I'm not arguing in favor of ethnic cleansing of course. There are obvious benefits to be derived from herding the Swedish population out of Minnesota into Wisconsin but the UN just wouldn't stand for it. They might send Irish peace keepers to Minneapolis to monitor the safety of the Swedes. Quelles horreurs!

They really do talk funny up there. I've seen enough Coen brothers movies to know that. But the meatballs...

The only recourse that protects nations from being over-run is defensive warfare — Bitter Crank

Historically that's been true, which is part of the reason for the development of the United Nations, and international law in general etc., so you're not supposed to get away with it any more either legally or morally. (Obviously if you have done already for hundreds of years, it's too late to do much about it, but that's not a good argument for laissez faire now.)

Legal rights under national and international law guided by treaties, mutual understandings, precedent etc. — Baden

Where there is national law, it would appear any such questions have already been answered (someone is already claiming the land).

I'm not sure I understand what international law is (beyond a nice idea). Wouldn't there have to be an international government for that?

And treaties come and go. History testifies to the insignificance of treaties. And mutual understanding? Again, where that exists, there is no issue.

So if People-X believe they have a right to Land-Y, they best demonstrate that right through military force, otherwise, they're probably just confused.

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

As I said, nice idea.

What arguments?
— Baden

Is it even possible to 'own' land in any but the legal sense[?] If we agree that it is, when do we draw the line on original ownership? Do we start with the labour-mixing of the agricultural revolution as Locke does or do hunter-gatherers also have a claim to land?

If we go down the first come-first served route, then the vast majority of land is unethically held. If we agree that unethically held land should be returned, then it follows that the vast majority of land should be returned. — jastopher

Perhaps, we can test the current population for Viking gene-markers and return the land to its prior owners, or should we delve deeper into human history and find the autochthonous settlers and give everything to them? Or is, as you suggest, the right to land ownership only proportional to the clamour made by those demanding reparations? — jastopher

The 'we were here first' argument doesn't work.

No, I don't think we simply need to go down the first come, first served route. It's much more complicated than that (and that should be crystal clear from what I have already said in this discussion). Everything else I dealt with in my last comment.

Re: your edit

The 'we were here first' argument doesn't work. — jastopher

What specific quote of mine is this supposed to connect to?

This is the second time I've asked you. The last time was your "Er no" which you have still haven't connected to anything specific I said. That's not how it works. I make a point, you address it and vice versa.

Do you believe that some countries are illegitimate in that they took someone's land with out permission? If so, what should be done about it ideally? Should we give back the the land? To whom? the original owners or the previous owners? — Purple Pond

I think there's value in realizing that we're all just passing through, making "transient abodes." One of the terrible things that happens when we forget that is that it becomes right to kill somebody else's son. Can you imagine?

We need to get back to colonialism. It would create a better world with fewer conflicts and less poverty.

The 'we were here first' argument doesn't work.
— jastopher

What specific quote of mine is this supposed to connect to? — Baden

It may come as a surprise, but this thread is not all about you.

This is a summary of my position for anyone who might wish to engage.

Your position, far from being 'crystal clear', strikes me as being elusive to the point of insignificance.

There is the opinion that some African countries just weren't colonies long enough -- like Kenya and Uganda, for instance. Maybe 50 more years...

If that's all your argument boils down to, OK, I'll leave it to others, but nobody here is claiming or is likely to claim that the first inhabitants of any particular tract of land have exclusive rights over it forever.

Actually, I'm going to modify what I said. I think this is better:

The 'we were here before you' argument doesn't work in most cases.

Where I've heard it, it wasn't really meant as an argument. It was just nasty rhetoric. The party in question has nuclear weapons.

Slippery slope?

Do you believe that some countries are illegitimate in that they took someone's land with out permission? — Purple Pond

Some countries were forcibly made up by splitting an existing country in order to weaken it and ultimately destroy.

And today the denizens of these countries, stubborn donkeys that they are, refuse to acknowledge this and continue on pretending.

History repeats itself, I guess.

On the one hand, who owns land: it's just there. On the other hand, it has always been regarded as a sort of property, and those who got there first have the prior claim. The Protestant settlements in Northern Ireland are still regarded as disputable, but they mostly happened a lot earlier than the European settlements in North America. We fought the Normans for our land here for about two hundred years, and a lot got stolen at the annexation of our country by England. I think the best way to look at all these issues is in terms of what they call 'frozen violence'. The racist colonisation of Palestine by Zionists is getting too powerful to stop for the moment, but unless the Arab peoples are wiped out, it will come up back, and the Native American, Native Australian Western 'Chinese' peoples are owed, sometime, at least huge compensation. Time will tell, if the world survives. Probably great wedges of desert will be there for the taking well before that!

"War is the ultimate diplomacy."

Reparations are made when the victors feel like it. This is not ethical, or just, or right, it ONLY IS SO.

Much like you breathe in billions of microbes with the air, and some you kill, some kill you, but it has nothing to do with justice, with what's right and or ethical. It only has to do how IT IS.

A lot of history is interwoven with justifying this or that, whereas the forces of historical politics are not justice, fairness or ethics, but greed, force, and survivalism. The most common misinterpretation of wars and genocide by both the religious and the secular atheists (is this a redundant expression?) is that they blame the other for huge obliterations of masses of people. It never is about religion or lack of conscience. It is always about women, gold, oil, arable land.

There is nothing we can do about it. There were no wars stopped due to ethical reasons, no land was ever given back to their previous owners, no reparations were ever made by the victors.

This is how it IS. If anyone wants to change this, they have an enormous task on their hands.

Do you believe that some countries are illegitimate in that they took someone's land with out permission? If so, what should be done about it ideally? Should we give back the the land? To whom? the original owners or the previous owners?

Should Israel give the land back to Palestine? Should Australians give back their land to aborigines? Should Americans give back the land to the natives? Surely that's the only fair thing to do.

All humans took land away from animals. Should we abandon civilization and give back the land to animals? Wait a minute...those animals took land from other animals. Perhaps we should give land to the original animals. What are the original animals? They're probably extinct by now. Now what? — Purple Pond

Illegitimate? Not at the time, in most cases. Rude, disrespectful, oppressive, dismissive - yes.

To be honest, giving the land back - even if you could work out who to give it ‘back’ to - wouldn’t really solve the problem, and it’s not even close to ‘fair’. Because it isn’t just the land that was taken without permission in most cases.

In Australia, land ‘ownership’ for Aboriginal people amounts to their spiritual and cultural connection to country. Fences and trespassing laws prevent them from accessing their songlines - cultural histories, songs and myths that are linked to natural landmarks and the experience of walking the land. Access to fishing and hunting grounds as well as other food or water sources and meeting spaces also play a significant role in their family and social dynamics, and in retrieving their cultural confidence.

Restoring or at least striving to understand and respect these connections goes some way towards ‘giving back’ to Aboriginal communities the freedom and confidence to then connect with the world on their terms - as a rich and vibrant culture that has value, and as a proud people deeply connected to their environment - instead of a displaced and scattered people with a lost culture.

What Aboriginal culture can teach us about connecting to the land we live on and the diversity of life it sustains, how to listen to the country and restore its strength, and how to respect someone else’s connection to (instead of ‘ownership’ of) the land, are more valuable to us now, in this current climate, than they ever have been.

The whole world belongs to you, so don't wait for anyone to give you a scrap of it, or imagine you can give a scrap of it to anyone.

Do you believe that some countries are illegitimate in that they took someone's land with out permission? — Purple Pond

They were illegitimate (not sure that's the adjective I'd use, but it's not far off), then it hardened, and they become legitimate. Because now the original victims and conquerers are dead. And because to take the land away now would be abuse by whatever power managed to accomplish this.

Should we return it? Well, if it very recently happened possibly. Depending who we are and who they are and the effects of doing this or trying to will be. If it means WW3, then probably not.

I think Israel needs to make it equal under the law for Palestinians. In theory and in practice. I am not sure there is a way to go back in time, but they need to stop doing new things that should get reparations.

Native Americans: It's not practical to give them back the continent. But I could see giving them more land.

Animals: we should try to minimize the damage we do to them. At least, that's my preference.

I think the main thing is to try to set the history right. To acknowledge that certain actions were not only not noble nor manifest destiny nor the right of Kings etc. but even just malicious behavior often based on hallucinations. That's a tough enough goal. Get past that one and perhaps something else could be done.

Should Israel give the land back to Palestine? Should Australians give back their land to aborigines? Should Americans give back the land to the natives? — Purple Pond

These are different cases.

The aboriginals in Australia are not being banned from (parts of) Australia. The same holds true for native Americans. A native American can go to New York or San Francisco and live there like he wants.

That is not the same for a large number of Palestinians who fled (or were "helped" to flee) and who are now being denied the right to return to where they originally lived. A Palestinian who ended up in Gaza or Bethlehem will be prevented to travel to Haifa or Tel Aviv if he wanted to live there.

In that sense, it is not even about "giving back the land".

These people were citizens and residents of the complete former British mandate of Palestine. They had free movement all over mandatory Palestine. They could live anywhere they wanted in mandatory Palestine. These rights were taken away by the State of Israel. There is absolutely no reason why they should accept such reduction of their rights.

"Their land" at what historical point?