Conquered, not stolen

Misappropriation of history.

This has got to be one of the dumbest images I have seen. Not only is it inaccurate about immigration (if you didn’t follow the law, you’re illegal), but also about history and the Native Americans.

The land (and people) was not stolen, it was conquered.

It was conquered. Let’s be clear, it was conquered. The people who lived here before the Europeans arrived were conquered and there is no disputing it. That’s not to say there weren’t ugly periods of time where we, as a (formerly) Christian nation, shouldn’t be upset about the treatment of people. However, war is war. When you are trying to conquer a people, a land, a continent – there is really no fair play. Before you get all up in arms about that statement, remember that even the people who lived here before did exactly the same things now being misrepresented. They fought, the pillaged, they slaughtered, they enslaved, and they assimilated. This it not new history, so the image above is inaccurate at best and a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

If you look at world history, there were only several outcomes possible for a conquered people: total annihilation (as in death of the people, society, and culture), slavery, or assimilation. Name a civilization, or nation, that didn’t do this? The greatest (at least in the classical sense) nations and peoples have always done this. It is human nature. From the smallest tribes and clans in third world countries to the biggest and most powerful empires known to man, the quest for power and more land has been the same. As such, the quest to conquer has been the same.

So, let’s get history straight, shall we?



  1. First it is logical and moral weaksauce to suggest that because something is human nature (cuz peeps have always done it) then it is acceptable. I’d suggest that things like stealing, murder, rape (hey all the sins) are things peeps more or less have always done.

    But more on point, the straight ‘history’ described above is at best stained with picked cherries.
    Is it righteous conquering when you sign a treaty (giving your word and honour) only to betray it to secure another people’s land. I’d say that is lying and cheating and you guessed it, stealing.

    1. I am sorry you dislike the sauce, however there is nothing weak about it. I made no moral argument. War is hell and all that…there is no morality when it comes to war. The objective is to win. The objective is to outlast the adversary. As far as logical, there is also no logic in war. Again, the objective it to win. The only reason treaties are made is to either maintain the status quo or to survive before you are annihilated. Treaties are neither moral or logical.

      I am not sure how you can say I “cherry picked” history? Did I miss something?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s