Land And Conquest

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

For most of human history conquest has been viewed as a legitimate way of acquiring territory. Is this still the case and if not when did it stop being so?

― Tom (Groke), Thursday, 12 September 2002 08:31 (twenty-three years ago)

Tom, have you been playing Civilization again?

― chris (chris), Thursday, 12 September 2002 08:52 (twenty-three years ago)

Perhaps, in the 19th Centurey when you had to at least pretend you wee bringing the benefits of chritianity and European industrialisation and trade.

― tigerclawskank, Thursday, 12 September 2002 08:53 (twenty-three years ago)

these days you can only do it if your ancestors lived there two thousand years ago.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 12 September 2002 10:14 (twenty-three years ago)

It's legit if the people already on the land don't 'deserve' it

― dave q, Thursday, 12 September 2002 10:22 (twenty-three years ago)

So we legitimately invade Normandy and Saxony! Do they have anything we want there?

― toraneko (toraneko), Thursday, 12 September 2002 10:22 (twenty-three years ago)

Like if they are t-heads. or scousers.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 12 September 2002 10:25 (twenty-three years ago)

Actually presumably the rise of the nation state and the idea that a state was meant to comprise a nation did it in. Previous to that it didn't really matter - land was ruled by whoever had conquered it so you had various peoples under the same despot.

― tigerclawskank, Thursday, 12 September 2002 13:25 (twenty-three years ago)

It officially became a Bad Thing in the wake of World War II and the establishment of the United Nations, which enshrined the principle that trust territories and ex-colonies should be permitted to exercise self-determination regarding their futures. But apparently the Chinese government isn't upset with its having possessed Tibet by military force.

― j.lu (j.lu), Thursday, 12 September 2002 16:54 (twenty-three years ago)

I once conquered all the black people in the class, just for fun.

― Brian Mowrey (Brian Mowrey), Thursday, 12 September 2002 21:20 (twenty-three years ago)

Adverse possession (open, notorious, continuous and hostile occupation for 20 years or so, depending on the jurisdiction) is a recognized means of acquiring legal title to real property in the United States. Title acquired by this means is not considered marketable, but yes, conquering and retaining possession of land probably satisfies these requirements.

― felicity (felicity), Thursday, 12 September 2002 23:20 (twenty-three years ago)

don't worry, they've all got theirs coming once the global tribunal's established!!! same goes for the oil barons and those fuckers that think they can 'own the water in a stream'

― Paul (scifisoul), Saturday, 14 September 2002 14:08 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.