First, I would like to apologize to those people who will be offended by this post because they have an inability to face facts when they have something to gain… (Like hundreds of trillions in real estate value they didn’t work to create or develop or maintain)

No Olympics on Stolen Native Land?  Why just ‘No Olympics’?  How about ‘No Aboriginal Cultural Centers Funded by White People for the Benefit of Natives on Stolen Native Land!’?  ‘No Wind Power on Stolen Native Land!’  No Affordable Housing on Stolen Native Land!… and so on…

Secondly, FUCK YOU!  I didn’t steal shit, and you didn’t have shit stolen from you so get over it!  If someone stole from you or someone you know, you should phone the police and make a report.

No one gave me any land and I was born here too.  I’m 5th generation Canadian–do I get to sue Chinese people in Richmond for stealing my land?  No–cause I never personally owned their land.  They worked for it.  They paid the mortgage.  They own it now–fair and square.

In 1709, during a particularly brutal war of ethnic cleansing, my ancestors fled the Paletinate, also called the Pfaltz, in what is now Germany, near the current border with France, that has been fought over countless times before and since.   See my family webpage for details

Can you please tell me who I can sue to get back ‘my’ land?  Or will that just open me up to being sued by people in Rome that claim all of Europe belongs to them…? but then who owned the land before the Romans…?  who owned it before them?  We have to draw the line somewhere… The whole world is the way it is because of past colonialism and their isn’t any fair way to go back to a previous state based on racism. (I don’t own my land because I am white?)

What about when one native tribe attacked and conquered another–or even enslaved another?  I know we all want to see natives as peace loving environmentalists, but that is just not the case (see the photos at the Museum of Anthropology of what natives did to forests).  Does one native group owe reparations to other natives?  Much of BC is claimed by rival bands…

Hopefully you can see how absurd and selfish the idea of anything being stolen from the aboriginals that live in BC today.  (Though, there are many injustices faced by natives today from racism).  But that has nothing to do with who land belongs to.

As someone who was born into a less than ideal situation, when it comes to family, finances and culture (Western culture sucks) I can assure you that moving past blame is the only way to freedom and happiness.  So unless someone can prove they are 200 years old, let’s move on and find a way for the people of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the world to benefit from the Olympics.

And if you still think that all of BC is stolen land–put your money where your mouth is and get the fuck out, you hypocritical thief! lmao!

Bottom line:  In order for something to be stolen from you–you have to own it.  You have to be alive to own something.  So if you weren’t born before it was stolen–it wasn’t stolen from you and you have no personal claim to it.  (And it is racist to say your race owns it.)



  1. the only thing i have to ask is if your saying this then even the place your living at is off of stolen native land

  2. thequantumbuddha

    Um, Kyle, you kinda missed the point. In order to have something stolen, you need to own it–in order to own it, you must be alive. So no one can say that something was stolen from them before they were born.

  3. I get your point, but the difference between the North American conquest and the age-long land disputes in Europe is that the Europeans often (not always—sometimes they just razed villages immediately, sometimes they left the Indians alone) signed treaties with the Natives, but then disregarded the terms of those treaties. Even by the modern governments’ terms they illegally obtained and continue to illegally occupy a lot of the land formerly occupied by Indians. And some of this is still going on today—it wasn’t all done in the 1700 and 1800s.

  4. I partially agree, Tony. Signed treaties need to be respected as long as they are legal. And anyone alive who actually had land stolen from them by the government (I’m sure there are some) should be compensated.

    My bias is ‘individualism’. I see life as a personal journey of growth–not getting more stuff (like land or material comforts).

    Many others have a ‘collectivist’ viewpoint that leads to racism, sexism and justifications for injustice–as long as some “big picture” gets satisfied. The problem is: who decides the picture? –someone with something to gain.

  5. I understand your point, but here we just disagree.

    I guess to me it seems like you’re focusing almost solely on whom the land was stolen from, particularly, and (while not ignoring it completely) kind of ignoring that the land was stolen.

    I’ve thought of many examples to illustrate my point, but I’ll give three.

    1. A driver is carjacked, resists the jacking, and is shot and killed in the process. The carjacker gets into the car and drives away.
    1a. The car’s new “owner,” the carjacker, is later pulled over by the police for any reason. He’s eventually incarcerated not only for murder, but for stealing a vehicle. The car is, in the eyes of the law, stolen, even though the original owner is dead. (Since that situation is kind of stupid, because the carjacker was caught and arrested for shooting the driver anyway, I present 1b….)
    1b. The car’s new “owner,” the carjacker, makes it to a fence. The fence resells the car to an innocent party that has nothing to do with the carjacking and has no desire to own an illegally obtained car. After the police do some detective work after finding the dead body of the car’s original owner, they realize his car was stolen and start looking out for it. Soon enough the car is found in the possession of it’s even newer owner, and it is repossessed as it is stolen property. The car is, in the eyes of the law, stolen, even though the original owner is dead.

    2. A king is at war. His heir, let’s say a duke or a prince from another province—the important thing being that this heir does not live in the land currently occupied by the king. The king’s land is besieged by an enemy army. During the assault the king is killed and his land is taken. Fair game for war, of course. Upon hearing of the king’s death, his heir returns to the king’s land to take the throne, but finds, of course, that it’s now occupied by enemy forces. The heir feels that his right to the land remains, and that the king’s death doesn’t do anything to make the land less his—in fact, the king’s death is what made the land his to begin with. He summons an army and attempts to take it back.

    3. An elderly person on the verge of death creates a will leaving his/her entire estate to one family member. That person then dies. Before the family member obtains any of the items left to him/her, it is stolen. The thief is eventually apprehended and brought to court where it is determined that the items will be given to the benefactor of the will, who was never previously in possession of them.

    (Keep in mind that I’m not saying I’m always on the side of the law, kings/dukes/princes, or other people with magic piece of paper claiming ownership of any thing. These were all examples to make a point, not statements of what I prefer.)

    Each of the three situations outlined make slightly different points. The first: that the death of an owner doesn’t make an item any less stolen. The second: the death of an owner doesn’t make the claims of any benefactors any less valid. The third: the death of an owner doesn’t make the claims of any benefactor any less valid, especially if the owner granted possession, explicitly and legally, to a specific benefactor.

    Look, I don’t know why you’ve made this argument and I certainly don’t want to accuse you of anything, but from where I’m sitting it seems like you’re trying say the Indians have no claim to the land and should just shut their big whiny mouths about the Olympics and everything else. I completely understand that land disputes are something that have always happened, but by citing an example from your own family’s history while they resided in Europe, you kind of seemed to gloss over what I know to be fact—that they weren’t happy about having their land taken away from them. It happened, yes, and they might be over it, yes, but they’ve had 300 years to think about it, and other conflicts have probably diverted their attention from that particular one. For natives in North America, being forced from their ancestral lands after thousands of years might be the biggest thing they’ve ever had (and ever will have) to face. You bring up inter-tribal conflicts, which certainly existed, but in this instance I’m sure they were (and are) distracted from those because they had (and have) a greater, more dangerous common enemy: the White man, civilization, modernism—whatever you want to call it. It’d be one thing if just a handful of tribes had land taken from them; it’d be another if they all did. I don’t really know where I’m going with this, so I’ll change subjects.

    To say that the Indian tribes have no claim to the land seems also to be saying that their very well known, and within their cultures completely legal, verbal- and otherwise-drawn-up contracts specifying that the land they then occupied would be land for their descendants to occupy as well are somehow less valid than the colonial governments’ claims to the land because they have it on paper. If you’re trying to avoid racism or any other form of discrimination, you might want to reevaluate this stance, because to say (or to take a position that looks like you might be saying, more exactly) the Indians’ way isn’t as good as the colonialists’ way seems … well, racist.

    I’m getting carried away, and this comment is longer than I meant. Basically, my point is this: the descendants of Native people whose land was stolen 25, 50, 100, 200 or 300 years or more ago are allowed to be mad about it and are allowed to try to take back that land by any means necessary. It wasn’t stolen from them, but they have a cultural claim to it just as valid as our cultural claims to things, and if they want it back they should try to take it back. I’m not going to tell them to stop whining about it.

    (You also seem to be criticizing the idea of land ownership itself, which I agree with, but I think different people have different uses for the word own. Many Native cultures, of course, have no concept of “ownership,” but when they speak the word in English it is generally thought to mean that the land is owned by them and they are owned by it (or they might use belong—the land belongs to us and we belong to it). Or, as I’ve read about the Great Lakes, where I live: they belong to all of us and they belong to none of us. They are a great commons, and to be respected by all.)

    Hopefully this is coherent.

  6. thequantumbuddha

    I love your thoughtfulness and thoroughness
    1. I agree.
    1.b. I would add that the person who intended no harm or crime should also be compensated for their loss.

    I believe, Tony, you are ignoring that many that claim vast amounts of land and money, did not have anything stolen from them themselves…

    “…they had (and have) a greater, more dangerous common enemy: the White man, civilization, modernism—whatever you want to call it.” The “White man” is not “(their)” enemy. The white man’s way is the enemy–the western way. The problem is cultural–not racial.

    I think compensation is in order.

    A quote from the “No Olympics on Stolen Native Land” website FAQs.

    “FAQ: Why do anti-Olympic groups vandalize businesses and even carry out arson attacks?
    Groups that carry out militant direct action are just one part of the anti-Olympics movement. Most do not carry out vandalism or arson. Those that do have targeted corporate sponsors of the Olympics as a form of sabotage (along with police & military targets). This can increase the costs for corporations seeking to profit from the Games, and could potentially deter some corporate investment. All militant direct actions that have occurred have consisted of property damage and no person has been injured as a result.”

  7. Hey, I’m a student at BCIT and I’m volunteering to help promote the 2010 Learning Legacies Competition. If you know any BC students that have an opinion on the Olympics you should get them to submit a piece. The competition ends March 31, and there are $7,000 in prizes up for grabs. Here’s the contest website:

  8. p.s. Great argument. I’ve thought something along the same lines for quite some time. Great comments from tonyisnt as well.

    The question I now have is what do we do about the situation? BC/Canada is not going to give all the land back to the natives. Where does that leave us?

  9. That’s a good question, but not one I can answer. A few years ago I took part in a discussion about repatriating both Europe and Africa on a message board that, in all honesty, focused way to much on race (it doesn’t exist anymore anyway). Basically, I think there are decent reasons for an idealist to want to do so, but in the end it simply isn’t practical. North America is populated with hundreds of millions of Euro-descended people, and so obviously Europe doesn’t have room for us. Afro-descended people are the next biggest non-native segment, but Africa has a population crisis of its own to worry about. I realize this isn’t exactly on topic, but it’s kind of related in the sense that we have to accept the situation we have. Maybe the governments aren’t going to give back any land, but I don’t think anyone who empathizes with the Natives should marginalize them further. Their ancestors, after all, have been on these continents for at least 10,000 years, so at the very least we should listen to what they have to say about this land. They know it is what I’m trying to say I guess.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s