3 ms·
>And the US is not much better -- in the wealthy areas in the east, most of the land was originally acquired by means that would be less than reputable today.
by shardling 14y ago
>And the US is not much better -- in the wealthy areas in the east, most of the land was originally acquired by means that would be less than reputable today.
You could kind of argue that all of the land in the US was acquired by less than reputable means. :P
- arethuza 14y agoYou could say that about pretty much anywhere - certainly most of Europe. Just chain back through land ownership transfers until you find the last person who got it by cheating/stealing/killing.
- buro9 14y agoExcept in Sweden.
- yesbabyyes 14y agoAll land is stolen. What in your opinion is different in Sweden?
- buro9 14y agoThe land was re-distributed to the populace over 100 years ago when the ruling class feared that the revolutions sweeping Russia would reach Sweden. They chose to give up land rather than their lives.
- btilly 14y agoOutside of the Eastern USA, the "less than reputable means" were employed by the state, not the people living there.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- prewett 14y agoNo, we quite reputably bought about 1/4 of it from France. They acquired it from the Spanish, who conquered it from the original owners in a quite disreputable way. But while we trafficked in stolen goods, we did so quite above board :)