Argument from Historical Injustice

Unrighteousness: On the Argument from Historical Injustice

When Billie Eilish, accepting an award, declared that "no one is illegal on stolen land," she wasn't just making a political statement; she was invoking an argument as ancient as settled societies themselves. She tapped into what we might call the Argument from Historical Injustice – a potent, enduring challenge to present-day authority and legitimacy, asserting that current structures are fundamentally tainted by the unrighteous acts of the past.

This isn't merely a complaint about historical events; it's a claim that the very foundation upon which a society's laws, borders, or property rights rest is morally compromised. If the land itself was acquired through conquest, deception, or violence, then, the argument goes, any subsequent claim to absolute ownership or the right to exclude others loses its moral authority. It suggests that the current state of affairs is not merely unfortunate, but illegitimate, built atop a foundational wrong that continues to echo in the present.

The persistence of this argument across eras and cultures is a fascinating phenomenon, a testament to its deep resonance within the human psyche. Perhaps it’s because we instinctively understand that true justice isn't bound by a clock. The idea that a wrong committed generations ago can still demand redress, or at least recognition, speaks to a fundamental human desire for fairness and accountability. It's an argument that refuses to let sleeping dogs lie, insisting that the past isn't just past, but an active ingredient in the present political and social landscape.

Consider, for instance, the long and painful history of Indigenous peoples in North America. Their arguments against colonial land grabs and subsequent treaty violations are a textbook example of this principle. From the Wounded Knee Occupation in the 1970s to ongoing legal battles for land rights and sovereignty, the core of their claim is that the United States, in its very formation and expansion, committed profound injustices. The treaties were broken, lands were seized, and cultures were suppressed, all of which, in their view, undermines the moral legitimacy of the current state of affairs on those lands. The "stolen land" isn't a metaphor; it's a historical fact that continues to inform their present-day struggles and challenges to authority.

Eilish’s statement, then, connects the historical dispossession of Indigenous peoples to the contemporary plight of immigrants. By linking the perceived "illegality" of individuals to the historical "illegality" of land acquisition, she forces a confrontation with the very basis of nation-state authority. It's a provocative move, suggesting that if the ground beneath our feet was ill-gotten, then who truly has the right to dictate who belongs and who doesn't?

The Argument from Historical Injustice is powerful precisely because it challenges us to look beyond convenience and established order to the deeper, often uncomfortable, truths of how societies are formed. But it also presents a profound tension: how does a society, built upon layers of historical wrong, ever truly reconcile its past without dissolving its present?