The Amerindians were effectively destroyed in what we would now call genocide.
Who planned this theory supporting genocide? What was this theory of genocide,
how did it work? Is this theory of genocide valid? If not valid, who objected
and what was the basis of this objection?
It is the view of John Locke that conquest gives no right over land.
John locke did not want poor people as colonists in the New World,
rather, he wanted wealthy New World colonists, people that could
develop property in the New World. The dispossession of Amerindians
became a focus only after trade ceased to be a New World focus. Prior
occupation not withstanding, the English had a right to take such lands.
The right to land is based upon labor, not occupation. Specifically,
those who till the land, and enclose the land and cultivate the soil
are the true owners of the land 1.
Locke believed that the "state of nature" was an accurate description
of the kind of embryonic society encountered in the Amerindians, but
this understanding was selective, as opposed to scientific 2.
It is Locke's view that the paternal head of the family is the model
for paternal monarchy (original King, Adam) and that this evolves
towards elected government 3.
Note, John locke excludes other forms of "family" structure. p. 36:
Locke excludes inheritance, as well.
Locke view is that an Amerindian entered into a state of war based upon
their individual lives and propery, but in fact, war for Amerindians
was based upon nations and groups, a collectivity of people, not
individuals 4. Locke says
that the state of war is "one great reason of Mens putting themselves
into society" and quitting the state of nature 5.
Locke's natural man fails to use his industry (labor) to produce the
maximum levels of agricultural or mineral goods. The Christian notion
that man should develop skills provided by God to exploit the world's
resources. Knowledge and industry must be improved, therefore, as an
obligation to the Creator 6.
One might recall that New World English settlers depended upon the
Amerindian population and the Amerindian technology for their subsistence.
It is the view of Locke that private property was essential to natural man.
However, Amerindians owned and cultivated their property communally. "All
the forests, meadows, and uncleared land are common property." 7
John Locke was not the only person to deal with "natural law" concerning
the "state of nature", as opposed to that of "civil laws" based upon the
views of Europeans. Other people were also thinking about the colonies
established by imperialistic Europeans (not necessarily restricted to the
New World).
Samuel Pufendorf
Hugo Grotius 8
Emeric de Vattel
Francisco Victoria (defending Spanish New World Conquest)
Thomas Hobbes
John Locke was influenced by the views of Samuel Pufendorf and Hugo Grotius.
9
There is a very serious problem with the views of John Locke.
Locke uses Christianity and European social views.
Consider the views of Franz Boas: "Cultural Relativism".
Based upon cutural relativism, the values, attitudes, social focus
of different societies MUST be emphasized. Thus as the West emphasized
the family (one male adult, one female adult, possibly extended family
members), technology of war, art as rhetoric (a form of warfare),
theatre as rhetoric, oceanic travel, racism, cartography/chorography,
economics of colonialism, industrialization, private property,
individual choice, etc.
However, other societies have different views, thus may have an entirely
different definition of the family (village, all men share all women,
all children common), emphasis upon art, view nature religiously,
terrified by the concept of an industrialized nature, common property,
etc.
Cultural relativism holds that all views of societies are equally valid.
In such a view, basing ideas of property upon Christianity might seem insane.
The view that a part of nature can or even should be "enclosed" may also
be viewed as insane ("What, you say enclose the clouds in the sky? The clouds
are yours, and all the rain from them?"). Place a fishing net around a Pacific
Ocean island, and all the fish in the Pacific have been enclosed (belong to
you)? Followed by "knowing nods" (meaning that this man is insane). Locke: "The
insane man can initiate genocide as he has a right to all the fish in the Pacific
Ocean: it is his "property" and he has a right to defend his property." See the
figure below:
Hugo Grotius felt that the origin of property came from immovable objects:
the appropriation of land. Thus the origin of property required consent
(to use property already appropriated). When community ownership was
abandoned, the community agreed that appropriation by use becomes private
property (but this excludes communal common property).
Uncultivated land is unoccupied (can be appropriated). Thus labour on land
means that the land is cultivated, and defines property.
Herein lies a major problem, and the point of disagreement with "cultural
relativism": Amerindians focus upon hunting and gathering. Why should property
be limited only to those that cultivate land? How
well does this theory about cultivation hold up
in desert lands, or rocky islands, etc.10?
Grotius used his labor theory of property against
the claims of European nations. Locke's theory extended Grotius' theory
against Amerindians as well11.
Pufendorf points out that that the view of Grotius allows arbitrary attacks
on Amerindians12.
Pufendorf does not start within the context of aggressive colonial companies
or states, thus: 13
Unlike Grotius, Pufendorff does not begin with war, then determine when wars are just
Unlike Locke, Pufendorf does not begin with the origins of property, then consider man's "natural state"
In addition, Puffendorf differs in other, important respects:14
Unlike Locke, Grotius, and Hobbes, Pufendorff does not view Amerindians atomistically
(all individuals are equally alike, yet all different than Old World individuals and societies)
Pufendorf views Amerindians as members of a nation or society, due the same respect as
European states (cultural relativism)
Pufendorf attacks Francisco Victoria on every point where
Victoria attempts to justify the Spanish treatment of Amerindians 15.
To induce colonists to travel and settle in the New World colonies, the land was
decribed as a Vacuum domicilium (empty land, waste land, no disputes over
land titles, no war of survival focused upon contested titles to land)16.
Rights Europeans claimed: unrestricted travel (in Amerindian lands)
Trade with anyone without regards to the well being of subjects, even
against their will
Rights to share in New World wealth, perhaps criminally, with justice
and moderation
In opposition to Hobbes: the state of nature is a state of war, not of peace
Pufendorf made very clear distinctions. Thus the rights of communal property
(meant negatively) vs communal proprty (meant positively). Communal property
(negatively) said to be nobody's (thus everybody's): examples include rivers,
clouds, rain, sunshine, etc.
Communal property (positively): not owned by a single person, but owned by several
people. As an example, a forest owned by the Iroquois belongs only to the Iroquois.
Pufendorf carefully means communal property of the negative variety. Such
property may be used by everyone and cannot be appropriated: use
preceeds appropriation. Thus any form of communal property that is legitimate
must be agreed to. Communal property of the positive variety. Note: in Locke's
view, before one can use, one must appropriate17.
It is important to be aware that Locke based his views about agricultural cultivation
upon the biblical exodus (a population of people exceeding their geographical limits
are led, by God and his chosen prophet, to another unpopulated land, thus relieving
pressure at home). Thus colonization means settlement on a permanent basis. To attract
settlers to the American colonies, the metaphore that the Amrican colonies were like
the Garden of Eden. Farming was emphasized as opposed to
manufacturing, so that there would be no competition with English manufacturing and
furthermore would be an aid to trade and navigation. 18, 19
Locke provides an ideological support to seize Amerindian lands, as expressed by
John Winthrop: 20
"The whole earth is the Lord's garden, and he hath given it to the sons of
Adam to be tilled and improved by them. Why then should we stand starving
here for places of habitation ... and in the mean time suffer whole countries,
as profitable for the use of man, to lie waste without improvement."
Locke rejects the argument of Francisco Vitoria that the basis of Spain's rights
to American soil is conquest. However, Locke says that "The right then of
Conquest extends only to the Lives of those who joyn'd in the war,
not to their Estates..."21
The Amerindian can be assimilated if he recognizes the Christian God to be the
first principle of understanding. It is clear that Jefferson thought most highly
of John Locke, stating in a letter to John Trumball that he considered Locke,
Bacon, and Newton to be 'the greatest men that ever lived without any exception'
22. In fact, the Amerindians that
accepted Christianity, and were literate and were obviously assimiated such as
the Cherokee were the object of genocide. Locke's theories were a rhetorical
excuse to camouflage the view of Francisco Vitoria that what we deal with is
conquest.
After the American Revolution in 1776, Thomas Jefferson became the third President
of the United States from 1801 to 1809. Most of the land west of the Mississippi
was not well known, as it nominally belonged to Spain, as the northern part of Mexico.
The Spanish empire was decrepit and it was obvious that Spain could not retain most of
the land: under threat by England, Spain, even Russia. In 1800, Spain sold these lands
to France under the Third (secret) Treaty of San Ildefonso. France was not strong enough
to afford military disputes in the New World, it was busy enough with England, France
(Napoleonic invasion of Spain) as well as with Russia's General Suverov in 1806. Thus
France sold the lands it had just purchased from Spain to the United States in 1803 as
the "Louisiana Purchase". Jefferson was quite well aware that in order to seize Amerindian
lands, first it would be necessary to obtain a knowledge of the extent of the lands west
of the Mississippi. Thus Jefferson commissioned the Lewis and Clark Expedition in 1804.
Using the surveys of territories west of the Mississippi, Jefferson could begin the process
of the dispossession of Amerindian lands following the strategy of conquest outlined by
John Locke. Thus began the genocide of the Amerindians, the second "Leyenda Negra" after
the conquest of Mexico and Peru by Spain. These American genocides would serve Adolf
Hitler as a model for genocide in the Ober OST: the Holocaust. Could it happen here?
It already has.
1
"John Locke and America: The Defence of English Colonialism",
by Barbara Arneil, pp. 17, 18, footnote 51. Also p. 140 Enclosure
is extended to mean not only physical boundary, but to enclose by
labour.
2
ibid., p. 22
3
ibid., pp. 36, 37
4
ibid., p. 38
5
ibid., p. 39
6
ibid., pp. 39, 40
7
ibid., pp, 41, 42
8
ibid., pp.46-48 A conflict between Spain and Portugal vs. the Dutch East Indies Co.
Much of International Law based upon the inability to "enclose" an ocean, thus
questions concerning property in the East Indies "Spice Islands". Hugo Grotius
represented the Dutch East Indies Co. Legal claims based upon the distinction
between movable (can be appropriated) vs immmovable (can be enclosed) objects. As
an ocean cannot be enclosed, it is open to ALL ("Mare Liberum", meaning the Dutch:
right of dominion over land in the Spice Indies no longer occupied). Later, the
English wanted access to the East Indies, too. There was no more unoccupied lands
in the East Indies. The English solved the problem without resort to fancy
philosophies like that of John Locke: they went to war with the Dutch. Thus this
entire discussion concerning John Locke, etc. is simply a refined excuse for theft
of Amerindian property and the subsequent genocide of Amerindians by such people as
land speculators such as Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc.
in the American colonies: supporters of slavery.
9
ibid., p. 45
10
ibid., pp. 61-64 Excluded from Amerindian claims to property are:
Amerindian agriculture, hunting, fishing, gathering, herding, water rights,
mineral rights (eg: salt), industry (Amerindian weaving), trading (transport),
objects of manufacture such as stone (arrowheads), ceramics, etc. Furthermore,
we should keep in mind that "high productivity" includes farmers paid to leave
fields fallow, dumping dairy products into rivers, etc.
11
ibid., pp. 51, 52
12
ibid., p. 53
13
ibid., p. 54
14
ibid., pp. 55, 56
15
ibid., pp. 77,78 Restrictions on Europeans such as numbers
of Europeans, purpose of travel, whether to stay permanently.
16
ibid., pp. 79, 83
17
ibid., pp. 57-58
18
ibid., p. 101
19
ibid., pp. 104, 105 Timber, pitch, tar, masts, ropes, boards, hemp,
flax. Furthermore, this was supported by the Navigation Act of 1660.
20
ibid., p. 114 Not only is Christianity appealed to, but racial
considerations also apply, as Amerindians are viewed as an
inferior race. This is significant, as not only was genocide
directed against the Amerindians, but Adolf Hitler also appealed
to racial anti-Semitism when Germany practiced genocide in its
colonies, in the Ostmark. Hitler made explicit references to Jews
and Slavs being like the "red Indians". Furthermore, racism was
practiced in the German South West African colony, as well.
21
ibid., p. 163
22
ibid., p. 187
Website Terms of Use
