Barbara Arneil, "The Wild Indian's Version Locke's theory of Property and English Colonialism in America." Flashcards
What is the main argument of Barbara Arneil’s “The Wild Indian’s Venison”?
Arneil argues that Locke’s theory of property, especially his focus on labor as the source of value, was used to justify taking land from Native Americans during English colonialism. Arneil highlights the story of the “Wild Indian,” who hunts deer on land claimed by colonists. She uses this story to illustrate the conflicting views of property rights between the colonists and Indigenous peoples.
How did the English colonists understand property rights, according to Arneil?
he English colonists believed that cultivating and improving the land, a form of labor, gave them a rightful claim to it. They viewed uncultivated land as “waste” and therefore open to appropriation. The colonists believed that Native Americans did not mix their labor with the land enough to establish ownership, making it available for colonial acquisition.
How does Locke’s concept of the “state of nature” relate to Arneil’s analysis of colonialism?
Arneil suggests that the English colonists saw the Americas as being in a “state of nature,” similar to Locke’s concept. This perception allowed them to believe they could claim the land by “mixing their labor with it,” as Locke’s theory allows.
How did Locke’s ideas about “spoilage” and “money” factor into the colonial context?
Locke argued that taking more from nature than one can use before it spoils is wrong. He believed money circumvents this problem, as it allows for the accumulation of wealth without spoilage. Arneil highlights this concept to show how colonists could rationalize taking vast amounts of land, as they could argue that their economic system, based on money, prevented spoilage.
What critique does Arneil offer of Locke’s property theory in the colonial context?
Arneil argues that Locke’s theory was used to justify a kind of “legal theft” of Native American land. The colonists applied Locke’s ideas selectively, ignoring the existing labor and land use practices of Native Americans. She also argues that by equating “improvement” solely with European-style agriculture, the colonists overlooked the diverse ways Native Americans managed and used the land.
