Instigator / Pro

Redpilled

1500

rating

debates

36.36%

won

Topic

#4911

Colonizers didn't steal native Americans' land

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Winner

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Barney

Tags

Politics

History

Parameters

Publication date: 08.30.2023 08:27PM
Last updated date: 09.14.2023 03:10PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 2
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: Two weeks
Point system: Winner selection
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Barney

1815

rating

debates

100.0%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

Redpilled

08.31.2023 07:02AM

Pro

Land was not stolen from native Americans, but rather fought for and earned through luck and bloodshed. For this debate I will be representing the idea as a whole through the capture of the Inca Empire by the Spanish.

Native American tribes had fought each other for thousands of years before the settlers arrived. They were in fact unlike the western Europeans who were in a culture of discovery, a culture of war and bloodshed. In many of the native tribes, the most common way for one to gain status was by proving themselves in battle. This shows how common war was to most of the tribes, Especially the Inca. The Inca grew their empire to cover a large area of mid and southern Mexico through battle. They earned the land fair and square because for long as humans have existed up until very recently, if you could take it, it was yours.

The same goes for the Roman empire. When people think about the Roman empire, they don't think about the poor people the land was "stolen" from, they think about the mightiness of the empire and sometimes consider how powerful they must have been to be able to conquer as much land as they did. The same is the same for the Inca empire and later, the Spanish empire. The Spanish didn't just steal their land, they captured their land. Land is a very hard thing to steal. The only ways I can think of doing it are squatting or stealing the deed and changing court documents, which would have to be an inside job. In most other instances land is bought or won.

On to excuses for the land being "stolen"

1. The Europeans carried disease.

While the plagues that "plagued" the natives may have given Europeans an unfair advantage, they still had to fight the remaining natives for the land. It is like for example if your enemy is in a drought and you invade them while the population was staving. You would be taking advantage of a natural occurrence to achieve victory. In the example, it would still be commonplace for one to say they won the battle, not that they stole it.

2. Europeans had better technology than the natives

Europeans worked hard to gain their technology. They dug metal from the ground, reverse engineered ideas from other regions of the world, and were boosted by technology they already had. The weapons and armor the Europeans had was much superior to anything the natives could dream of, however this is a very common theme in wars; one side has superior weapons that help them to win.

The Inca also fought back from the Spanish, which we can assume means they knew the Spanish were at war with them. Because they fought back, this can be defined as a war, which has a winner and a looser. In a war the two sides often take on each other with different goals in mind. For the Spanish, it was to gain land and find wealth on it. For the Inca it was to preserve their land and liberty with the side benefit of capturing some of the things they found and possibly creating something of their own version out to copper since it was much easier to find in the region than iron.

As you can see, the Spanish earned their land through a natural phenomenon called "disease" and some bloodshed. They took on a people who had been at war with their neighbors for thousands of years. Why should we see the European conquest as anything different than the native conquest?

Barney

08.31.2023 08:56AM

Con

Preamble:

Definitions

Merriam-Webster defines the following:

Steal is “to take away by force or unjust means.”
Non Sequitur is “a statement (such as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said.”

1. History:

The travesties committed against the indigenous peoples of the Americas is common knowledge; but to cover my bases I’ll briefly touch upon them…

Columbus

It begins in the year 1492, with a murdering pedophile named Christopher Columbus landing an expedition in the Americas. His barbarism is quite well documented [1]. Basically a lot of kidnapping, raping, seizing of property, etc.

Land Taking

The formation of Jamestown in 1607 was the real spark to mass land theft.

1622 is when natives began trying to fight back, but as is well known, it was mixed, some tribes even siding with the colonialists in exchange for their own land rights being protected; but in the end 99% of it was stolen regardless of all alliances and treaties [2].

‘Merica

In 1776 the foundation of The United States of America marked a point where we can divide guilt between previous colonist groups, and ‘Merican colonists. Here’s a handy visualization for ease of reference [3].

Note that we even took away land we had deemed reservations for them to inhabit; after such incidents as the Trial of Tears in which we committed genocide to force them into said reservations.

2. Theft

There’s really not much ambiguity on what it means to steal things. You take away that which belongs to another person without their permission, you’re a thief.

Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor, morally justified and all but still objectively stealing.

The colonists were by definition thieves. And they knew it, as clearly evidenced by the need for all the murders and oh so many broken promises. That they were murders (and various other crimes) in addition to thieves, does not invalidate that they were thieves.

As a hypothetical, imagine you move to a new neighborhood… You notice on the other side of your backyard fence is a nice swimming pool; so you claim it as yours, and then when someone claims it’s actually theirs you kill them to hold onto your claim… When the police show up, do they say something to the effect of “wow, he really earned that pool” or do they arrest you?

Rebuttals:

“fought for and earned through luck and bloodshed”

Murdering people to take their stuff, is murder in addition to theft but still theft.

“Native American tribes had fought each other … a culture of war and bloodshed”

Wholly irrelevant to if the colonists stole from them.

“if you could take it, it was yours.”

That does not negate if the means of acquiring it was theft. Even stealing from a thief is still an act of theft.

“When people think about the Roman empire…”

The logic here seems to be that if you like how someone looks (particularly if they’re well muscled and oiled) all actions committed by them are magically incapable of being crimes?

“The Spanish didn't just steal their land, they captured their land.”

That is like saying they didn’t steal it because they thefted it. In the English language we have something called synonyms; multiple words which amount to the same thing.

“Why should we see the European conquest as anything different than the native conquest?”

Even stealing from a thief is still an act of theft.

Sources:

Round 2

Redpilled

08.31.2023 01:10PM

Pro

If you are considering colonists to be the thieves, than in turn the natives who were living on the land who stole it from the last group, who stole it from the group before them, must also be thieves, which means the colonists didn't steal from innocent random people, they stole from people who had done the same thing they were doing right than. So the true owners of the land which would be the ones who bought it or discovered it, hadn't lived on it for thousands of years.

The Natives after taking over a plot of land would often force the other natives who lived there out in a march similar to the trail of tears. 9/10 tribes land that was "stolen" did not have moral people living on it. Many of them were native versions of the Europeans so to speak.

Barney

08.31.2023 03:10PM

Con

Extend.

Pro has offered no defense against the fact that the colonists broke their own treaties to steal land from the native people with whom they were in an alliance, and further that theft is theft regardless of if it’s justified.

Rebuttals:

As I’ve repeatedly already stated: “Even stealing from a thief is still an act of theft.”

Not only is the affirmative case non-sequitur, it’s gone so non-sequitur as to be an example of the not even wrong fallacy [1, 2]. The native people could have been just as much into raping children as Christopher Columbus, and that would not retroactively alter history to make the colonists have not stolen the Land.

Sources:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

https://youtu.be/Ec7rCsNFn30?si=OwEGxKFBvJgIOnL5

Barney

09.07.2023 10:51PM

-->

@whiteflame

Thanks for voting!

Barney

09.01.2023 05:21PM

-->

@Savant

Thank you for the vote!

Barney

08.31.2023 01:28AM

-->

@Redpilled

Good luck,

Your topic combined with your username got me to step out of retirement.

I’m happy to give advice on strategies. I expect you’ll be using a basic non-sequitur kritik; but I’ve /occasionally/ been surprised…

Best.Korea

08.30.2023 09:47PM

Cant steal anything since property doesnt exist. Heil Stalin 🇰🇵💪

Best.Korea

08.30.2023 09:45PM

Uh sure

Lemming

09.08.2023 12:28AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

RFV
Barney more clearly defines theft,
Makes arguments about when it is appropriate to define situations as theft,
Makes criticisms of Redpilled's arguments and logic.

'Some of Barney sources not so much fact proven, as were 'colorful descriptive, invoking perspective.

If Redpilled had more rounds, 'maybe they could have rallied stronger, but current arguments felt bit incomplete in Redpilled's arguments perspective.

R1 Redpilled
Hm, if war was 'agreed to by both sides,
I suppose it might not be considered war,
As one doesn't view a lost gamble as money being 'stolen. (Though some do, depending on the gamble or 'sense of the word steal)
Then again, when people steal bases in baseball, , ,
Hm, maybe I'm in one of my 'vague moments. . .

Still Redpilled round 1 seems pretty flawed to me,
Given how steal/theft is not too defined here,
People in life will beat up other people and force them to give up their wallets, we still call it theft.

R1 Barney
"unjust means"
Leaves an option of the "take away" being just,
Buuuut, that would still be pretty difficult to argue, and even 'if argued, has some holes.

I've not 'really read much about Columbus,
Just want to state because I haven't read of him, I don't have strong opinions on way or the other.
https://hardcoreitalians.blog/2022/10/09/true-or-false-understanding-the-accusations-against-christopher-columbus-and-their-merits/

Land Taking,
One 'could make the argument that penalty is not theft,
Such as when one is fined an amount of money for a crime,
It is not seen as theft. (Though some people view it as theft, and some situations people generally would call it theft)
Still, I think Barney is making effective arguments against what Redpilled has posted thus far.

One 'could argue Robin Hood 'liberated gold from the rich,
'Rather than stealing what another person stole,
As police don't 'steal from criminals when they liberate illicit funds and put them into government funds.

Barney rebuts effectively, noting flaws in logic by Redpilled's arguments in R1.

R2 Redpilled
Only 2 rounds, and this one is short, looks bad for Redpilled.

I think Redpilled's argument would require the colonists to be just people,
And the Natives to be unjust,
But Europe is 'full of wars and force,
The Colonists 'did break many treaties,
Many Natives had decent good civilization.
. . .
Hm,
Would 'any nation own anything, if all land has been taken unjustly?
. .
Hm, treaties imply acceptance that land 'is currently valid, even if in past history it was stolen, but this is 'my argument, not Barney's.
. . .

Hm, 2 main arguments by Redpilled,
The land was 'won by war, not stolen,
You can't steal from a thief.

These arguments are hurt by Barney making use of a definition of stealing,
Redpilled neglected debate description and definitions, though arguably tried to define war as different than theft.

Hm, I say hm too much, still, hm,
Is 'every war settlement theft?

If there is a den of wolves,
And I drive them out from the forest, because they have been attacking people,
Is such 'theft?
Does it depend on if I have intention to 'live on the wolves land or not?
. . .

Redpilled makes a lot of claims of the American Natives being immoral, but they are lacking in sources.

R2 Barney
I imagine thieves who live together, would still see it as stealing, if they took by force or guile from a comrade.
Would have viewed their earlier piracy as theft.

'Privateers and 'Raiders though,
Towards a nation one is at war with, might not see their acquisitions as theft.
But this is 'my argument, not Redpilled's, it also fails to address times America broke treaties and as a nation intentionally entered into war with intention of taking.

Though one might argue not 'all American wars and colonists were theft.

whiteflame

09.04.2023 07:36PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Really don’t know what Pro was trying to do here. If you’re trying to define the circumstances of European colonists acquiring Native American land as something other than stealing, then it has to be clear what the distinction is. The problem is that Pro multiple times and through his own argument acknowledges that this meets the definition of stealing, he just argues that it also meets the definition for other terms and that, in some cases, those other terms are considered paramount. Even if that’s accurate, that does not mean that stealing did not occur, which is the case Pro had to make. Con showed that, via broken treaties at minimum, land was stolen from the Native Americans, though honestly Pro’s whole case was effectively turned against him, leading me to vote Con.

Savant

08.31.2023 03:21PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Pro's arguments largely rely on a framework that they don't do much to defend, and they would have done well to establish some definitions up front. Con argues that any form of taking something by force is theft, even if it is justified. Pro does not even argue that conquest implies justification for taking something by force (at best, they imply it). Meanwhile Con uses a few analogies and argues that "stealing from a thief is still theft," which makes most of Pro's arguments irrelevant until that framework is challenged.