Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Was waging war w/ the "Native Americans" right?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For the majority of Native Americans, yes it was fine to engage in 'war' with them. This has to do with the fact that it was within their nature to be war-like. They had no concept of private property, and would constantly fight eachother in bloody battles to take it. Thus there was nothing wrong in us fighting them off and bringing peace and stability to the land.

There were a few instances where we made some mistakes-these being when we would attack the very few peaceful Native Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These questions are too general.

There were many reasons that Europeans and Americans made war with the Native Americans (and vice versa). Sometimes for conquest, revenge, and even just pure sadism.

There were also many, many different "wars" all throughout North and South America from 1492 to the 19th century.

One cannot ask for a moral evaluation as general as yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be more specific.  Here is one version of the events leading to "The Trail of Tears".

http://mn.essortment.com/cherokeeindians_rhjs.htm

Then let's also be specific about what was wrong with the notion of a "Cherokee nation". Note: "The Cherokee were also the only Indian nation to have their own constitution."

You seem to forget that we fought a bloody civil war just a few decades later to have "one nation".

But if it was inappropriate for one ethnic group within the United States to have its own constitution (can you imagine Italian-Americans having their own constitution?), it is telling that none of the other Indian tribes had even graduated to that level of civilization (actually I'm not even sure the info on that URL is correct because I seem to recall that the Iroquios had some kind of constitution).

That said, though acknowledging at the same time that I am no scholar of that history, the Cherokee appear to have been dealt with very unjustly. The proper solution doesn't seem to have ever been presented to them which was to assimilate. Also note that a less civilized country (cf. the Sudan now or the former Yugoslavia) would simply have exterminated them. In general, given the historical context (including the prejudices which existed toward non-whites), the Indians in North America were handled generally with a good deal of benevolence. (The Spanish were not nearly as kind.)

I'll just add as a footnote that what is omitted on that site is the fact that previously the Cherokee had been among the most aggressive and warlike of the native tribes. It also not mentioned that they practiced slavery and those slaves went with them on the "Trail of Tears". I doubt the Indian apologists particularly care if those slaves also cried along the way - though perhaps for different reasons. The Cherokee also fought on the side of the British during the American Revolution and were responsible for the massacre of many colonists.

Fred Weiss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

The Native Americans had no concept of land ownership beyond what land could be grabbed up by use of force. The western settlers lived in a "more free" society than the Native Americans and had every right to expand that freedom and rule of law. The way in which they acted was not perfect by any means. By a similar mode of action the American republic was "more free" than their colonies and had every right to come into existence.

No sign of incredulousness was found in ym query. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard that Ms. Rand stated that America's removal of the Native Americans from "their" land was moral.

Where did you hear this? You mention nothing of which tribes, what actions they had done, and when this occured. I'm sure Miss Rand would have found it completely immoral to remove a civilized tribe practicing the laws of the free republic from their land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In connection with some of the remarks in this thread, is it incorrect to say that Objectivism holds that if a person or group of people is already living on a certain area of land, but lacks a concept of property, it is moral to physically remove the people from the land, including by means of physically pushing them off the land, even to the extent of killing them if they resist, as long as the removal is done for selfish purposes and to establish a system of land ownership? If this is incorrect, as I always, I welcome explanation.

Also, is there a distinction between rational selfishness and selfishness?

Also, is the concept of 'moral/immoral' derived from 'rights', or vice versa, or neither?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if a person or group of people is already living on a certain area of land, but lacks a concept of property, it is moral to physically remove the people from the land, including by means of physically pushing them off the land, even to the extent of killing them if they resist, as long as the removal is done for selfish purposes and to establish a system of land ownership?
This is wrong. The lack of decent philosophy on your opponent's part does not mean you have the right to kill a person. However, if someone tries to kill you, you have the right to self defense. You also have the right to claim and occupy unowned land, and defend your property against aggressors (with the usual caveats about protection and government). It was wrong for the government to forcibly remove Indians from the land for no cause, in those cases where there was no cause, but it was right for settlers to occupy and lay claim to the land (which entitles them to protection of their property). Obviously, one of the problems in the Wild Wild West was heavy-handed enforcement, where one bad apple meant the banishment of the whole tribe -- vile collectivism which is antithetical to Objectivism. Certainly if there was the choice of punishing the one offender, that would be the correct thing to do; OTOH given the war-like context especially in the Plains interaction, the choice was either collective punishment or no enforcement of people's rights. The renegades were not in fact cast out of the tribe (when it became known what they had done), and that fact indicates that their tribe-mates accepted and sanctioned the aggressive actions. While they may not necessarily deserve a direct punishment for being accessories to terrorism, they also do not deserve the same protection under the laws of civilized society that the settlers are entitled to. Given the necessity of radical action (in some cases) to protect the rights of the settlers, radical surgery as protection against aggression is proper.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is wrong. The lack of decent philosophy on your opponent's part does not mean you have the right to kill a person. However, if someone tries to kill you, you have the right to self defense. You also have the right to claim and occupy unowned land, and defend your property against aggressors (with the usual caveats about protection and government). It was wrong for the government to forcibly remove Indians from the land for no cause, in those cases where there was no cause, but it was right for settlers to occupy and lay claim to the land (which entitles them to protection of their property).

I agree. Therefore, following the comments above, the forced removal of the Cherokee Indians from the Southeastern U.S. was immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is ownership of land? If people are living on it, but do not have a notion of ownership such as property rights then do they own the land or do they not own the land?

I don't want to make a strawman of Brule's remarks, but he maintained that Native Americans did not have a concept of ownership other than "what land could be grabbed up by use of force." But if the land grabbed was not itself owned by Natives, then how is it force for other Natives to have grabbed it? In other words, if Prodhoun's 'Property Is Theft' is an instance of stolen concept, then how is it not stealing concept to say that unowned land can be taken by force? So wouldn't any grabbing of land from Native Americans by Europeans by physical means have been no less force than grabbing of land by Native Americans from Native Americans, unless there is something else that distinguished the European land grabbing, such as establishing a system of ownership that includes recognition of rights? And why would that not imply that nothing can be owned unless it is a possession held in a system of ownership that includes recognition of rights? And so, what violation of rights would there be from taking anything by physical means from the hands of someone unlucky to live in a place where there is no system of ownership that does not include recognition of rights?

But what about the Europeans themselves and their systems of property? Whether there were background assumptions about rights or even published declarations of rights, Europeans grabbed land from one another by physical means and by force against even existing European systems of ownership. And even these systems were not republican nor free enterprise systems. Since the regimes that grabbed land from Natives were themselves not governments for the liberty of men and recognition of rights, I don't see how the land grabbing made by those regimes qualifies as rights minded land grabbing, whether in Europe or anywhere else in the world.

Edited by LauricAcid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Therefore, following the comments above, the forced removal of the Cherokee Indians from the Southeastern U.S. was immoral.

Listen to Thomas Bowden's lecture on Columbus Day. He specifically addresses this issue--the American government had a right to move the Cherokee Indian tribe to the West and out of their country since it was practicing a slave-state contrary to the laws of the republic. Leaving them would be like allowing Nebraska to practice Sharia law. There was never any "forced removal" unless you consider expecting compliance with the law some type of force. If I remember correctly, the tribe had plenty of chances to reform its ways.

Edited by ex_banana-eater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is ownership of land?
Without delving into all of the details, if you do not have a concept of "property", you cannot own property. You can be in a place without owning it: being in a place does not entail ownership. This isn't really all that complicated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Native Americans had no concept of land ownership beyond what land could be grabbed up by use of force.  The western settlers lived in a "more free" society than the Native Americans and had every right to expand that freedom and rule of law.  The way in which they acted was not perfect by any means.  By a similar mode of action the American republic was "more free" than their colonies and had every right to come into existence.

What about before the American republic, back to the first European landings and after? What "more free" [double quotes yours] societies were represented that were ruled by kings and tyrants and that protected slave trade (even well after the advent of the republic).

And, aside from natives, but about rights, if one's lack of a concept of ownership entails that one has no right not to be pushed off land, then what about the fruits of labor? Does not having a concept of ownership entail that one has no right not to have the product of one's labor taken without consent? Aside from property and life, what about liberty? If one needs to have a concept of ownership to have a right not to be pushed off land, then does one need a concept of a right of liberty to have a right not to be enslaved?

It was wrong for the government to forcibly remove Indians from the land for no cause, in those cases where there was no cause, but it was right for settlers to occupy and lay claim to the land (which entitles them to protection of their property).

Please define "cause"? Wouldn't selfish purpose be sufficient cause?

The lack of decent philosophy on your opponent's part does not mean you have the right to kill a person. However, if someone tries to kill you, you have the right to self defense. You also have the right to claim and occupy unowned land, and defend your property against aggressors (with the usual caveats about protection and government).

What are the usual caveats? I don't want to put words in your mouth, so these are all questions: Does ownership require merely having a concept? If not, then what is required of someone else to own the land and have the right to push the person living on the land off it? And will any concept of ownership suffice, including ownership due to divine right of kings and tyrants? Now, if one is living on unowned land, and someone else claims ownership of that land by divine right or possibly from some other basis, then the one living on the unowned land does not have a right to resist, by any means, or at least by some means, being pushed off the land? If not, then it is only self-defensive killing against people who are resisting with weapons from being pushed off the land they are living on?

tribe-mates accepted and sanctioned the aggressive actions. While they may not necessarily deserve a direct punishment for being accessories to terrorism, they also do not deserve the same protection under the laws of civilized society that the settlers are entitled to.

The right not to be killled is not had by those people who were in no position to even say anything about aggressive actions? Does a person's lack of attempt to stop an aggressor entail that the person has no right to life? In the wars among England and France and Spain and other European monarchies during the last millennium, who were the aggressors? Did one monarchy have a right to, if needed, kill all the citizens of another monarchy in order to put a stop to the aggression?

Protection under laws? What laws? Monarchical laws? Laws derived from divine rights of kings? Laws settled upon without the consent of the governed, including, and especially, the people living on the land but pushed off it by laws not of their consent? Laws that decree ownership based on divine rights of kings and tyrants? How is one living on land protected by laws that push him off the land he lives on?

"Terrorism" and "civilized society". Please define.

Edited by LauricAcid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please define "cause"? Wouldn't selfish purpose be sufficient cause?
Reason and yes, respectively. But not in the sense you have in mind: theft is not a selfish act. Self-defense is.
What are the usual caveats?
When you live in a civilized society, you cede your right to retaliatory force to the government. If you live in the wilds where there is no government to protect your rights, you are literally on your own and retain the right to apply retaliatory force as needed to protect your life.
Does ownership require merely having a concept?
No, that is a necessary condition. Recognition of value is also necessary (as are "work to keep", not to mention "proper acquisition").
The right not to be killled is not had by those people who were in no position to even say anything about aggressive actions?
What do you mean?

A person who lives apart from civilized society doesn't have the rights conferred by civilized society, in particular the right of assumed innocence in the face of aggression by someone that might include them.

Protection under laws? What laws?
That a person is to only be punished for their own specific crimes, as proven in a court of law. The presumption is that the government of those people will prosecute a rights violator, and will distinguish between the guilty and innocent. But this wasn't always the case with Indian interactions: they did not protect a settler's right to his property against attacks from within the tribe. (Indeed, in some case, the tribal government instigated the attack). This necessitates some form of physical segregation, when a tribe consistently violates the rights of settlers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about [...]?

In the post from which I have quoted above, I counted 24 questions, including compounds. I may have missed some. My eyes began to cross.

Now I have a question for you: Which, if any, of all those questions is the essential one, in this discussion?

(For anyone not familiar with the idea of "essential" in Objectivism, see: "Definitions," The Ayn Rand Lexicon, especially p. 118, third full entry, which is an excerpt from Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, second edition, p. 45, especially the second and third full paragraphs.)

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen to Thomas Bowden's lecture on Columbus Day. He specifically addresses this issue--the American government had a right to move the Cherokee Indian tribe to the West and out of their country since it was practicing a slave-state contrary to the laws of the republic. Leaving them would be like allowing Nebraska to practice Sharia law. There was never any "forced removal" unless you consider expecting compliance with the law some type of force. If I remember correctly, the tribe had plenty of chances to reform its ways.

What law of the republic in 1838 forbade the institution of slavery? Did this law not also apply to the white slave holders of Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, and the Gulf states? Why weren't these white slave owners moved to the west along with the Indians? And suppose the residents of Nebraska were practicing Sharia law. Would the appropriate response be simply to outlaw the practice of Sharia in Nebraska, or move the entire population of Nebraska to the Mojave desert so they could continue to practice Sharia there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without delving into all of the details, if you do not have a concept of "property", you cannot own property.

Why? That's like saying that if you dont have a concept of trees, then you cant see trees. Obviously the person with no concept of property wouldnt describe what he owns as being his 'property', but does this really make any difference?

Suppose that I decide to have a look through the dictionaries of the world, find out which cultures dont have a term that is equivalent to the English word 'property', and then travel over to their countries and take everything I want. Would this be stealing, or immoral? Also socialists apparently dont have a concept of property (at least not in the Objectivist sense), so would I be OK in taking my socialist neighbour's car?

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also socialists apparently dont have a concept of property (at least not in the Objectivist sense), so would I be OK in taking my socialist neighbour's car?

I was about to make this very point myself. Is it open season on any member of the Communist Party USA, the Socialist Workers Party, and the Revolutionary Communist Party? Presumably we could drive them -- and their children -- out of their homes and off their land!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...