"You live on stolen land"

[John Dule]

Is anyone else tired of leftists saying that America is "built on stolen land?" I sure am. This got me thinking... is there any land in the world that we couldn't say was ever "stolen" at any point? Well... not really. Some land ownership is more dubious than others, for sure-- no one could ever honestly say that Russia deserves to own Crimea more than Germany gets to own Berlin. But there is very little land on this planet-- if any-- that has been owned by one ethnic group, culture, and religion since the first man set foot on it.

Over the past few days, I've been working on this map. I posted this a couple days ago but noticed some errors on my numbering in Africa. Additionally, a couple posters took issue with how I had simplified Europe, which I decided was fair, so I added in about 30 more numbers. I removed the jokes from the map (I had one where Homo Habilis stole the land from an Australopithecus), because I've decided to keep this one pretty serious.

So this is the "Stolen" Land Map: Volume II



Three major criteria for the "theft" of the land in the descriptions:

1) One ethnic group pushes another ethnic group out of an area. This applies to everything from the Seljuk Turk invasion of Turkey to the Bantu Expansion. It covers most of the numbers on this map. Oftentimes modern people in certain areas will be descended from both the invaders and the invadees(?), but we're going to go ahead and count that as "stolen."

2) Whoever first set foot on the land no longer owns it. By the way that activists talk about "stolen land," they seem to believe that whoever first walks on a piece of land owns it for their own brethren, family, and race for all eternity. This is a very weird "blood and soil"-type attitude that I had once thought was limited only to ethno-nationalists. This criteria applies to places like Iceland, Papua New Guinea, and Novaya Zemlya, which-- although not stolen in a violent sense-- no longer belong to the nation, culture, or people who first claimed them.

3) Religion. If a group of people are forcibly converted, we can argue that one religion effectively "stole" that land from another. This applies to the Baltic states, Iran, and the Philippines. While all three of these regions have been inhabited by the same ethnic group for quite a long time, I doubt that their ancestors would be very proud to see their descendants following the faiths of their enemies. So let's mark those down for "stolen" as well.

Anyway, feel free to use this the next time some pinhead progressive says "You live on stolen land, white man!"

[Antonio the Sixth]

Impressive work. This doesn't come close to applying any sort of consistent standard, of course (I could quibble the hell out of your European map) but still a remarkable effort. And your point is correct, of course, though I suspect we take very different conclusions from it.

[lfromnj]

Lmao Israel.

[John Dule]

Impressive work. This doesn't come close to applying any sort of consistent standard, of course (I could quibble the hell out of your European map) but still a remarkable effort. And your point is correct, of course, though I suspect we take very different conclusions from it.

Feel free to quibble. I'll probably find a more high-resolution map and do a third version of this, because by the time I got to the Balkans I was so squished in I didn't have the patience for it. Also, some of the boundaries are nebulously defined at best.

[Damocles]

How do you always have the most legendary posts?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

All of Eastern Europe should be 18.

[John Dule]

All of Eastern Europe should be 18.

I think you mean 25.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

131 Should mention that the Norse stole it from Irish monks. 

132 So you decided to avoid the issue of it being stolen from the Caananites? 

[Beet]

That's a lot of effort but when they say "stolen land", I think they mean racially stolen. Of course it's still dumb because the idea of "race" is a social construct to begin with, but maps like this don't refute it.

[AtorBoltox]

cringe

[John Dule]

cringe

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

cringe

CRINGE

You should've quit while you were ahead.

[Damocles]

CRINGE

You should've quit while you were ahead.

In Atlanta, a dollar is only good for three quarters. You just blow the other 25 points.

[Sumner 1868]

[Antonio the Sixth]

Impressive work. This doesn't come close to applying any sort of consistent standard, of course (I could quibble the hell out of your European map) but still a remarkable effort. And your point is correct, of course, though I suspect we take very different conclusions from it.

Feel free to quibble. I'll probably find a more high-resolution map and do a third version of this, because by the time I got to the Balkans I was so squished in I didn't have the patience for it. Also, some of the boundaries are nebulously defined at best.

OK, let's start with Italy. Most of the Italian peninsula was never under Etruscan control (only modern-day Tuscany and Emilia were). Further North you had Gauls, further South you had a smattering of Italic tribes including, most famously, the Samnites, and at the very edges of Calabria and Apulia you had Greek city-states. And of course, there's the city of Rome itself, which I guess you could argue was "stolen" from the Etruscans in that Etruscan kings ruled Rome before being overthrown, but that feels like a stretch. The weird thing here is that when I saw the "21" area I was convinced it was going to refer to the Kingdom of Sardinia "stealing" the rest of the peninsula from Austria, the Pope and the Bourbons. It would fit perfectly if you also added Siciliy. As for pre-Punic Wars Sicily, though, it was split in half between a Greek East and a Carthaginian West.

Now onto France. The Merovingian to Carolingian transition is kind of an odd juncture to focus on given that dynastic changes happen pretty often and they stretch the definition of land theft pretty far. Of course, the Franks under the Merovingians actually did "steal" most of this land (the Northwest from the Roman successor state of Syagrius, the Southwest from the Visigoths, the Southeast from the Burgundians). If you really insist on taking the Carolingian coup as your baseline, the first Carolingian king was Pepin the Short (yep, that's his name), not Charles Martel. Also, Corsica was not "stolen" by France by any stretch, Genoa ceded it willingly because they were sick of dealing with revolts there. Of course iirc Genoa did steal it from native populations there.

To be really petty, the Muslims never controlled Northern Spain. The Western part of it was controlled by a Visigothic successor state, while the part right under the Pyrenees was under Frankish rule for a while. But that's probably not worth fixing tbh.

Holland might have "stolen" Frisia from the Frisians, but it couldn't have stolen Holland itself. You could say that the whole Netherlands was "stolen" from the Habsburgs, though. That would be facetious, but not incorrect by your definitions.

Moving Eastward, 28 is really bizarre. The area it covers was never Lithuanian. The inland part of it was always the core of the Polish state dating back to its origins. It was certainly stolen from Poland many, many times, but the Poles themselves have one of the most legitimate claim to it of any nation anywhere (though I'm sure someone else lived there before their arrival). The coastal part was stolen from the local Baltic tribes by the Teutonic Knights (you can include it in 102 in that respect), then stolen back by Poland, then stolen back by Prussia, and finally stolen back by Poland in 1945. It's actually 24 (the european part of it at least) that was stolen from Lithuania (as a member of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) by Russia.

Finally, the Dorians never really "stole" Greece - at most, that only applies to the Peloponese where they settled, but even then it's pretty telling how quickly they got inculturated. You could say Crete was "stolen" from the Minoans by the Myceneans. As for the rest, well, you can say it was stolen by the Ottoman Empire and then stolen back.

I'm sure there's a lot more I haven't caught, since I'm not exactly an expert.

[John Dule]

Impressive work. This doesn't come close to applying any sort of consistent standard, of course (I could quibble the hell out of your European map) but still a remarkable effort. And your point is correct, of course, though I suspect we take very different conclusions from it.

Feel free to quibble. I'll probably find a more high-resolution map and do a third version of this, because by the time I got to the Balkans I was so squished in I didn't have the patience for it. Also, some of the boundaries are nebulously defined at best.

OK, let's start with Italy. Most of the Italian peninsula was never under Etruscan control (only modern-day Tuscany and Emilia were). Further North you had Gauls, further South you had a smattering of Italic tribes including, most famously, the Samnites, and at the very edges of Calabria and Apulia you had Greek city-states. And of course, there's the city of Rome itself, which I guess you could argue was "stolen" from the Etruscans in that Etruscan kings ruled Rome before being overthrown, but that feels like a stretch. The weird thing here is that when I saw the "21" area I was convinced it was going to refer to the Kingdom of Sardinia "stealing" the rest of the peninsula from Austria, the Pope and the Bourbons. It would fit perfectly if you also added Siciliy. As for pre-Punic Wars Sicily, though, it was split in half between a Greek East and a Carthaginian West.

Now onto France. The Merovingian to Carolingian transition is kind of an odd juncture to focus on given that dynastic changes happen pretty often and they stretch the definition of land theft pretty far. Of course, the Franks under the Merovingians actually did "steal" most of this land (the Northwest from the Roman successor state of Syagrius, the Southwest from the Visigoths, the Southeast from the Burgundians). If you really insist on taking the Carolingian coup as your baseline, the first Carolingian king was Pepin the Short (yep, that's his name), not Charles Martel. Also, Corsica was not "stolen" by France by any stretch, Genoa ceded it willingly because they were sick of dealing with revolts there. Of course iirc Genoa did steal it from native populations there.

To be really petty, the Muslims never controlled Northern Spain. The Western part of it was controlled by a Visigothic successor state, while the part right under the Pyrenees was under Frankish rule for a while. But that's probably not worth fixing tbh.

Holland might have "stolen" Frisia from the Frisians, but it couldn't have stolen Holland itself. You could say that the whole Netherlands was "stolen" from the Habsburgs, though. That would be facetious, but not incorrect by your definitions.

Moving Eastward, 28 is really bizarre. The area it covers was never Lithuanian. The inland part of it was always the core of the Polish state dating back to its origins. It was certainly stolen from Poland many, many times, but the Poles themselves have one of the most legitimate claim to it of any nation anywhere (though I'm sure someone else lived there before their arrival). The coastal part was stolen from the local Baltic tribes by the Teutonic Knights (you can include it in 102 in that respect), then stolen back by Poland, then stolen back by Prussia, and finally stolen back by Poland in 1945. It's actually 24 (the european part of it at least) that was stolen from Lithuania (as a member of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) by Russia.

Finally, the Dorians never really "stole" Greece - at most, that only applies to the Peloponese where they settled, but even then it's pretty telling how quickly they got inculturated. You could say Crete was "stolen" from the Minoans by the Myceneans. As for the rest, well, you can say it was stolen by the Ottoman Empire and then stolen back.

I'm sure there's a lot more I haven't caught, since I'm not exactly an expert.

Good post. For a few of these, I was going back and forth on how to include them but I really did not have enough room. I would have liked to go into more detail on Italy-- confining the Etruscan area to the mid-eastern portion of the peninsula and finding different footnotes for the north and south-- but the low-res map didn't really allow for it. Looking at it now though, I probably could've squeezed them in.

I thought the Carolingians were a fun one to focus on because of how much of a bunch of bastards they were. I hate how they constantly tried to rewrite history with their historical annals, so including that was sort of a "f**k you" to them. Still, I can see how that's outside of the theme of the rest of these.

If I redo this, I will have to change Spain simply because my current version doesn't give a solid explanation for why the Spanish are living on "stolen land." The way it is here, it sounds like it was taken from them but then they took it back, which seems valid enough. I should've gone back further in the past for that one.

I suppose I could say the Netherlands was "stolen" from the ocean by the Dutch?

I can barely comment on Poland because my historical knowledge there is sketchy. However, the Dorians did alter the ethnic makeup of Greece with their migrations. This makes it something like Mexico, where the "natives" still technically control the country, but they are largely descended from the immigrants who "took" it from them in the first place. However, I did forget about the Minoans on Crete, so that's a good one. I'll have to include that on the final version.

Also, I just realized I never did Polynesia... another problem with using a low-resolution map. I'll have to research that too.

[West_Midlander]

I'm mostly indigenous Mexican and this position is pretty tiring.

The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

You can't control what your ancestors did and you can't change the past either.

[RINO Tom]

It's cliched, but I think a lot of it is due to people's lack of understanding and appreciation for history; people view history as "the past," failing to really think about the fact that every single person throughout history lived in "their equivalent of 2020" ... in other words, no "ancient" people ever thought of themselves as anything other than the most advanced, tolerant and *post-historical* people yet to walk the Earth.  Our basic evolutionary instincts led rise to things like tribes and even nation states in an effort to provide at least those "closest to us" with a better life, often with the absolute necessity that someone loses out.  I think there is a balance that can be struck where we might acknowledge that we shouldn't "steal land just because we can" anymore, but once you start putting pressure on entire countries or ethnic groups to apologize for a past they had no part of, it's a really dumb and quite slippery slope.  The US could conquer Central America tomorrow, but we don't; and we shouldn't.  However, just because our varied European ancestors took land from technologically inferior previous inhabitants doesn't mean we have to go back to the drawing board taking pride in literally anything about our current country.  Do we live on "stolen land"?  Of course ... honestly, the most that should be done about that is maybe some government-sponsored programs to try to better the lives of Native Americans in our country ... everything else is just a big fat "eye roll."

[John Dule]

It's cliched, but I think a lot of it is due to people's lack of understanding and appreciation for history; people view history as "the past," failing to really think about the fact that every single person throughout history lived in "their equivalent of 2020" ... in other words, no "ancient" people ever thought of themselves as anything other than the most advanced, tolerant and *post-historical* people yet to walk the Earth.  Our basic evolutionary instincts led rise to things like tribes and even nation states in an effort to provide at least those "closest to us" with a better life, often with the absolute necessity that someone loses out.  I think there is a balance that can be struck where we might acknowledge that we shouldn't "steal land just because we can" anymore, but once you start putting pressure on entire countries or ethnic groups to apologize for a past they had no part of, it's a really dumb and quite slippery slope.  The US could conquer Central America tomorrow, but we don't; and we shouldn't.  However, just because our varied European ancestors took land from technologically inferior previous inhabitants doesn't mean we have to go back to the drawing board taking pride in literally anything about our current country.  Do we live on "stolen land"?  Of course ... honestly, the most that should be done about that is maybe some government-sponsored programs to try to better the lives of Native Americans in our country ... everything else is just a big fat "eye roll."

I think the "stolen land" canard is very revealing about the mentality of the activist left. I know most lefties aren't like this, but there is a very condescending attitude among the white left towards people of color in general. You never see them complaining about Germany taking land from France, or Sudan taking land from Egypt, but when the conflict is between a white country and a nonwhite country they suddenly take issue with it. It's like they see wars between European countries as wars "between equals," whereas a war between whites and nonwhites is somehow "not a fair fight."

It's a very patronizing worldview. And again, I know the majority of left-wingers and even activists don't think like this. But this sort of attitude is pretty common in places like college campuses. I think it stems from the same faux-liberalism that makes people say "No, you shouldn't criticize Islam, you'll just radicalize more Muslims"-- as if Muslims are so fragile that we must protect their delicate egos, otherwise they'll start blowing themselves up.

[DC Al Fine]

Nah, I live on land lawfully ceded by treaty.

[Stranger in a strange land]

This is a complex issue because resitution does need to be made for historic wrongs, but "Turtle Island is stolen indigenous land and Whites should go back to Europe" is LARPy Tankie Bullsh[inks].

[RINO Tom]

This is a complex issue because resitution does need to be made for historic wrongs, but "Turtle Island is stolen indigenous land and Whites should go back to Europe" is LARPy Tankie Bullsh[inks].

I agree it should be a goal, but only if the government (say, the United States) simply wants to try to do some good to help groups it has hurt in the past (say, Native Americans) ... there shouldn't be a "hard and fast rule."  Does anyone really think that modern-day Italians owe anything to Germans because of Rome enslaving barbarians from Germania?  Surely nobody thinks Swedes and Danes should feel guilt for the actions of the Vikings.  I suppose you could maintain that as long as there was one, continuous government, the situation is different ... but how long do we "make up for the wrongs," and by what metric do we measure our success?  Should Native American communities be helped out until the median income is equal to that of Whites?  Or Asians?  It just gets messy.

Again, I do agree that some type of action should be taken, but it should honestly be viewed as a goodwill gesture, not something that is clearly owed...

[Storr]

24 is probably the worst. (Though the Russian right completely agrees.)

30 is blessed. Southern Russia was Cossack, Chechen, and Circassian (among other groups) long before the Russians arrived. The Russians even perpetrated their own genocide after they conquered the Black Sea Coast! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassian_genocide (Of course that wasn't talked about when the Winter Olympics were in Sochi.)

Note: Kaliningrad Oblast should be 25, not 28, since the USSR annexed it from Germany following WWII.

[parochial boy]

Oh yeah, I’m going to be pedantic too but it’s an interesting map. The Western half of South Africa was never really stolen by the Bantu, it was still Khoisan when the Boers turned up, after which the Khoisan were eventually merged into the Coloured population (who are, for the most part, descended from the Khoisan rather than Bantu - a particularly woke thing to do in South Africa these days is to refer to coloured people as Khoisan) who are still the plurality across most of the Western and Northern capes. It’s only since the end of apartheid that they’ve started to have substantial populations of Bantu speakers.

And going with Tony’s points on the francs, there’s so many moving parts but I’m not sure you can say that Switzerland was really stolen by the Francs at all. It was the Burgondes and the Alemannics who moved in after the retreat of Rome, and even after taking it, the Francs did eventually lose it back to the Burgondes. The more logical split would be the Alemannics and Burgondes stealing it from the Helvetii or the gallo-romans.

[John Dule]

Thanks, guys. This is helpful. Btw, if anyone has a good MS Paint-compatible blank world map for me to use, I'd be much obliged. I need a larger, higher-resolution one if I want to do this right.