Noted expert on indigenous culture and history Billie Eilish made some nonsense claim about the US being on stolen land at the Grammy awards last night. This is a pretty good look at why that claim is simply stupid.
https://x.com/khalidi79397/status/2018145893015228645?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"The idea that being “indigenous” automatically grants moral ownership of land collapses the moment you look at actual human history and apply a consistent moral standard to it. Long before Europeans arrived, Native American tribes fought, displaced, absorbed, and sometimes wiped out other tribes. The Iroquois Confederacy expanded by crushing rivals. The Aztec Empire grew through conquest, coercion, and tribute. Entire peoples vanished not because of outsiders, but because stronger neighbors took their land. This was not an exception. It was the rule. Morality cannot selectively ignore facts. If land was already changing hands through violence and domination, then “who was there first” cannot logically create an eternal moral claim. A past act of conquest does not become morally sacred simply because enough time has passed. This is not a uniquely American story. It is the story of Homo sapiens everywhere. Humans migrate, compete, conquer, assimilate, and redraw borders. Always have. Always will. No population on earth holds land because history peacefully granted it moral title. Land is held because, at some point, power determined the outcome. Modern moral legitimacy therefore cannot come from ancestry alone. It comes from present responsibility. From how societies govern today, how rights are protected today, and how power is exercised now. Morality applies to living systems, not frozen historical snapshots chosen for political convenience. “Indigenous” is not a scientific or ethical category. It is a political one. It freezes history at a convenient moment and declares that everything before that moment does not count. Who decides that moment? Whoever benefits from it. If you rewind history far enough, every group was once indigenous. If you stop history early enough, every conqueror can reinvent themselves as a victim. Moral arguments about land that ignore this reality are not about justice. They are about power, timing, and narrative control."
9 comments:
This is not a uniquely American story. It is the story of Homo sapiens everywhere. Humans migrate, compete, conquer, assimilate, and redraw borders. Always have. Always will. No population on earth holds land because history peacefully granted it moral title. Land is held because, at some point, power determined the outcome.
Humans rape, kill, murder babies and blame the mothers. Always have, always will.
Humans enslave, beat and torture, then blame the victims for their own oppression.
Good God! What a mindless, godless, amoral worldview.
That evil always has happened is NO excuse to simply dismiss it when it happens again... when WE are the vile rapists, murderers, enslaved, child abusers, terrorists.
ESPECIALLY so when we're talking about people of faith or people who affirm human rights.
What an evil, self-righteous pile of shit.
Your amoral author/source:
"The idea that being “indigenous” automatically grants moral ownership of land collapses the moment you look at actual human history and apply a consistent moral standard to it.
What he means by "consistent moral standard," is clearly an INconsistent, Amoral "standard..."
The reality is that native peoples were living on these lands.
The reality is that European settlers killed and kicked them off their lands.
The reality is that European settlers and our founders made deals with them, eventually.
The reality is that these treaties were routinely and consistently broken by the "Christian" European settlers.
The reality is that there was nothing consistent or moral about these actions.
That the native peoples sometimes had fights amongst themselves over lands does not suddenly make amoral evil actions and abuses at the hands of white settlers moral or consistent or anything but harmful and wrong.
Do you think Jesus would approve of the settlers actions and attitudes and abuses of the native folks living here? Do you think God would consider these atrocities "moral and consistent..."?
To a real degree, this whine isn't much different than the reparations argument in the sense that those making the argument demand something they're too unwilling to put in the effort to acquire. For one it's wealth, for the other, land. If they whine hard enough and in a compelling way, perhaps they'll be given what they won't exert the effort to acquire themselves.
Well “history” is amoral. “History” lacks the ability to confer morality.
Noting the reality that “indigenous” is a term with virtually zero meaning and less moral standing is simply that, reality.
You shouldn’t call yourself named like that.
You are an idiot who’s committed to a narrative regardless of anything else.
That you may disagree with someone else’s moral standard, doesn’t mean that it’s not a moral standard. Absent a universal, objective, moral standard any moral standard is fundamentally equal in value. That you disagree means nothing.
The reality is that the “native” tribes (who migrated from elsewhere) conquered, killed, raped, tortured, and enslaved other tribes. Maybe you ignored the Aztecs and the Sioux (among many others).
The double standard is astounding. You somehow accept/excuse conquest, murder, torture, rape and slavery among the “natives”, while applying a completely different standard to Europeans. Insanity.
I don’t think Jesus would “approve” of any “sin”, (by the “natives” or the Euros) but this is just one more red herring.
It’s hilarious to see you arguing for a “consistent” moral standard grounded in YHWH after denying the existence is one for years.
If one applies the same standard to all groups throughout history, then war/conquest/slavery/etc are consistent history and were/are justified by moral systems for centuries.
That you don’t agree is meaningless.
If you haven’t given any real estate that you own back to the original, “indigenous” “owners”, it just shows your hypocrisy. Just like Eiilish.
Dan's getting his diapers in a twist for no reason. I saw nothing in the piece which suggests citing historical fact as an excuse for current bad behavior. It simply was to respond to morons who want to pretend we're on stolen land as if that means anything or compels us to perform some undefined action.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/O3nAsgnj1NY
The “stolen land” folx simply choose to ignore history, and place arbitrary limits on certain countries. By this standard Jews have a much stronger claim to Israel than Muslims.
Ultimately they’ll cling to their stolen land in their gated, exclusive communities while lecturing others to do what they won’t. Like so many leftist policies, nothing is stopping them from living out their beliefs and setting an example. Higher taxes, land, whatever, they always want others to bear the consequences their policies.
This little snippet was posted on Facebook this morning:
Settled, not stolen; purchased, not stolen; conquered, not stolen. If you say Americans “stole this land” then so did the Cherokee from the Creek, the Creek from the Choctaw, the Choctaw from earlier mound-builders, and on back through endless tribal wars and conquests. (The Americans just won.). This land is not stole, it was built.
Post a Comment