Right of Conquest

[Politesse]

Yet another America bashing thread.

We live in a real world of finicky emotional temperamental ethno centric people. Conflict has been and always will be the norm.

Before the Europeans arrived the Americas had its share of empire and conquest.

It is always easy to bash our history. The inference is that at any point in time there are a set of decisions that can be made that lead to a tranquil happy world. Fantasy.

Freedom as in liberal democracy has grown, anchored by the post war USA. Inclusive of Japan, SK, Australia, New Zealand, westerns Europe. The idea of global human rights did not exist prior to WWII. The growth of the idea required economic and military's stability.

Military stability was NATO, designed to prevent WWIII in Europe. Freedom of navigation around the world without fear of military's intervention heled growth of global economies. China is threatening freedom of navigation on important maritime routes. Without our military counterbalance it is back to pre WWII naval trade conflicts.

I am not suggesting we dismiss our historical mistakes. Before you judge get rid of your ignorance of how we got the freedoms we use on the forum and how they are maintained.

Seconded.

You, too, would be welcome to provide a rational and topical response to the questions posed in the OP. I'm a teacher, not a politician; there are no wrong answers when I pose a question, except those which are counter-factual, and even concerning those I am happy to have a rational conversation about. I don't start many threads, and I only start them if I'm genuinely interested to learn what people's perspectives might be.

 

[Politesse]

Just because others have been immoral is no reason to ignore clear immorality.

Indeed, it seems quite hypocritical to criticize one community's sins while refusing to address your own, even as a defense mechanism. Maybe, especially when using it as a defense mechanism.

 

[untermensche]

The religion of the state has replaced the religion of invisible gods in many.

 

[Politesse]

The religion of the state has replaced the religion of invisible gods in many.

Hmm. Civil religion. I guess that may be relevant. It is true that the perspective Europeans used to have on conquest was very much so religiously informed. And we often see in 20th century onward that the language of science is often used to construct an acceptably secular justification for the older religious ideas, which can therefore uphold the prerogatives of state without tumbling into the mire of religious partisanship.

Is that really what has happened here, though? Or is it true, as some have claimed, that social violence is inherent to international relationships, and that both religious and political/legal justifications are being proposed post facto to justify some "natural drive"? I am not sure.

 

[untermensche]

I'd say by nature human thinking can easily be set to "us vs them".

That was the law of the jungle and it is in the genes.

And you have today great misleaders that take advantage of this internal wiring.

 

[Politesse]

I'd say by nature human thinking can easily be set to "us vs them".

That much is certainly true. I'm not as convinced that the whole European superstructure of land ownership and imperial domination of subjugated peoples is necessarily implied, however. That isn't the only way instinctive xenophobia could be expressed or addressed, surely?

 

[untermensche]

That is just how dictators easily got people to fight their wars.

And how American misleaders get many to excuse clear crimes.

They exploit natural inclinations.

 

[steve_bank]

t is mind boggling how people with higher education can be so utterly ignorant of history and unable to think without bias.

It must be some kind of fantasy reality where only white America are bad, get rid of America and the world becomes a tranquil prosperous paradise.

Considering the long recorded history of human conflict what the liberal democracies are trying to do is superhuman. History says impossible odds. Global peace and liberal democracy. The historical forces at play against that are tremendous.

Objective reasoning and questioning demands a review of both the positives and negatives of post war USA.

 

[Politesse]

t is mind boggling how people with higher education can be so utterly ignorant of history and unable to think without bias.

It must be some kind of fantasy reality where only white America are bad, get rid of America and the world becomes a tranquil prosperous paradise.

Considering the long recorded history of human conflict what the liberal democracies are trying to do is superhuman. History says impossible odds. Global peace and liberal democracy. The historical forces at play against that are tremendous.

Objective reasoning and questioning demands a review of both the positives and negatives of post war USA.

I said nothing of the sort. Objective questioning and reasoning are exactly what I've requested; why are you giving me emotional screeds and political ranting instead? If you want to impress me with your superior reasoning, the route to doing so is to offer a rational, coherent response to the questions in the OP.

 

[bilby]

Yet another America bashing thread.

We live in a real world of finicky emotional temperamental ethno centric people. Conflict has been and always will be the norm.

Before the Europeans arrived the Americas had its share of empire and conquest.

It is always easy to bash our history. The inference is that at any point in time there are a set of decisions that can be made that lead to a tranquil happy world. Fantasy.

Freedom as in liberal democracy has grown, anchored by the post war USA. Inclusive of Japan, SK, Australia, New Zealand, westerns Europe. The idea of global human rights did not exist prior to WWII. The growth of the idea required economic and military's stability.

Military stability was NATO, designed to prevent WWIII in Europe. Freedom of navigation around the world without fear of military's intervention heled growth of global economies. China is threatening freedom of navigation on important maritime routes. Without our military counterbalance it is back to pre WWII naval trade conflicts.

I am not suggesting we dismiss our historical mistakes. Before you judge get rid of your ignorance of how we got the freedoms we use on the forum and how they are maintained.

This reminds me of something.

Oh, yes.



I love the part where the OP doesn't mention the USA, but you immediately jump to the conclusion that it is an America bashing thread.

It could equally well be considered a UK bashing thread, if you were reading it without a massive sepposlovakian chip on your shoulder (though of course it is neither; It's a discussion of the right of conquest as a legal instrument, and is completely neutral towards any particular nation state, as there are several such states that have dispossessed indigenous 'first nations').

I for one don't owe any of my freedoms to the US of A. My freedoms come from the British Commonwealth (formerly the British Empire), in the form of English and Australian law. The US decided to break away from that empire, which is fine - but it's not fine for her to then pretend to be the sole instance of freedom worldwide. There are plenty of freedoms that are taken for granted in the Commonwealth, or parts thereof, that Americans simply don't have at all.

America is different. But not necessarily better (or worse); Nor necessarily special, unique, or exemplary.

Americans on the whole are stunningly ignorant of the rest of the world, in a way that is perhaps only exceeded by the DPRK. And instead of seeking to redress their ignorance when it is made apparent to them, they tend to become defensive and hostile. Just like another insular nation that claims to be a Democratic Republic.

Personally, I blame the insistence on children reciting a pledge of allegiance. That seems to be a hallmark of totalitarian nationalism, and it's presence is a key indicator that a nation is not free.

Well, if the thread is to be accused of America bashing, we might as well have some.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Does a military victory, alone, constitute a legal means of acquiring new territories? If so, on what moral or legal basis? Does the conquering "army" have to have the official imprimatur of their government in order for an invasion to be legal, or can random settlers acting unofficially be the basis of a new territorial acquisition?

Asking for a First Nation.

Short answer, yes. The only reason it's you specifically who is writing this message is because your ancestors fucked over somebody else. All living humans are the decedents of people who invaded shit. The world of "Eat or Be Eaten" didn't really stop until after WW2.

if you'd asked this question to people a hundred years ago, they wouldn't understand WTF you were on about. In their own time "Manifest Destiny" made perfectly sense.

Since WW2 we decided to freeze borders and make a new rule that acquiring new territories is immoral. When I say "we" I mean, those of us ruled under the hegemony of USA. Why were they for this? Because USA was the source of cheap industrial goods they could sell to a ruined world. If the world stayed peaceful USA would make loads of money exploiting this almost complete lack of competition. Because the rest of the world lay in ruins.

After the rest of the world stopped being in ruins and they themselves got in on the act of exporting cheap industrial goods, the USA didn't change their story. Their national narrative was the same. As it still is. Peace and capitalism at any cost.

And that's still where we're at.

It's a good story. But it's not an ethical or moral one. It makes no logical sense why the current borders are the moral ones. They're all arbitrary and the result of accidents in history.

China or Russia doesn't accept this story. They're both victims of having had bits lopped off the last 150 years. So they're motivated by nationalistic reasons not to accept the American hegemony narrative.

I personally think it's awesome that the world is peaceful. But I have no illusions about any moral issues. There's none to be had, on either side of the argument.

Africa is only now slowly climbing out of the mess the colonial powers put them in. Do you think any African can look at any European or American talking about the immorality of not invading another country and taking them seriously? Or a Chinese person? I highly doubt that.

 

[TomC]

Yet another America bashing thread.

I hope you don't think I'm doing that.
[MENTION=556]WAB[/MENTION];

I'm not. I'm talking about a big moral issue.
And I'm mostly referring to the single country I'm familiar enough with to discuss intelligently. That's the USA.


I've got plenty of criticism for other countries, especially superpowers like Russia and China. Also France, England and Germany, although referring to them as superpowers isn't so accurate.

But USA I know about. So that's what I'll discuss. Pointedly.

The USA has an unimpressive record concerning Right of Conquest ethics. "Unimpressive" being a very charitable word in this context. Doesn't mean other societies aren't worse or that the USA hasn't done very positive things concerning global moral standards.
But it's what this thread is about and what I know about is the USA.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

I would suggest that it's not so much 'more complicated', and more that Bomb#20 has got pretty much everything wrong in that post.

Don't believe everything you think.

She's also not a descendant of William the Bastard, who conquered England in 1066, as the line of descent is broken in several ways: The 'Anarchy' of the 1180s; The Wars of the Roses; The accession of James VI of Scotland to the English throne after Elizabeth I died childless; The invasion of William of Orange as part of an anti-Catholic coup against James II; And the abdication of Edward VIII in favour of Elizabeth's father.

Especially don't believe everything you think when it's something you can check with next to no effort.

Elizabeth's father was Edward VIII's brother. That sort of thing doesn't break descent -- a younger brother is a descendant of the same ancestors. William of Orange was the grandson of Charles I. James VI acceded because Henry VIII's line died out and James VI was the son of Mary Queen of Scots, who was the granddaughter of Henry VIII's sister. The Wars of the Roses were won by the Lancasters, i.e., the descendants of the Duke of Lancaster, John of Gaunt, a younger son of Edward III. "The Anarchy" was a period of civil war between Henry I and Henry II, who was Henry I's grandson. And Henry I was the son of William the Bastard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_tree_of_British_monarchs

And English law doesn't recognise anything that happened before July 6th, 1189 as having any legal standing. By the provisions of the 1275 Statute of Westminster, any event prior to the accession of Richard I on 6/7/89 cannot be used in English law.

Quote it saying that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster_1275

The status quo at that date is known legally as "since time immemorial", so whoever owned a plot of land on that date was the legal owner, free to bequeath, sell or trade the land in accordance with English law.

I.e., you don't understand the legal distinction between owning land and owning estate in land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_immemorial

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple

The point of the many statutes of limitations such as the 1275 one was that if you owned an estate in land since time immemorial, nobody presenting evidence older than the cutoff date could use it to take away your estate in the land by proving some long-ago king had granted the land as a feudal fief to his ancestor. They didn't give you "allodial" title to the land ahead of the monarch's title; what they protected was your "fee simple". (And after 1285, your kid's "fee tail".) "Fee" means "fief". Familiar English land law is the law of fiefs. Edward I enacted that statute to protect his subjects from one another; he didn't pass it to protect them from him.

 

[4321lynx]

bilby said:

I for one don't owe any of my freedoms to the US of A. My freedoms come from the British Commonwealth (formerly the British Empire), in the form of English and Australian law.

This statement is wrong as it assumes that the British Empire and the Soviet one would have won WW II against Fascist Japan and Nazi Germany without the US and its industrial power coming, unwillingly perhaps, but rapidly and effectively, to their aid.
IMHO The West owes its very existence and its liberties to the US actions in 1942s ind-45.

 

[Trausti]

bilby said:

I for one don't owe any of my freedoms to the US of A. My freedoms come from the British Commonwealth (formerly the British Empire), in the form of English and Australian law.

This statement is wrong as it assumes that the British Empire and the Soviet one would have won WW II against Fascist Japan and Nazi Germany without the US and itustrial and military power coming, unwillingly perhaps, to their aid.
IMHO The West owes its very existence and its liberties to the US actions in 1942s ind-45.

Yeah. A world without the US would be a very different place.

 

[bilby]

bilby said:

I for one don't owe any of my freedoms to the US of A. My freedoms come from the British Commonwealth (formerly the British Empire), in the form of English and Australian law.

This statement is wrong as it assumes that the British Empire and the Soviet one would have won WW II against Fascist Japan and Nazi Germany without the US and its industrial power coming, unwillingly perhaps, but rapidly and effectively, to their aid.
IMHO The West owes its very existence and its liberties to the US actions in 1942s ind-45.

Nah, it only assumes that the British Empire wouldn't have lost, which is a very different thing.

By the time the US even bothered to start fighting Germany, Britain had passed the point of highest risk of a Nazi invasion.

And Japan was never a threat to the British home islands.

The US involvement dramatically shortened the war in the European theatre, but probably didn't change the result.

The Pacific is a different matter; The USA certainly won that war. But the impact of that theatre of the war on the UK was limited to a bunch of colonies all of which they subsequently lost to independence movements anyway.

 

[bilby]

bilby said:

I for one don't owe any of my freedoms to the US of A. My freedoms come from the British Commonwealth (formerly the British Empire), in the form of English and Australian law.

This statement is wrong as it assumes that the British Empire and the Soviet one would have won WW II against Fascist Japan and Nazi Germany without the US and itustrial and military power coming, unwillingly perhaps, to their aid.
IMHO The West owes its very existence and its liberties to the US actions in 1942s ind-45.

Yeah. A world without the US would be a very different place.

But not one without the UK with a very similar regime to the one it has today.

Indeed, it's difficult to imagine how the world could not have the USA, other than by it remaining a British dominion - in which case, like Canada and Australia, it would likely have entered the war in 1939, leading to an earlier victory over Nazi Germany.

 

[steve_bank]

Post war it was not just the US, it was NATO. NATO held the line against WWIII.

In WWII it was all the allies not just the USA.

The idea of a global system of free trade and global rights is post WWII.


We wave our flag just like the Brits and French do....

The point is the freedoms we do have today which are extradentary historically, did not just pop up out of nowhere by a group of moralists on a high horse. The progressive's think they can effect justice by clichés and declarations. It is a process starting far back in history.

Anyone who thinks they owe nothing and are contemptuous of previ0us generations are ignorant and foolish.

 

[Bomb#20]

You cite Chochenyo territory as an example, but I've never met a Chochenyo person who recognizes the so-called Right of Conquest...

You misunderstand. I didn't offer an opinion on what Chochenyo people recognize.

Well, first and foremost, if you're talking international law, then it matters what the nations involved do or do not recognize. Do you have some particular reason, other than sympathy with one side over another, to disregard the absence of mutual recognition out of hand?

"Sympathy with one side over another"? What sides of what dispute are you even talking about? I was talking about the problem that you personally appeared to be de facto recognizing right of conquest, which is something you ought not to do; then you brought up all this extraneous material about what other people recognize; as far as my dispute with you is concerned I'm disregarding it because it's extraneous.

Dwelling in a place is not the same thing as owning it, certainly not from a Chochenyo perspective. I don't consider "Alameda County" to be Chochenyo territory, but the patch of it that I live on is, and long has been.

Sorry to jump to conclusions, then. Which patch of Alameda County do you live on, and why do you consider that patch to be Chochenyo Territory?

The reason claiming Alameda County is Chochenyo Territory constitutes endorsing Right of Conquest is that Alameda County used to be occupied by the Esselen tribe. About 1500 years ago the Chochenyo's ancestors drove them out and seized the land. The Esselen now mostly live down in Monterey County.

Another very fanciful retelling of history. You, of course, have no evidence whatsoever to support your notion that this was an instance of conquest in the first place (no one knows anything about the circumstances),

Wikipedia uses the term "displaced". Archeology indicates that up to about 500 AD the area was occupied by Esselen, and afterwards it was occupied by Ohlone. (The Chochenyo are an Ohlone subset.) So you're right -- for all I know, maybe when the Ohlone arrived the Esselen just all walked off in a huff.

let alone that this conquest was used as legal pretext for ownership of land (it definitely was not).

I expressed no such notion.

(* Of course, if any of the Chochenyo also claim they have "indigenous" title, then those specific individuals are endorsing Right of Conquest too. But if as you say land ownership wasn't recognized in the first place then that doesn't sound like they're claiming "indigenous" title.)

"Indigenous title" is actually a precept within British Law, not Chochenyo custom. Do you want to have a conversation about what indigenous title is, and to what it applies? Because I should warn you, it does not favor your point of view.

You can't know that -- you've shown no sign that you have any bloody idea what my point of view is. So yes, by all means, tell us what "Indigenous title" means in British Law; and then tell us why you made an "allusion to the idea of recognizing indigenous title in any way". Are British Law precepts somehow pertinent to whose Territory your patch of Alameda County is?

...There were violent episodes in history, but not for land, nor was the conclusion of a battle considered "legal" justification for just perching on that land forever after. If it were, the mission at San Jose would never have been permitted, they were badly outnumbered in the early years. But there was no customary law that would justify expelling the Spanish from the town...

But there was no customary law that would justify expelling the Spanish from the town; good neighbor, bad neighbor, the land wasn't anyone's to govern absolutely, and indeed there were no defined borders to apply governance within.

Sounds like somebody's culture wasn't static for 1200-odd years.

This is a really bizarre comment. Who said that it was?

Didn't say you said it; I was expressing skepticism at your implication that the observed Chochenyo toleration of Spanish presence qualifies as support for your contention that there were no violent episodes for land, 1200 years earlier.

I think it would be fair to describe the area as Esselen territory as well,

That's the most enlightened thing you've written in this thread. So, since you think it can be fairly described as more than one ethnicity territory, can we perhaps agree that it's Esselen/Chochenyo/Hispanic/Anglo/All-Other-American Territory?

If everyone involved recgnized right of conquest as a valid legal principle, the US federal government would possess sole ownership to every archaeological site and its contents. But that has yet to be proven as a true legal principle even within the US' own laws, which leaves you making a very strange argument.

Like I said, you appear to have no idea what argument I'm making. I'm not the one who claimed somewhere in the U.S. is Ethnicity-X Territory.

What the heck are you on about? No, counterfactual mythic history is not a good, sound basis for making any kind of claim. Where do you see me using that sort of justification? England? I already told you straight up "Not how I'd set up a system of government". I was reporting what English law is, not claiming it was justified.

No, you retold a very inaccurate rendition of a propogandistic fantasy concerning the foundation of England, and invited me to assume with you that this constituted "Law".

What the heck are you on about? I didn't say a darn thing about the foundation of England -- the foundation of England happened when a bunch of petty local kingdoms united to fight off the Vikings, a hundred and fifty odd years earlier than the events I referred to. And the thing you call a propagandistic fantasy is still the law of the land in England (and Wales); I don't approve of it any more than you do but that doesn't change the fact that Parliament hasn't ever done away with it.

I'm not even going to try and tackle the racist nonsense in the rest of your post,

It wasn't nonsense, and it wasn't racist, and you don't have a reason to think it was. You call it racist simply because that's the go-to ad hominem your religion supplies its believers with for application to anyone who disputes its dogma. It's the religion's self-defense mechanism: it uses it to make its believers feel self-righteous for not applying critical thought to the baseless assumptions it trains you to accept.

as I don't see how it relates to the topic in the slightest.

You don't see a connection between picking out one ethnicity in a multi-ethnic country and calling some piece of the country That-Ethnicity-Territory, and picking out one racial grouping of ethnicities and calling that subset of ethnicities First? Try harder.

 

[J842P]

bilby said:

I for one don't owe any of my freedoms to the US of A. My freedoms come from the British Commonwealth (formerly the British Empire), in the form of English and Australian law.

This statement is wrong as it assumes that the British Empire and the Soviet one would have won WW II against Fascist Japan and Nazi Germany without the US and its industrial power coming, unwillingly perhaps, but rapidly and effectively, to their aid.
IMHO The West owes its very existence and its liberties to the US actions in 1942s ind-45.

Mmmm. Not sure. I still think the USSR would have ultimately prevailed, as it did at the end of the day, in Europe, even without the USAs material aid. Although that did help a lot.

In any case, if the West owes its very existence and liberties to the US actions in 1942 - 45, the it owes much more to the Red Army who did the vast majority of the killing and dying.