>"stolen from the hands of the Native Americans who had stewarded them for millennia before colonialism in different forms devastated their tribes."
The Comanches, the most powerful tribe in the country, were brutal, vindictive, plundering murderers who took slaves and delighted in killing as a rite. They "stewarded" only by murderous foray 250,000 square miles. Read "Empire of the Summer Moon"
They had no concept of private property because their territory ended right where their massacres couldn't reach, not because of some transcendent and noble ideals.
Or maybe you're arguing that there is no such thing as morality in land claims, and it's simply a matter of who is better able to kill and steal, and white settlers just were better at this?
I'm not defending "white" settlers, or any settlers. My goal is to dispel the intellectually lazy myth this article leads with.
> stolen from the hands of the Native Americans who had stewarded them for millennia before colonialism in different forms devastated their tribes. Through invasions, plagues, violence, coercion, bribery, war, and lopsided deals with the United States government, Indigenous groups and their ways of life were nearly obliterated
This clearly implies that invasions, violence, war, were brought by the US government to indigenous groups.
In reality, their "way of life" always consisted of these things.
It's a clear myth being perpetuated in the language of this article — even in words like 'stewarded' vs. 'stolen'.
"The story of the human race is war. Except for brief and precarious interludes, there has never been peace in the world; and before history began, murderous strife was universal and unending."
(In contrast, very little is known about England for centuries after the Romans left, as the inhabitants were illiterate. Nobody knows if King Arthur existed or not, for example.)
DNA evidence has been slowly illuminating the pre-Columbian history of the North American Indians.
Aztecs also were no peaceful bunch but it doesn’t make Spain ruining them to the ground good guys.
Everyone is playing by the same rules…this includes Natives and their own capturing of soil…this feigned ignorance of the progress of human sentience through capturing land and improving it is deceitful.
JKCalhoun•7mo ago
jandrewrogers•7mo ago
Selling public lands has no bearing on the ability to prospect for and extract minerals like gold. You’ve always been able to do this on public lands. It is in law and has priority over most other land use rights.
There are other private land use rights which are adversely affected by adjacency to Federal land, which may motivate the legislation, it is a real problem. It doesn’t make any sense to sell off most public lands; the regions where this is an issue are relatively small and the legislation isn’t targeted in the slightest.
As an avid enjoyer of these wilderness areas, I find the legislation highly suspect. The given reason is obvious bullshit, and it isn’t narrowly targeted at regions with legitimate land use problems created by the current state.
Also, I know some of the areas covered very well. There seems to be some selectivity for public lands that would make a killer private resort. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not. People would absolutely lose their minds if they realized some of the land opened up by the legislation. It doesn’t seem random.