4 ms·

I like how we begin your story in media res with the settler's cabin already established as if ordained by the laws of nature, disrupted from its idyllic divine

• hajile 8y ago
  I thought it axiomatic that squatting on someone else's property was not the same as butchering someones entire family. That aside, you cannot claim land cannot be owned then claim ownership over it. However, if ownership can be claimed, then who is the owner, the thief or the thief who steals from the first thief? Consider the Sioux. People think of the Sioux as the plains Indians, but they lived in the great lakes area. The Iroquois stole their land from them. In turn they fought to drive off the semi agrarian Pawnee Indians (who had good relations with the settlers -- probably because they were settling down themselves) winning a decisive victory by massacre. If you go farther back than that, there is tribe after tribe fighting and butchering the previous one. Going to Europe, you see the same pattern. Tribes butcher each other until they are conquered or a tribe survives long enough to settle and establish dominance. I don't hear about the land argument when discussing those indigenous peoples (and unlike the Indians, most of them believed land could be stolen).