All errors should be reported to

Saturday, November 27, 2021

America did not steal the land or enslave Africans

For the Thanksgiving weekend, the black nationalist communists at BLM trotted out the lie that white people stole the land from the Indians and stole slaves from Africa.

In both cases, the white settlers paid for them. The Indians sold the land. Africans sold the slaves. The African slave market in Ghana had been going on for a thousand years before Europeans began purchasing them to work in the New World.

But facts don't matter to propagandists and prevaricators.

The Daily Caller reported, "A major Black Lives Matter group tweeted a message to followers that Thanksgiving is a day of 'colonization' celebrated on 'stolen land.'

"'You are eating dry turkey and overcooked stuffing on stolen land,' the Twitter account of the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation tweeted Thursday. 'Colonization never ended, it just became normalized.'"

BLM tweeted, "This Thanksgiving we send our deepest love to families whose loved ones were stolen by state-sanctioned violence and white-supremacy."

Allow the facts to enter the picture. 

Central Michigan University published a paper, "A Brief History of Land Transfers Between American Indians and the United States Government."

While explorers may have claimed the land, the fact is the people already living there owned it.

The problem with the owners is there were not many Indians here and the white settlers quickly outnumbered them.

The paper said, "Although Natives never doubted they owned the land, the English were not so sure. In British legal theory the settlers had a right to settle found in the charter granted to the colony by the King. The prevailing British legal view eventually became that Indians owned the land and had the right to be compensated if they surrendered control over it. This was just as any British land owner could expect when property changed hands. British settlers also came to the pragmatic conclusion that buying land was simpler and cheaper than trying to take it, an action that almost always led to war.

"The British did, however, place an important limitation on Indian land ownership. Unlike Europeans, who could sell their land to whomever they chose, Indians could sell land only to the government. The implications of this legal principle, as well as the need to develop a practical means to enforce it, was regularly evaded by colonial governments. Colonial governments quickly and freely granted licenses to buy land to private individuals.

"This legal device created a vibrant land market in the British colonies. Individual Indians sold land either directly to a colonial government or to individual settlers who, at least theoretically, had a license to make such a purchase. The land market, however, was rife with fraud, usually, but not always perpetrated by the settlers on Indians. The most blatant problem was squatters who simply occupied Indian land. Ignoring the law, settlers simply started clearing the forest.

"Other, more subtle swindles, invoked the form of the law, but rigged the process. The large number of stories, told by both sides, regarding the liberal use of free liquor by whites to promote ill-advised sales of land by Indians suggests that the practice was common. If liquor was not used, another frequent fraud was to exploit ambiguity over who had authority to sign a contract. Because land sales as Europeans implemented them had not taken place in tribal communities, where land was usually held in common and assigned to individuals for their use for so long as they could take advantage of the area, there was no clear rule for who could, or could not, sign a land contract. The situation could be maddening, even for a well-intentioned European trying to follow the letter of English law."

That's not stealing. That's dealing.

While white people were not above swindling, Indians were not dumb children. Anti-Americans like BLM want it both ways. They seek to portray Indians as wise stewards of the land, while at the same time holding them as too naïve to protect the land.

Which is it?

Neither and both.

Then there is the urban myth that British slavers went into deepest darkest Africa and enslaved people.


The British are as lazy as anyone and left it to Ghana's slavers to capture slaves for re-sale to the Brits. It was more efficient and convenient.

The Tracing Center reported, "for almost 150 years, Ghana, on Africa’s west coast, was the center of the British slave trade. Western traders arrived in ships loaded with manufactured goods to barter or trade for slaves. Those who were sold had often been captured in tribal warfare; some had simply been kidnapped to sell to European slave traders.

"Slavery existed in Africa prior to the transatlantic trade, and in fact the earlier, trans-Saharan slave trade sent more enslaved Africans east to the Muslim world, over many centuries, than would be transported west to the Americas. However, the large-scale organization of European slave trading and the development of industry and massive plantations dependent on slave labor gave rise to a trade in humans that was staggering in its scale. Approximately 10 million enslaved people were transported in the transatlantic slave trade, at rates of up to 100,000 persons per year."

Slavery has been the history of man since the dawn of history. The irony is American and British ingenuity made slavery and feudalism obsolete. The industrial age mechanized and modernized agriculture, which was the chief user of slavery. Capitalism liberated man -- as did Union soldiers.