Current historians (Gwynne and Donovan to name two) tend to say the Native Americans had no concept of property rights, so they did not understand the treaties they signed with the Whites or the concept of owning the land. As one Native American supposedly said, you may as well own the sky as the land.
Okay I understand that concept. But then the same historians say the Comanches attacked the white when they entered into Comacheria or the Lakota when they entered the Black Hills. They also say things like they refused to negotiate to give up the Black Hills.
These seem like contradictory thoughts. If the Native Americans had no concept of property (and I think the reality is they did) they would share the land with all comers, no?
Are historians explaining this all wrong or is there something I am not getting?
Okay I understand that concept. But then the same historians say the Comanches attacked the white when they entered into Comacheria or the Lakota when they entered the Black Hills. They also say things like they refused to negotiate to give up the Black Hills.
These seem like contradictory thoughts. If the Native Americans had no concept of property (and I think the reality is they did) they would share the land with all comers, no?
Are historians explaining this all wrong or is there something I am not getting?