On Balance, the British Conquest of Native American Lands was Justified

Thanks for accepting thett3. FrameworkNote by the resolution that I am arguing that the conquest of America is *on balance* okay. I'm not trying to justify individual actions such as the Trail of Tears, but rather look at the big picture of the historical outcome of American colonization and consider all aspects of what happened. I urge readers to cast away any preconceptions or biases in order to better understand the arguments brought forth.C1) Theft and Property RightsOne of the many common statements that are made when one brings up the history of Native Americans and their situation with the European colonists is that "America wrongfully stole their land", and that alone implies that the injustice of the British pilgrims. In reality, there actually was no stealing of land. "Theft" requires that someone legitimately own something, so that it can illegitimately taken by someone. The issue is that the natives didn't own land, they occupied it. They had no perception of property rights - property rights was a concept that was brought to America by Western civilization, and has been what constitutes the legitimate ownership of land ever since. The natives held that property was the common land of all, and that it can be occupied by means of conquest.Consider the scenario of the auditorium. When I "buy" a ticket for a seat for a theatrical play, I occupy that seat for the amount of time that the play goes on, but I don't own it. It's possession comes with certain duties and obligations, but only for the span of time that I occupy it. This example can be applied to the lands of the natives: each tribe occupied a bit of land for a certain amount of time until a stronger came through and took their land through means of conquest. Wars for land happened all the time between tribes, and the outcome was most often the dominant tribes winning over the weaker ones. The constant clashes among tries occurred since no one wanted to lose their land, but everyone understand that there was no root for complaint since it wasn't "their" land to begin with. If we examine the situation of the Sioux Indians, we find that the Black Hills they occupied were taken from the Cheyenne Indians, who took it from another tribe, who took it from another tribe and on and on[1]. There is no legitimate accusation against the U.S. colonists because the land they took didn't actually belong to the natives that lived there last, or to the ones before. The Sioux obtained land in the same manner that all Indian tribes did: by defeating and displacing the previous inhabitants. As the natives used this form of conquest to obtain land, the U.S. used conquest to obtain land from them. Thus, we see that is no base for charging America with an "wrongful conquest ethic", since they did what all countries in the world have ever done to earn the land they are currently on.We must also understand that the Indians lived on more land that they could possibly use or cultivate. What is unjust about Europe, an overcrowded area with explorers aching for exploration, colonizing America, which had much more land which wasn't being used? In order to better conceive of property rights we should turn to philosopher John Locke, the first to formulate such a doctrine of property ownership. He argued that labor adds value to land, and that nature by itself is essentially worthless[2]. Human effort is what makes land worth more, and that as long as we can cultivate and develop an amount of land, we have a right to acquire as much as we can use to work on. For example, the island of Manhattan in 1626 was bought by the Dutch from the Indians for $24, or about $700 in our time. Today, Manhattan would be worth so much more, because the Europeans came and built a glorious and prosperous city. Since the natives didn't know about numerous resources such as gold in California, uranium in the Black Hills, or other minerals, but were just hunters gatherers who moved around the country, the land they occupied had little to no value according to Locke. The Europeans came and extracted the gold and uranium, making the land worth much more and pumping money into the economy and providing more valuables for the people living there.Locke's interpretation of property rights is reliable because it makes the most logical sense. If we were to dictate who owns what based on a first-come, first serve system, that would unfairly award property to those who happened to reach it first. If I was the first person to America and claimed the land for myself, that would not be fair to others who could use my land better than I and could cultivate it for the benefit of all people.C2) WarfareOne of the objections made against conquest is the battles and wars that occurred from it. This wasn't new, however, since the native tribes fought each other all the time. There were also many attacks made by the Indians on the European settlers that were unjust, such as the 1622 Jamestown Massacre in which 347 men, women, and children were slain[3]. White pilgrims who traveled on the Oregon Trail in the 1800's sometimes dealt with the attacks of natives on themselves, leading to many battles and deaths. The Clark massacre and Whitman massacre were instigated by Indians and took the lives of many. By doing the research, we cannot conclude that the Indians were "savage victims" because they did many things that were wrong, and equally bad to some of the actions of the settlers. Some people may point out that millions of Native Americans died out after contact with the Europeans, but this was a result of infectious diseases that wiped out most of them, and we cannot say that these were intentional or "genocide". Estimates say that during the smallpox epidemics, 80-90% fatality rates were responsible for the lives of the natives[4]. The U.S. Bureau of the Census provided an estimate of the total deaths of the wars between natives and settlers: 19,000 white men, women, and children were slain. 30,000 Indians were also killed[5], but we must remember that the West had technology that was far superior to the Indian weapons, such as firearms and protective shielding. Had the Europeans not had this advantage, the deaths would have probably been the same. There is no reason to classify the natives as "victims" when bad things happened on both sides, but we can say that it is just for the natives or whites to fight back when being attacked.C3) AftermathAs a result of British conquest of the United States, the Indians can take advantage of the modern civilization, technology, and opportunities that was brought by the West. Had conquest never happened, the natives would have mostly likely continued to live in teepees, chasing animals for their dinners. They could choose between being a chieftain, a hunter, or a medicine man. Now, they can be a CEO of a major company, they can make a profit being a butcher or some other hunting-related job, or a doctor or nurse and take college courses in order to become educated in the field of medicine. They can be businessmen, analysts, mathematicians, surgeons, or scientists. If there was no America as there was today, the Native Americans would continue living with high infant mortality, low life expectancy, and a low quality life, in which they would fight other tribes and live wildly. There no Western clothes, no Western technology, no Western medicine. Now, there are no more wars or battles, but all American citizens are protected by the government from such things. Everyone has an opportunity to achieve big and make the world better, instead of living in the uncivilized stone age that the natives would have lived in forever. Indians have the options to either live on the huge reservations the government has provided them or assimilate to the new civilization that the Europeans brought to America. This too demonstrates the justification of conquest as it shows how much better off the natives were as an outcome.The resolution is affirmed.[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org...[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...[3] http://www.encyclopedia.com...[4] http://books.google.com...[5] http://books.google.com...