A review of Not Stolen by Jeff Fynn-Paul

https://www.amazon.com/Not-Stolen-Truth-European-Colonialism/dp/164293951X

I grew up in a time and place where diversity meant mixing Protestants and Catholics and there was only one actual minority. These were the American Indians, or Native Americans as they’re called now, who mostly lived by themselves in county-sized reservations. As children, we regarded them with a mixture of fear and awe, finding it hard to believe the quiet, pathetically poor people who occasionally drove their pickups into town had once been fierce warriors who could shoot a buffalo from the back of a galloping horse. It was a time when America was starting to acknowledge the raw deal these people had gotten from the Europeans and others who flooded this continent. But though we realized our forefathers had done wrong, nobody talked about “genocide.” These claims came later.

Since then I’ve met a fair number of Native Americans and gotten to know a few of them. In particular, there was a Lakota fellow who married into our family. He and I got along well and we would joke about sensitive issues in a way that other people found shocking. It was interesting to see both Dances with Wolves and Black Robe with him and get his perspective on these movies. Though his outlook was quite different than mine, we respected each others’ viewpoints. Later on, after he’d been estranged from the family (by his own choice, I must note), his outlook became increasingly more radical. When he claimed that the term “Native American” was racist because America was named for a white person, I could only shake my head.

I bring this up to illustrate that I’ve tried to keep an open mind on the topic. I’ve always been a history buff and I’ve come to understand that the story of humanity has been a long struggle of war, struggle, and death. To me, the recent academic brow-beating about the fate of Native Americans seems very one-sided. So when I saw a review of a book with a different take on the topic, I downloaded it at once. It’s called Not Stolen, the Truth about European Colonialism in the New World by Professor Jeff Fynn-Paul, PhD. (published by Bombardier Books, 2023) The cover features a classic painting of European settlers meeting with a party of Native Americans back in the early days of colonization. It presents an interesting counterpoint to the current hypercritical, anti-American view of The 1619 Project and other screeds of the mainstream media.

This is ostensibly a book about history, but it’s also a political treatise. The author’s premise is that we should not view America as being “stolen” from its original inhabitants. Though he admits that the white settlers committed the occasional atrocity, the real story is much more nuanced and complex.

The first of his points are that there was no “genocide” of Native Americans by whites. This is an argument I’ve long been using myself. At the time when the Plymouth and Jamestown colonies were founded, the original population had already suffered a huge reduction due to epidemics brought by early explorers. These sixteenth-century Spaniards had no concept of the causes of disease, much less the lack of immunity in this alien population. Furthermore, Fynn-Paul argues there is no evidence of any US government entity deliberately spreading smallpox among the Indian tribes. Yes, a few individuals discussed this notion but by that time the greatest damage had already been done. In fact, the US government did its utmost to treat the residents of Indian reservations for epidemic diseases, bringing the new smallpox vaccine to them before it was distributed to whites.

Besides this forceful argument, the book debunks the idea that Indians were peaceful stewards of the earth, giving ample evidence of brutal inter-tribal war and extermination of numerous indigenous species well before whites arrived. They were essentially like Europeans, subject to the same flaws as our ancestors. For example, Southern tribes such as the Cherokee embraced African slavery, bringing their human chattel with them after their expulsion to Oklahoma. In addition, Natives were not as naive and foolish in their dealings with whites as progressives would have us believe. Among the so-called “trinkets” they received in trade for land were valuable goods and technologies such as firearms, metal tools, horses, and medicines.

Not Stolen is a detailed, well-researched book written in a style that’s quite accessible to the average high-school-educated American. Fynn-Paul pulls no punches, discussing land treaties, the “Trail of Tears”, reservation schools, and so on. Many of the most egregious incidents, though tragic, have been exaggerated by progressive self-loathing. This one-sided mythology has led to hysterical, knee-jerk reactions such as the demonization of church-run residential schools in Canada. Despite the outrage, there is no evidence that extensive abuse happened. Many of the alleged “mass graves” don’t actually exist.

Some of the author’s arguments are more semantic than factual, in particular, the title itself. One can argue that you can’t steal a country from a people who have no concept of land ownership. Yet we must acknowledge that staking a claim to a place deprives others of their use, much as Great Britain’s Enclosures Acts abolished the system of open fields, driving English peasants from their towns and into London slums. While I’d dispute the accuracy of Fynn-Paul’s title, its incendiary phrasing should help sell copies of the book and that’s a good thing.

In particular, I take issue with the author’s closing statement that America needs to clean up its historical image so it can speak with authority on human rights issues such as the alleged Uighur “genocide” in China. We do need to tell the Chinese to “butt out” with their hypocritical accusations of American “racism” but their internal politics are none of our business. The US government already interferes far too much, encouraging Islamic radicalism in Russia and China while pretending to be fighting it elsewhere. But this is not a major point of the book.

Suffice it to say that although I don’t agree with all of Fynn-Paul’s arguments, this book brings forth many important counter-arguments against the overwhelmingly anti-American tenor of current historical scholarship. I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to learn the truth about America’s history.

At this time of year, it’s become more and more common to hear people say “Happy Holidays.” It’s to the point where it’s begun to grate on my nerves. I understand this bland, neutral phrase is supposed to be more “inclusive” but why? Why must one be a Christian to celebrate Christmas? I’ve been an agnostic my entire adult life, and I celebrate the holiday as part of my American heritage. Yet it’s supposed to be somehow wrong to wish a Jew, a Muslim, or an atheist “Merry Christmas”? Christmas is, in my view, about more than just Christianity. It’s about “peace on Earth, good will toward men.” I’d argue that saying “Happy Holidays” is not inclusive at all, because it implicitly excludes non-Christians from the reason for the season.

Oh, I understand the rationale, the implication that our traditions are offensive because they remind others of some ugly aspect of our past. I don’t buy it. As bad as we European-Americans are supposed to be, at least we don’t judge other cultures in that fashion. We know that all nations have made mistakes and that judging is both hypocritical and wrong.

Let me give you some examples. If I was in Israel during Purim, and somebody wished me a happy Purim, I’d appreciate it. Would I get all huffy thinking about what the Hebrews did to the inhabitants of Canaan when they occupied the Promised Land? Certainly not. I’ll take a blessing in the spirit it’s given.

If I’m ever able to visit India for the Holi festival, that raucous celebration when they throw colored powder at each other, I’d want to participate, even though I’m not a Hindu. Would I be offended if someone wished me a happy Holi? Nor would I stew over my distaste for India’s oppressive caste system.

We shouldn’t dwell on mistakes of the past because it is the past. In particular, the persecutions and pogroms once committed by Christians are almost nonexistent nowadays. As human beings, we’ll never be perfect, but I like to believe we’re getting better. This is what Christmas is all about, a spirit of love and forgiveness.

So with that said, I’d like to wish everyone everywhere a Merry Christmas, no matter who you are or what you believe.

Above: The porcupine, symbol of the US Libertarian Party

At the age of 19, I found Tibor Machan’s The Libertarian Alternative* in my university’s library. I’d encountered the idea of radically limited government in the novels of Ayn Rand, but the economic and historical arguments in Machan’s book won me over. From that day on, I voted for the Libertarian candidate in every election. In 2016, I chose Trump as the lesser evil, though I hung on to my Libertarian registration until just a few weeks ago.

Mine was not a casual commitment. In the 1980s I joined the Arizona Libertarian Party where I served on the State Executive Committee and ran for office. Though we weren’t successful except in opposing boondoggles like Light Rail–which was later built anyway–I still had hope. Someday Americans would wake up to the promise of freedom, both social and economic. That hope peaked in 2008 when the libertarian-leaning Ron Paul did well in Republican Presidential primaries. Most corporate media outlets refused to say his name or report his numbers, proving how much the Establishment feared and hated us.

At the same time, I became increasingly disenchanted with the LP’s national organization. It was filled with regime collaborators, some of whom had cheered on George W Bush’s moronic foreign interventions. Others advocated the one-sided “free trade” that devastated America’s industrial base and shipped our jobs to China. Worst of all was the financial “shock theory” wherein predatory American investors rushed in to plunder newly privatized economies such as Russia in the 1990s. These policies were disastrous for 99% of the people they affected.

I realize that the LP’s platform is too extreme for most Americans. In particular, it needs to soften its “drug legalization” plank. The point isn’t to make hard drugs more available but to remove the perverse legal incentives that make the drug problem worse. But this turned out not to be the Party’s worst problem. I’ve reluctantly concluded there are several more.

Anarcho-capitalism: Many libertarians advocate a stateless society based on human rights, private property, and voluntary organizations. It’s a wonderful idea but no one can say how we’d get there. I wrote a sci-fi book (Centrifugal Force, available at https://www.amazon.com/Centrifugal-Force-Vaughn-L-Treude/dp/0988244209) about one possible path. It was meant to be a trilogy, so the story never gets to its utopian conclusion. Though I suppose a stateless “anarcho-capitalist” society is theoretically possible, why hasn’t it happened? Free societies tend to be more prosperous, so we should have gotten there purely by social evolution. The reason is most likely that such societies are unstable. All it takes is an organized gang of criminals to murder and pillage the peaceable, mind-you-own-business citizenry on an ongoing basis. Voila, you have a “government.” The people won’t be unified enough to fight back effectively.

Big business: In Ayn Rand’s novels, entrepreneurs are mostly heroes who fight wicked governments. Reality doesn’t bear that out. Even in the golden age of capitalism, tycoons like Carnegie and Rockefeller stamped out their competition by supporting favorable regulations. At best, corporations are impersonal machines motivated solely by profit. These days it’s much worse: “woke” CEOs use the shareholder’s money to push their own political agendas. Amazingly, this is legal. They also band together to monopolize markets, increasing their power and profits. Libertarian theory claims that  monopolies are impossible, but this assumes a free economy to begin with. In the real world, politicians are only too happy to use corporations to rule us.

Immigration: The Libertarian Party platform has traditionally advocated open borders. Yes, borders are artificial, but the political situation renders this philosophy ridiculous. Our welfare state attracts the poorest and least productive to come here and be a drain on the system. So-called “civil rights” laws make it illegal to discriminate against these new arrivals even when their behavior is incompatible with our culture. But the biggest problem is that too many newcomers will change the nature of our society. Not all cultures appreciate or desire liberty. In any nation that practices universal suffrage, the most aggressive and prolific immigrants (such as Islamic fundamentalists) will seize control and erase what little freedom we have.

Race and ethnicity: Libertarians embraced the progressive ideas of human equality well before conservatives did. Though they also oppose laws against “racial discrimination,” the rationale is that free market economics make prejudice unprofitable. Behind this is the assumption that all human groups are identical in motivation, capabilities, and temperament. After much soul-searching, I’ve abandoned that belief. Though I try to judge all people as individuals with their own strengths and weaknesses, the groups they belong to vary significantly. They differ in susceptibility to disease, personal ambition, and the tendency to cooperate with others. “Equity” between racial groups is unlikely or impossible, even if inept government interference is abolished. This inherent inequality will make any diverse society a contentious one.

Though libertarianism doesn’t forbid America’s white majority from organizing to protect their interests, it doesn’t encourage it, either. In their efforts to win American hearts and minds, the LP mostly follows the progressives’ erroneous “blank slate” theory. In the real world, some groups hate freedom, and their unhappiness with our system does NOT give them the right to enslave us.

Anarcho-tyranny: The worst thing about libertarian theory is that it’s given the American ruling classes an excuse to abandon rules and tradition as they see fit. Corporations are free to plunder and treat people like property, while we individuals require government licenses and permission for every aspect of our lives. To selectively free the rich and powerful from restraint makes our oppression worse, as monopolistic companies impose their collectivist views on us. This is called anarcho-tyranny–freedom for the powerful (and their hired agitators) and servitude for the rest.

My viewpoint has evolved since 2015, when Hillary Clinton’s “Basket of Deplorables” speech put me firmly in the Trump camp. Libertarianism makes sense in theory, but it doesn’t cut it in the real world. The system that best strikes the balance between freedom and fairness is Populism. It’s a philosophy that puts the interests of the common people first in the tradition of the great Andrew Jackson. Yes, the man made mistakes, particularly in screwing the Cherokee, but in most issues he was on the right track. So was Donald Trump, at least in his rhetoric. As Lincoln said, we should have “charity for all and malice toward none.” That doesn’t mean we have to surrender our country to self-righteous elites and alien invaders.

Long live Populism!

* https://www.amazon.com/Libertarian-Alternative-Essays-Political-Philosophy/dp/0911012729

Image credits:

Left, North American porcupine by Needsmoreritalin at English Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0 2008

Right, Libertarian party logo by Hdebug, original by Lance W. Haverkamp, CC by-SA 4.0 2020

Adm. David G. Farragut, ca. 1863 Mathew Brady Collection. (Army)
Exact Date Shot Unknown
NARA FILE #: 165-B-1921
WAR & CONFLICT BOOK #: 130

Two years ago I was part of a group of aspiring writers who would follow and promote each other on Twitter as a means to get more exposure for our books. I neither expected much nor gained much from the effort. However, I remember in particular a comment that crystallized in my mind the state of the modern publishing industry. One writer (I forget her name) posted a complaint about Internet “cancel culture,” asking her fellows to weigh in on the sacrifice of free speech to the prevailing PC ideology. The response was enlightening. In the hundreds of replies, something like 90% of the writers said, “Free speech is good, but there should also be consequences.”

These writers did not refer, as an uninformed person might suppose, to laws concerning libel or the classic example of “shouting fire in a crowded theater.” Rather, they were affirming the aforementioned cancel culture, in that people have the right to say “bad” things but that being punished for said opinions – whether it’s losing one’s platform, one’s job, or even one’s bank account – is perfectly acceptable. After all, these are “private institutions” doing the punishing.

Now I’m not going to debate this issue or the fairness of “private” censorship when 90% of America’s banks, news outlets, and social media companies are owned by a tiny cabal of interconnected billionaires who are also intimately entangled with the US government. My focus will be instead on the overwhelming agreement of the majority response. Did all 100-plus of these people who said “cancel culture is OK” actually believe what they were saying? Or were they trying to curry favor with the Powers that Be, which happen to be overwhelmingly and intolerantly leftist? Many progressive writers, J. K. Rowling, for example, have run into trouble due to a single disagreement with the prevailing orthodoxy. It seems that the lesson these writers have learned is not that “cancel culture is bad because it may someday come for me” but “I need to toe the line all the more carefully and I’ll be fine.” That caution includes, apparently, avoiding any criticism of cancel culture itself.

Let’s consider this question against the backdrop of the publishing industry in 2022. New authors attempting to publish a novel in today’s social climate will notice an interesting development. Besides looking for certain genres, topics, and styles of writing, many agents and publishers are also seeking certain kinds of writers. “Marginalized voices” is a common catchphrase, which usually refers to ethnic and sexual minorities – people of color, gay, transgender, etc. Sometimes women are included in this equation, though it’s hard to imagine misogyny is an issue in an industry that is literally dominated by female executives.

What I’m getting to is this: does it make sense for those of us who don’t belong to a protected group – in particular, straight white males such as myself – to muzzle ourselves in hopes that the publishing industry will cut us a break? For blacks and gays, this may make sense, because even luminaries such as Dave Chapelle and Glenn Greenwald can be labeled as “Nazis” despite their favored identities. To be clear, I don’t fault “marginalized” writers for taking advantage of literary affirmative action; I certainly would. It would be wonderful to have my work automatically moved to the top of the slush pile. And if they do fall afoul of the cancel mob, they may be more easily forgiven; consider whether Netflix would have stood behind Chapelle if he wasn’t an African-American. (By the way, I’m a big fan of both Chapelle’s comedy and Greenwald’s clear-headed political commentary.)

As for pale stale males, like me, I believe we’re fools to comply; we should be exactly who we are, as liberal or conservative or libertarian or populist as we feel. I’m reminded of a 1960’s cartoon in which a pair of hippies are dragging a normal-looking man away by his arms. “I’m relevant, I tell you!” screams the normie. The two hippies aren’t buying it and neither will the publishers who prioritize a writer’s identity over the writing itself. Those few enlightened agents or publishers who don’t consider a writer’s politics won’t be impressed by these acts of obeisance. And honoring the progressive shibboleths will positively shut us out of alternative non-liberal institutions such as the notorious Vox Day’s Castalia House.

This may sound like sour grapes, but being a straight white male is freeing in a way. I don’t need to apologize for having voted for Donald Trump twice, for supporting America, or for opposing immigration. Any opinions I express in this column are what I actually believe, no virtue-signaling required. If the political situation continues to decline, the American Stasi might come like the hippies in the cartoon to drag me away, but I’m not worried. The reign of intolerant reality-challenged lunatics can’t go on forever.

Which leads me to the title of this article. In 1862, faced with overwhelming odds in the Battle of Mobile, US Navy Admiral Farragut is quoted as saying, “Damn the torpedoes! Four Bells! Captain Drayton, go ahead! Jouett, full speed!” The battle was won for the Union Navy, though Farragut and his men could easily have died in the effort. This motto is perfect for dissident writers of all stripes who refuse to censor themselves. I repeat:

DAMN THE TORPEDOES!

https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/