Reexamining the philosophy of territory

These days, it’s common to hear someone say that the territory of the United States had been stolen from native Americans and Mexicans, and that illegal immigration–regardless of our opinion of it–is simply a reclamation of lost territory.  Fortunately, this kind of territorial originalism falls apart on its own, usually after anyone begins asking questions about the concept of territory.  For instance:

Who were the original native Americans, and where did they reside?

Were they culturally homogeneous?

Were there conquerors among them, or did every single native American people simply reside in their original location?

What is Mexico, what ethnicity are Mexicans, and when did Mexico begin?

Does land belong to the first people who settle there, or the first people who find it?  If so, should their descendants be the only ones allowed to inherit it?

Finally, I would make the case that denying American Indians and Mexicans their claim to US territory is less offensive than telling Americans they don’t belong in America, and that they (Americans) should go back to Europe.  Do Europeans belong in Europe, and should they only have power in Europe?  If this reasoning holds moral value, which it does not, then Arabs belong in Arabia, and Blacks belong in Africa.  Land, as it would stand, would own people instead of people owning land.  And taking their argument one step further, if native Americans should have legitimate supremacy in this territory due to simply their ancestry, then only whites should hold positions of power in European nations.  As one can see, although territorial originalism is predominantly espoused by American liberals, its logical conclusions fit poorly within the cause of American liberalism.

So although we cannot expect the Left to acknowledge its own inconsistencies, our very survival demands that we forge for ourselves a solid, minimalist concept of territorial rights, so that we can successfully combat any historical arguments against American existence.  First, it is necessary that we understand our historical position, acknowledging and morally weighing the actions of our forefathers without necessarily accepting responsibility for them.  While we may judge some of our ancestors’ behaviors to be less than civilized, we are not morally obliged to disperse our entire inheritance to others in the name of civilization; and while the mechanics of natural law require that we suffer for the immorality and imprudence of our predecessors, the cause of justice requires that we not be held accountable and actively punished for the actions of others.  As mentioned above, we cannot give perpetual land rights to every historical group of settlers: the past is past, and too far past at that.

Second, while modern Americans may oppose territorial expansion, there exists no universally-binding force which restricts the people of other nations from invading their neighbors either through immigration or warfare.  As such, we must understand that territory is only defensible through an ability to keep it, through necessary force and the maintenance of its own cultural heritage, unity, and adherence to natural law.  If we are slack with any of these, the annals of history declare that our territory will not be in our hands for long, since the default state of a Godless mankind–both domestically and abroad–is one of restless envy and tyrannical expansion, not of contentment and peace.  Thus, the only question Americans must ask themselves is how long they would like to remain free of domination.

In conclusion, although patriotic Americans understand the seriousness of defending our nation, there are only two acceptable moral paths for territorial originalists.  The first is to purposely subvert and replace all United States leaders, effectively making themselves national enemies and traitors.  The second option is to take a personal responsibility for their “misplaced” residence and return to the homeland of their ancestors, if one can in fact be found.  To all who despise the existence of the United States on territorial grounds, we patriots recommend the second option.

This entry was posted on 8. August 2010 at 15:29 and is filed under philosophy, Theology, politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

| Print