This is a unique idea, that feels to be mostly semantic. Ok, you don't want to call it theft, but does that change the justice of the situation? America conquered a series of less developed nations of people through sometimes dubious means, and has spent the years after that conquering trying to erase or marginalize the conquered peoples. America won, so it's not theft, but whatever you call it it's unjust.

I find it amusing that you hold a blanket thought that the theft of Native American land was the result of war games and not a mixture of deception, racism, genocide, breach of trust, and thievery.

I'm amused that you possibly think war is just two sides in distinct colors simply lining up and shooting volleys at each other until one side surrenders from the field with a white flag in the air. That may be more civil and gentlemanly, but it's far from how wars are mostly fought.

Deception, killing, accepting/breaking agreements, and taking things is basically war in a nutshell. It is an extension of diplomacy. How you execute these parts is a matter of your goals, and your morals and ethics.

But it's not THEFT. There is no such thing as theft when it comes between two nation states, it's either yours or it's not yours, and how well you can defend it basically is the rule of the game.

If you deceive yourself enough to assume you aren't at war, while the other side sends you all the signals that they are at war with you, whose fault is it when you eventually fall?

You may hate it, but don't redefine something basic to the politics of humanity.

War is hell...

and all of those things

How do you think warring tribes treated each other? You are aware that some proportion of native tribes kept both native and black (and probably white to a lesser extent) slaves, right?

It's also interesting that you choose the word "theft" as though the natives even had a concept for land ownership. Seems people are too eager to view history through a modern moral lense these days.

> It's also interesting that you choose the word "theft" as though the natives even had a concept for land ownership

There were many tribes living without telecommunications across the Americas with all their varying climates causing different socioeconomic structures to emerge

https://mises.org/wire/did-indians-understand-concept-privat...

>all their varying climates causing different socioeconomic structures to emerge

Which supports my point, that trying to view native practices through modern concepts is a bit like forcing a square peg through a round hole.

>One of the reasons that many continue to think that aboriginal Americans had no concept of private property, however, is because many tribes did regard land as being communally owned. Carl Watner explores the topic in The Journal of Libertarian Studies

The article seems to conflate "private property" with land ownership. Even this particular paragraph speaks of "communal ownership" which isn't quite the same as the concept of ownership in modern US law, though there are certainly provisions for group ownership.

Point is that article only supports what I'm saying, that it's borderline slanderous to assign morality to the behavior of cultures from 300+ years ago according to modern laws and ideas. Regarding this discussion, "theft" certainly becomes a strong word when you consider how different (and heterogeneous) concepts and practices were back then.

> a mixture of deception, racism, genocide, breach of trust, and thievery.

Were there rules against that? And if so, who would enforce them?

Theft is a concept that exists within a legal or normative framework. There is no such thing as theft outside of an established framework. If you want to argue that America unjustly took Native American land, you basically have to start from first principles.

This is kind of the same point I was making. I'm not trying to prove that anything was just or not in some grand scheme of things.

I'm arguing that "what happens after war" is not some fixed law of nature, but a human decision. Human decisions are not laws of nature, they can be changed. Historical precedent can be a useful tool, but it's not the same as "something immutable we must adhere to".

Because that is how this world works. You may be new out of the womb intellectually speaking, but if a child shows up at my doorstep one day and tells me I'm on his ancestors land from 300 years prior and I must vacate the home I bought and have legal title too, on the land my ancestors fought and bled over 300 years prior, even if they were assholes about it at the time, I have zero obligation to hand it over because of feelings.

That is why. You may not find it fair, but there does come past a point where the only fair thing to the present society, that had no hand in the original act, is to "keep on trucking" as they say.

This argument translated to other situations:

* we can't just end slavery - this is not how this world works. There have been slaves forever. We can't change slavery because of feelings.

* we can't give women the right to vote. This is not how this world works, women are supposed to be property of their men. We can't just let them do it because of feelings.

* we can't try to have a geneva conventio. This is not how this world works, excessive torture and cruelty have always been part of war. We cant just expect or troops to show humanity.

* we can't give land ownership rights to commoners. This is not how the world works, nobility has always had special privelege to own a thing. We cant just expect to let lesser humans have land because of feelings.

Finally: if your argument applies equally to a pro- and anit-Isreal stance - it's existence both proves and violates your exact point at the same time, depending on which stance you are already more inclined to.

Lol at your last point. It works very well for the Jews. Not so well for those who oppose Israel. The initial way that Israel acquired the land was by ancestral right, but it’s since defended it by war. Additionally, most of the land that is disputed never had any legal ownership as recognized by any ruling government.

The rest of your post is utter nonsense and not worth addressing.

Seems like all of your points conflate current/ongoing wrongs with past wrongs. At some point things that happened in the past are best left there, read about in history books.

My examples were all historical, as a way to highlight that some things we now think of as obvious, basic rights could have (and did have) opposing arguments consisting of "this is the way this world works". The point being: when it comes to human laws, it's not actually a sound argument.