The fact that a particular concept is absent in a person's thinking or in the thinking of a whole group of people is no evidence for a congenital inability to form that concept. The truth is, moreover, that the concept of private ownership was not absent in the thinking and practices of North American Indians. Since there were so many different tribes, each one a distinct society with its own language, economy, social customs, and so forth, it would take a whole book to describe the various systems of ownership. A few relevant facts will be given here.
To begin with, hand-made artifacts were almost always individually owned weapons, baskets, pottery, articles of clothing, etc. were owned absolutely by the maker. Often their design and decoration were highly stylized and expressed the individual personality and artistic ability of their creator. So personal were these possessions, that in some tribes it was even the custom to destroy them upon the death of the owner—a fact which is perhaps unfortunate from a practical standpoint, but which nevertheless refutes the idea that there was no private property among Indians.
Sometimes there were restrictions on larger items of property. For instance, according to Hoebel,20 the following was the custom among the Yuroks of California: "A Yurok boat owner nominally possesses his canoe as private property. It is his. He has a series of demand rights against all other persons not to molest or damage his boat. He has the privilege right to use it upon the public waters. He does not have to sell or give it away. These are all marks of exclusive rights. Yet he is also subject to a series of well-recognized duties that limit his exclusive prerogatives. For one thing, he is under a duty to ferry any sojourner over the river when called upon to do so. Failure to perform this duty gives the traveler a demand right for legal damages equal to one dentalium shell. On the other hand, if the owner suffers injury because of the service he has to render, then the traveler is subject to damages. Thus, when one canoeman's house burned down while he was in midstream, his passenger had to pay for the house."
Land ownership depended, in general, on the type of land and resources. Land appropriate for hunting and gathering activities was usually held in common for all members of the tribe to use. This is because, as E.A. Opitz has pointed out,21 "nothing enters into a property relationship which is not first in the category of an economic good; no one bothers to press a property claim to such items as the outside air". In a hunting culture, it is the game which is scarce, not the land. There is simply no reason for the land to be individually owned in such a society. On the contrary, individual ownership would be a handicap. In hunting, it is necessary to chase after the game in a large territory. It would be simply ridiculous for each separate member of a tribe to sit on an individual plot of ground and wait for the game to come to him. This is especially true among the Eskimos where each family must be self-sufficient and may have to travel great distances to find food. Among the Algonquian tribes, on the other hand, territory was divided up among families and individuals:22 "Beavers and muskrats, which are the chief game, are sedentary. Unlike the roving beasts, they stay close to their home sites. Hence, it is possible for individual owners to conserve and protect the supply of such game on their individual tracts. To set traps on another man's property without invitation leads to violent sanctions…A hunter who follows the trail of a large fur bearer, such as the fox or bear, into the land of another man may kill the beast, although he usually takes pains to notify the landowner, with whom he usually divides the spoils. Berry picking, fishing, root gathering, and birch-bark collecting are prohibited by some Algonquians but not by others. Among the Tetes de Boule, studied in the field by Cooper, there is a superfluity of berries, and fish are plentiful. 'There is no scarcity, and no need for individual claims on such resources.' "
The following excerpt about seed-gathering among the Shoshones provides another example of the same principles in operation:23
"Steward has given an admirable explanation of the situation in terms of ecological factors. The uncertainty and variability of the pine-nut and wild-seed crops are so great that territories exploited by different groups varied greatly from year to year. When there were good crops in any locality, they ripened so fast and fell to the ground so quickly that the people who ordinarily lived in the area could not possibly gather them all. When a good harvest was promised, they therefore spread the news abroad, so that people whose crops had failed could come to share their bounty with them. 'Under such conditions,' claims Steward, 'Ownership of vegetable food resources would have been a disadvantage to everyone.' Nonetheless, the fact is that the Shoshones held a country they called their own—they owned it and shared it among themselves."
The food obtained by hunting and gathering peoples was generally individually owned, but at the same time, a great deal of emphasis was placed on sharing of food because of the precariousness of existence. Among the Comanche, a hunter was socially obliged to share his kill upon returning to camp, but he had the option to take his family away and camp alone. There was no Internal Revenue Service to come after him. In tribes where the whole community participated in a cooperative hunt, the meat was divided equally among families. In some tribes, such as the Pueblo in their rabbit hunts, a community pool of dried meat was kept to be doled out in time of need. At the other extreme is the ideological individualism of the Ojibwa that even includes the family:24
"The game and fish that a man catches in the winter are his private property. When he returns with them to his lodge…he decides what to do with them…When he gives game to his wife . . he has lost all claim to it. It is never said that he gives game to his wife for her use in making food and clothing for the family; but they phrase it that a man gives game to his wife and therefore the game belongs to her to do with as she pleases…The wife now employs 'her' property in the manufacture of food and clothing. She gives the finished product to her husband, immature children, and herself. When these gifts have been given, they become the property of the recipient."
Land ownership among agricultural Indian tribes was technically vested in the community, but actual use and consumption of produce were at the level of the individual family. The Hopi system will serve as a good illustration of an agricultural society:25
"The Hopi primary family (a man, his wife, and their children), is the basic producing—consuming unit. The family lives in a house that its members have built, eats the food produced by the work of its members, makes its own clothing and makes all the tools and artifacts necessary to its producing activities.
"The land which is used for hunting and gathering is owned by no one; there is ample space for all in the society to exercise use rights without denying such rights to others. Farming land is owned by clans (groups of primary families linked in the maternal lines) and assigned equitably to each of its members who heads a primary family. Even here, however, there is no sharp competition for farming lands, since the supply is well in excess of the demand.
"When, by reason of crop failure, or lack of success in hunting or gathering, a family is unable to sustain itself, food and other necessities are provided by related families as gifts, these imposing on the recipients the obligation to give similar aid when it may be required. No family may hoard food or other necessities when others are in want, for such action would violate every canon of Hopi behavior. Generosity and a 'good heart' are among the highest Hopi ideals; stinginess a mortal sin. As a result, the Hopi village, an independent political unit composed of families and clans, achieves a distribution of the goods it produces without any of the mechanisms of internal trade and commerce. Indeed, since Hopi society lacks a true division of labor and its accompaniment in an exchangeable surplus, there can be no internal trade.
"Systems of distribution like that of the Hopi, though they may differ in detail, are relatively common among so-called primitive peoples, only a few of which have developed their technologies to a point where exchangeable surpluses can be produced. These systems, characteristic of subsistence economies, are often lumped together under the term 'primitive communism', largely because the communities which live under them, lacking true division of labor and internal trade, share their goods and services. This term is misleading, however, in that it mistakenly links subsistence economies with modern communism, which only came into existence as a political-economic theory of government, with the industrial revolution. The essence of the Hopi system of distribution lies, not in its sharing features, but in the fact that each family, since it possesses in its members all the productive techniques available to the society as a whole, is capable of sustaining itself. The Hopi pattern of sharing in case of need is only a form of insurance against the failure of the food supply and has none of the political overtones characteristic of modern communism."
Note that there is a difference between collective ownership (ownership by a group) and public ownership (ownership by government, as distinct from the people at large.) The opposite of collective is individual; the opposite of public is private. Private collective ownership is not only possible, but is perfectly valid and moral. As long as it is voluntary, there is not a violation of rights. For those who don't believe in the validity of collective ownership, I would like to ask the following: Who owns the Mormon Church? Who owns the numerous workshops and stores of the Goodwill Industries? Who owns Rampart College? Who owns the private facilities of any other voluntary organization, charity, fraternity, or social club in the United States? Consider also the difference between a 20% federal income tax and a 10% Church tithe: The difference is that one is collected by force and the other is given voluntarily. Thus, in examining the social institutions of a group of people, one should seek to determine whether force was employed in the establishment, growth, and maintenance of those institutions, not merely whether cooperative effort and collective ownership were present. It is when government becomes a separate institution with a life of its own and begins not to protect the rights of its citizens but to violate them, that statism is born.
One major symptom of this development is the collection of tribute, or taxes, for the benefit of government officials, whether in whole or in part, at the expense of the workers and producers of a society.
Regarding government among the Indians in his area, Thomas Jefferson wrote the following in his Notes on Virginia (1784):26
"Very possibly there may have been anciently three different stocks, each of which, multiplying in a long course of time, had separated into so many little societies. This practice results from the circumstances of their having never submitted themselves to any laws, any coercive power, any shadow of government. Their only controls are their manners, and that moral sense of right and wrong, which, like the sense of tasting and feeling in every man, makes a part of his nature. An offense against these is punished by contempt, by exclusion from society, or, where the case is serious, as that of murder, by the individuals whom it concerns. Imperfect as this species of coercion may seem, crimes are very rare among them; insomuch that were it made a question, whether no law, as among the savage Americans, or too much law, as among the civilized Europeans, submits man to the greatest evil, one would pronounce it to be the last; and that the sheep are happier of themselves, than under care of the wolves. It will be said, the great societies cannot exist without government. The savages, therefore, break them into small ones." (Query XI)
Among most Indian peoples, there was a considerable degree of self-rule. Thus, a Shawnee described rules of conduct in his tribe:27 "Do not kill or injure your neighbor, for it is not him that you injure, you injure yourself. Do not wrong or hate your neighbor, for it is not him that you wrong, you wrong yourself. Standards of conduct were just as rigid as the laws of any other people, but force was seldom used to enforce good conduct. Each person was his own judge. Deceitfulness was a crime. We lived according to our own standards and principles, not for what others might think of us. Absolute honesty toward each other was the basis of character…Indian parents gave few commands, because they were advocates of freedom of action and thought…"
I have heard it said that the California Indians were shocked at the way white people disciplined and beat their children. Children were highly valued and loved by Indian parents. California Indians were particularly peaceful, and regarding the introduction of whippings and confinement to stocks by the missionaries, John Collier comments:28 "How galling physical punishment must have been to them, we may realize when we read in the early chronicles that there seemed to be no form of chastisement whatsoever in use among the natives before the coming of the white man."
There used to be a joke, that the Indians had no taxes, the men went fishing all day, and the women did all the work—then the white man came along and thought he could improve the situation! There used also to be a saying that "much of the truth is spoken in jest". To the best of my knowledge, no form of tribute or taxes was collected among the Indian tribes inhabiting what is now the United States. The chiefs and tribal council members were leaders chosen by the people for their wisdom, courage, and other character traits. They were leaders only as long as they had the respect of the people and had no means to keep themselves in office by force.
Furthermore, they did not constitute a separate social class supported at public expense.
(There were, of course, the societies of the Incas in Peru and the Aztecs in Mexico, both of which had centralized governments with dictatorial powers. Ironically, they were also the most "civilized" and technologically advanced of the pre-Columbian societies.)
Tribal ownership of the lands of the North American Indians, was, then, a perfectly, valid form of use and control of valuable resources by individuals living within separate and distinct societies. The only restriction generally placed on land even where it was individually cultivated was that it could not be alienated from the tribe. Members could give, sell, or lease an individual tract for cultivation to another member, but not to somebody outside the tribe. This is comparable to the situation in the United States now, wherein individual citizens may use, control, and dispose of land within the society but may not alienate it from the political territory of the United States. For instance, I would not be allowed to sell my house and lot to the USSR.
One final point needs to be raised in this connection. The existence of a collectivist form of society, even when truly dictatorial, not voluntary, does not justify invasion by an alien people. In a revolution against a dictatorial government, help may properly be given if requested. But for one dictatorship, like Spain, to invade another dictatorship, like the Inca Empire, only results in a double wrong to the people themselves.
Having disposed of basic questions of ownership, I now come to a justification of expropriation which has a very strange ring coming from the conservatives who allegedly believe in free will. It is a kind of wedding of force and fatalism. When boiled down, it amounts to nothing more that, "It just had to happen that way." Why? Well, because it did happen that way!
Consider the following phrase from a recent article by a Buckley-type conservative:29 "The inevitable displacement of hunting tribes by advanced agriculturalists." The word "displacement" is peculiarly euphemistic in this context. What kind of displacement is meant? Is it like the simple displacement of water by gases in a hydrolysis experiment? Does it refer to the peaceful kind of displacement that occurs when I move out of my house and sell it to someone else? No. What it means is that one group, with superior military force and technology, attacks and drives out a less advanced or weaker group of people from their homes. E.A. Opitz has commented that "Those who cannot take their history straight call conquest "discovery" and think to find in "discovery" a proper claim to land titles".30 "Conquest", in turn, is a euphemism for sheer brute force and has as its moral basis the doctrine that "Might makes Right".
More subtle and therefore more insidious than the term "displacement" is its adjective "inevitable". To say that an event was inevitable means that it had to happen, that nothing could have stopped it from happening, that it was beyond the control of man. Since men were the actors in the event, it means that they had no control over their actions. Therefore, they had no responsibility for what they did.
"Inevitable displacement" is just another term for the old rallying cry of "manifest destiny". This concept was first used as an excuse to go out and take Indian lands, and it is now being used as an apology for having taken them. But it was also employed in behalf of other U.S. expansionism:31
"New York magazine editor John L. O'Sullivan proclaimed in 1845 that it was 'The fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.' O'Sullivan's exuberant words reflected the optimism of fervid nationalists that the American banner would soon wave over all of North America and beyond.
"For the exponents of Manifest Destiny, even the addition of Texas, New Mexico, California, and the Oregon country to the nation would not be enough; God had destined the people of the United States to extend its sovereignty over Canada, Alaska, Mexico, Cuba, other West Indian islands, and Hawaii."
The doctrine of manifest destiny went hand-in-hand with notions about "best use" of land and other resources.
Best for whom? Not for owners and occupants, but for mankind in general. Thus, in 1848, the New York State Democratic Convention said of Mexican territory:32
"We would hold it, not for our use, but for the use of man…Labor was the consecrated means of man's subsistence when he was created. To replenish the earth and subdue it, was his ordained mission and destiny."
An article in the United States Review of 1853 stated:33
"The painful scarcity of silver which at present afflicts the entire trading and agricultural community, can only be removed, as the scarcity of gold was removed, by the application of American enterprise to the mines of Mexico. Silver coin will never be abundant in the United States, until the boundary of the South includes the mineral fields of Central Mexico, now occupied by a people who have no knowledge, or no appreciation of their value."
Observe how easily the earlier "cultivation" theory of ownership was modified to accommodate the expansionists in their desire for mineral resources. With the annexation of the Philippine Islands in 1898, some people began to wonder where it was all going to end, since the Filipinos were tilling the soil to the best of their capacity and the "cultivation" theory would not fit their case, but Captain Mahan had an answer for them:34
"Thus the claim of an indigenous population to retain indefinitely control of territory depends not upon a natural right, but upon political fitness, shown in the political work of governing, administering, and developing, in such manner as to insure the natural right of the world at large that resources should not be left idle, but be utilized for the general good."
Albert K. Weinberg comments that "the offense of tropical people now lay precisely in the fact that in drawing only their food from the soil they neglected the raw materials of industry. It is thus a curiosity of the history of ideas that the same doctrine originated by the agriculturist to dispossess the huntsman was used ultimately by the industrialist to dispossess the agriculturist. But the jest is entirely on the darker races, the victims of the doctrine first as huntsmen and then as agriculturists."35
It was during this period of expansionism that the concept of "destiny" developed a more and more fatalistic. connotation. "In the 'nineties…the doctrine of the inevitable meant not merely that American expansion could not be resisted by others but that it could not be resisted by Americans themselves, caught, willing or unwilling, in the toils of an inevitable destiny."36 Of course there were voices of opposition to this doctrine, such as that of the Liberal Republican Carl Schurz, who wrote in an article on "Manifest Destiny" in Harpers that "The fate of the American people is in their own wisdom and will."37 Or again, that of the anti-imperialist William Jennings Bryan, who observed, upon the outbreak of the Philippine rebellion against United States rule in 1899, that "Destiny is not as manifest as it was a few weeks ago."38 The fact that it took an American occupation of 70,000 troops two years to put down the rebellion gives the lie to the theory that possession of the Philippines was inevitable. But many or most Americans accepted the idea of manifest destiny as a principle of their history, and immeasurable damage has been done to their sense of morality and their sense of competence to deal with national and world affairs as a result. The consequences may. soon catch up with them. As early as 1935, Albert K. Weinberg observed:39
"Yet this principle, however formidable to the backward races, is also the logical weapon formidable to the imperialist. It is like some boomerang which though thrown at the opponent causes fatality in an unexpected quarter. One has only to extend the imperialist's own logic a little farther to make it return and pierce the intellectual armor of the imperialist himself."
Manifest destiny and dialectical materialism are sisters under the skin, and their mother is historical determinism. Manifest destiny says it is all right to expropriate resources; Marxism says the same. Manifest destiny says people have no right to keep for themselves materials that could be utilized for the general good; Marxism says the same. Manifest Destiny says people are impotent to affect the course of history; Marxism says the same. The American people have been intellectually disarmed by the very doctrine that gained them their vast empire.
Ironically, and logically in its own way, the very conservatives who applaud the "inevitable displacement" of native peoples and advocate "benevolent Colonial rule" for people who "are not capable at the present time of self-rule"40 are the ones who are most fearful of the advent of Marxist communism. I say "ironically" because they revel in one expression of historical determinism while expressing horror and indignation at another form of historical determinism. And I say "logically" because they are the ones who have the most to fear, not only from the peoples whose subjugation they have approved, but from their own moral conscience, should it ever catch up with them. They have incurred the enmity of black and brown people in all parts of the world with their racist theories, but they keep on spurring the horse while praying fervently that it won't throw them off.
Men make history. There is nothing inevitable or determined about it. There are, of course, some natural events over which man has no control, e.g., earthquakes. But phenomena such as war, imperialism, statism, etc. are man-made. Man, as a rational being with a conceptual faculty, is capable of making choices with respect to his value system and his actions. This ability to choose is the basis of morality. And with morality, goes responsibility.
There is currently a fad among some right-wingers to shrug off this responsibility of deciding moral issues by assigning any concern over racial injustice to the realm of "collective guilt", a term referring in this case to the alleged penalizing of white men for the sins of their ancestors. Thus, we find a conservative writer complaining,41 "The unnatural eagerness of Americans to believe themselves to be monsters…is learned behavior, implanted,…by the teachings of the strangest class of intellectuals any nation has ever been damned with.
With few significant exceptions, America's professional thinkers have been anemic dropouts from their own culture…They find some unrepented sin in themselves and take up whatever scourge lies at hand to visit its punishment upon their forefathers. Now more than ever before, the American Indian is a favorite scourge…" And a young conservative student echoes, ",…masochistic liberals have managed to instill a colossal guilt complex in the average American for the alleged genocidal atrocities of his forefathers …,"42
Guilt, to be sure, cannot be inherited. No man can logically be held responsible for the actions of another, whether of an ancestor, a brother, a member of his racial, religious, political group, or any other person. If your ancestors shot my ancestors, that does not make you guilty of shooting me. But if you condone racism, imperialism or genocide, then you are guilty of supporting injustice. This would not be inherited guilt, but your very own personal shame for betraying proper moral principles.
For example, in the face of all the charges of genocide being leveled at the United States government not only for its historical treatment of native peoples, but also for its current activities in Vietnam, and in the midst of right-wing protestations of innocence, the National Review freely proclaimed on its cover (Mar. '69): "Did the United States destroy the American Indian? No . . but it should have."
The man who wrote that ought to be ashamed of himself. His character is revealed for everyone to see. A friend of mine used to tell such persons, "Your soul is showing!"
What I am trying to do, however, is not to inflict guilt on present-day Anglo-Americans, but to educate them about Indian History, to help them develop an understanding of the situation the American Indian finds himself in today, and to enlist their support in bringing about a renewal of freedom and guarantee of human rights, not just for the Indian, but for every individual. I look forward to the day when being an Indian or a Negro or an Anglo-Saxon will be a matter of no conflict, and each of us can enjoy his own particular culture without having to fear or hate someone else. But there are many problems that must be resolved before that day can come.
We Indians are fed up with the way American History has been distorted. What has been done to our people and is being done to them today is bad enough without white historians adding insult to injury. We hope for the truth to be told at last in the history textbooks and in movies, magazine articles, and other media.
We want just compensation for our lands that were taken, respect for our treaty rights, and an opportunity to reclaim whatever land we can, such as Alcatraz Island. This much I think all Indians agree on.
The big problem is the reservation system. It is the reservation system that has kept the Indian impoverished. Dean Russell of the Foundation for Economic Education summed up the situation in 1952:43
"There seems to be no scientific basis for calling the Indians an innately inferior race. As has been proved by the success of many individual Indians, they have just as much capacity for understanding and advancement as the…so-called Nordics. But today there are more than 12,000 federal employees directly "taking care" of the 233,000 reservation Indians who are still classified as wards of the government. The number of government caretakers for the Indians has been steadily increasing over the years. As a result, the reservation Indian is becoming less self-sufficient and more dependent upon what he calls 'the Great White Father in Washington.'"
"Instead of freedom, the Indian has government-guaranteed 'security.' Instead of individual responsibility, he has a government bureau to handle his personal affairs. There are special laws governing his right to own land and to spend tribal money. Under that system of bondage it should surprise no one to find that many thousands of Indians have remained uneducated, hungry, diseased, and mismanaged.
"The only lasting solution is for the Indians themselves to handle their own affairs on the basis of individual freedom and personal responsibility. If this is not true, then the blessings of freedom would appear to be fanciful myths. But for some queer reason, we Americans seem to believe that just because our pioneer fathers once subjugated the Indians, we in turn are obligated to keep them in the bondage of government 'security.' As a result, the Indian has the status of a ward instead of a citizen. Instead of being a responsible person, he is a dependent.
"The advocates of this compulsory 'security' honestly seem to believe that most Americans—including the Indians—are too ignorant, or lazy, or worthless to be trusted with their own destiny; that they will literally starve in the streets unless their welfare is guaranteed by a 'benevolent' government. However good their intentions may be, these disciples of the Relief State are demanding that they be given the power to force mankind to follow their plans. In the name of liberty they advocate bondage!"
On the other hand, what choice do the reservation Indians have? If they give up their special relationship to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, they immediately fall under state and local jurisdiction and are subject to taxes they cannot pay, resulting in loss of their land. In fact, it is this exemption from land taxes that one conservative writer complains about:44 "On the 397 federal reservations (eleven of which are over a million acres) no taxes are paid on either the land or its usufruct" Considering that conservatives consider taxes one of the nation's greatest evils, one might ask why this writer wishes to inflict them on us. Did he run out of small pox infected blankets to send us?
The reservation Indians do not have a choice between good and evil, between freedom and controls, between self determination and paternalism. They have only a choice between federal jurisdiction and state jurisdiction, between one level of regulation or another. It is just one more case of Tweedle-Dee or Tweedle-Dum and at present, -Dee is looking better to some, and -Dum to others. I am not a reservation Indian, so it would not be proper for me to offer a vote on one side or the other. Neither is it proper for one reservation to say what another reservation ought to do. Each Indian on each reservation ought to speak for himself and be allowed to decide his own future. I would only suggest that there might be better alternatives than are presently being considered. For instance, why must a reservation become part of a state? Why not let the Indians have a chance at real self determination, if they so choose, by preserving their own "states" or "nations" (that is, after all, what the tribes were historically) free from any alien political control? This would, after all, be a real step towards the laissez-faire society the conservatives and libertarians advocate!
In conclusion, I would like to say to any conservative readers who do not identify with positions I have quoted here and criticized that I do not mean to imply that all conservatives think alike. I have taken these excerpts from a limited amount of material I happen to have on hand. If the moccasin does not fit, you do not have to put it on.
To my Indian readers, I would like to say that because I have criticized conservative thinking does not mean that I agree with liberals. There are many liberals who are working hard to destroy the concept of ownership. Our Indian claims are based on property rights. We own our Indian lands. If we help the liberals to destroy the concept and validity of property rights, we won't have a leg to stand on. Do not be misled by people just because they express sympathy for us or wish to identify with our culture. There is immense public sympathy for our cause right now, and properly so. Justice is on our side. But it is going to take much more than sympathy—it is going to take a great deal of education and some good hard thinking—to solve our problems and bring justice to fruition.
1. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1956.
2. Robbins, John W., "Conservatism versus Objectivism", The Intercollegiate Review, Vol. 6, No. 1-2, p. 46-47.
3. Locke, John, Two Treatises of Government, New York: The New American Library, 1965, Ch. 26-28, 32, 34, 38, 45, Pp 328-330, 332-333, 337, 341.
4. Weinberg, Albert K., Manifest Destiny, Chicago: Quadrangle Paperbacks, 1963, p. 74.
5. Weinberg, op. cit., p. 76.
6. Weinberg, op. cit., p. 76.
7. Weinberg, op. cit., p. 83.
8. Weinberg, op. cit., p. 86.
9. Weinberg, op. cit., p. 86.
10. Weinberg, op. cit., p. 86-87.
11. Weinberg, op. cit., p. 88.
12. Hofstadter, Richard, et al, The United States: The History of a Republic, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 2nd Edition, 1967, p. 272.
13. Collier, John, Indians of the Americas, New York, The New American Library, 1947, p. 123.
14. Collier, op. cit., p. 123-124.
15. Greenway, John, "Will the Indians Get Whitey?" National Review, Mar. 11, '69, p. 224.
16. Wollstein, Jarret B., Society Without Coercion, Silver Spring, Maryland, Society for Individual Liberty, 1969, p. 7.
17. Rand, Ayn, For the New Intellectual, New York, The New American Library, 1963, p. 50.
18. LeFevre, Robert, Must We Depend Upon Political Protection?, Colorado Springs; Pine Tree Press, Studies in Human Action, Vol. II, No. 1, Winter, 1962, p. 42-44.
19. von Mises, Ludwig, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, Chicago, Henry Regnery Company, 1966, pp. 36-38.
20. Hoebell, E. Adamson, Man in the Primitive World, NY; McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1958, p. 432.
21. Optiz, Edmund A., Must We Depend Upon Political Protection?, Colorado Springs; Pine Tree Press, Studies in Human Action, Vol. II, No. 1, Winter, 1962, p. 24.
22. Hoebel, op. cit., p. 436-437.
23. Hoebel, op. cit., p. 435.
24. Hoebel, op. cit., p. 444.
25. Beals, Ralph L. and Harry Hoijer, An Introduction to Anthropology, NY: The Macmillan Co., 1959, p. 423-424.
26. Hoebel, op. cit., p. 496-497.
27. Collier, op. cit., p. I07.
28. Collier, op. cit., p. 131.
29. Greenway, op. cit., p. 224.
30. Optiz, op. cit., p. 31.
31. Wright, Louis B. et al, The Democratic Experience, Glenview, Illinois; Scott, Foresman and Company, 1968, p. 143.
32. Weinberg, op. cit., p. 90.
33. Weinberg, op. cit., p. 90.
34. Weinberg, op. cit., p. 93.
35. Weinberg, op. cit., p. 93-94.
36. Weinberg, op. cit., p. 254.
37. Weinberg, op. cit., p. 253.
38. Weinberg, op. cit., p. 283.
39. Weinberg, op. cit., p. 98
40. Robbins, op. cit., p. 45.
41. Greenway, op. cit., p. 223.
42. Ryland, Michael J., "Phony Indian Guilt", Stockton Record, Dec. 7, '69.
43. Russell, Dean, "Wards of the Government" in Essays on Liberty, 1952; The Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, pp. 200-202.
44. Greenway, op. cit., p. 228.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "America the Beautiful:On Whose Land? ".
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.