought to have begun competing for resources as soon as they existed. Competition may be the engine of life’s evolution. All life must compete for space and resources, from amoeba to plants to megafauna. The skulls of human males evolved the protruded brow to protect the face from traumatic blunt force injuries. War is literally in our bones. Humans like to consider ourselves more noble than the flora and fauna, but we are all fighting for space under the canopy.
Works Cited
Bearfoot, Cheyenne. “Land Back: The Indigenous Fight to Reclaim Stolen Lands.” KQED, 9 Jan.2024, www.kqed.org/education/535779/land-back-the-indigenous-fight-to-reclaim-stolen-lands.
Defence, National. “Government of Canada.” Canada.Ca, / Gouvernement du Canada, 3 Apr. 2018, www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/military-history/history-heritage/popular-books/aboriginal-people-canadian-military/warfare-pre-columbian-north-america.html.
Ehrenpreis, Jamie E, and Eli D Ehrenpreis. “A Historical Perspective of Healthcare Disparity and Infectious Disease in the Native American Population.” The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Apr. 2022, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8785365/#:~:text=13,14.
Jordi Paps Senior lecturer. “Did Life Evolve More than Once? Researchers Are Closing in on an Answer.” The Conversation, 8 June 2023, theconversation.com/did-life-evolve-more-than-once-researchers-are-closing-in-on-an-answer-205678.
Magazine, Smithsonian. “The Vikings: A Memorable Visit to America.” Smithsonian.Com,
Smithsonian Institution, 1 Dec. 2004, www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-vikings-a-memorable-visit-to-america-98090935/.
Orie, Amarachi. “Huge Network of Ancient Cities Uncovered in the Amazon Rainforest.” CNN,
Cable News Network, 14 Jan. 2024, www.cnn.com/2024/01/12/americas/ancient-city-uncovered-amazon-upano-intl-scli-scn/index.html.
Texas State Historical Association. “Comanche Indians.” Texas State Historical Association, www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/comanche-indians. Accessed 21 June 2024.
