I asked different AI chats some questions about some topics that seem to be brought up now and things I was taught in history and the chat went like:
Did Europeans steal the U.S. from native Americans?
The history of European colonization in what is now the United States is complex, painful, and deeply contested. Many historians and Indigenous communities describe it as a process of land theft, displacement, and violence. European settlers, beginning in the 1600s, often used treaties, warfare, forced removals, and legal manipulation to take land from Native American nations—sometimes through outright deception or coercion.
This process is often referred to as settler colonialism, where the goal wasn’t just to govern or trade, but to replace Indigenous populations with a new society of settlers. Over centuries, Native peoples were pushed off their ancestral lands, subjected to massacres, and forced into reservations. While some land was acquired through treaties, many of those agreements were later broken or ignored by the U.S. government.
There are differing perspectives, of course. Some argue that conquest and territorial expansion were common throughout history and not unique to Europeans in North America. Others emphasize the moral and legal violations committed against sovereign Native nations, framing the U.S. as a country built on stolen land.
It’s a topic that still shapes debates today—about justice, reparations, and how history is remembered. Would you like to explore how this legacy affects modern Native American communities? Or dive into a specific era like the Trail of Tears or the Indian Removal Act? There’s a lot we can unpack together.
Did the U.S. colonists steal the colonial land in the U.S. away from the British?
Not quite—because the land the U.S. colonists fought over wasn’t originally British in the first place. It had been taken from Native American nations by European powers, including Britain, through colonization. So when American colonists declared independence in 1776 and fought the Revolutionary War, they weren’t “stealing” land from Britain in the traditional sense—they were rebelling against British rule over colonies that Britain had already claimed.
The colonists believed they had a right to self-govern and control the land they lived on, especially after years of taxation and restrictions imposed by the British Crown. The war was about sovereignty and political control, not about seizing land from Britain itself.
That said, the land in question had already been taken—often violently or through coercive treaties—from Indigenous peoples. So while the colonists didn’t “steal” it from Britain, they did continue the process of dispossession that had begun with European colonization.
If you’re curious, we could explore how land ownership shifted during and after the Revolution—or how Native nations tried to navigate the new American government. There’s a lot of nuance in this chapter of history. Want to dig deeper?
If Britain laid claim to land in the U.S. then the people living in the colonies the U.S. declared the land didn’t belong to the British through war of independence, isn’t that the equivalent to theft?
That’s a really thoughtful question—and it gets to the heart of how we define legitimacy, sovereignty, and power.
From the British perspective at the time, yes, the American colonists were rebelling and seizing land that legally belonged to the Crown. So in that framework, it could be seen as a kind of theft or insurrection. But from the colonists’ point of view, they believed they were asserting their natural rights and rejecting what they saw as illegitimate rule—especially after years of taxation without representation and other grievances.
The Declaration of Independence even argued that the British government had violated a social contract, and therefore the colonists had the right to break away and form their own nation. So whether it was “theft” or “liberation” really depends on which side of the Atlantic—and which side of history—you’re standing on.
But here’s the twist: both Britain and the colonists were laying claim to land that had already been taken from Indigenous peoples. So while the Revolution was a fight over who would control the colonies, it didn’t challenge the deeper issue of how that land was acquired in the first place.
History’s full of these layered contradictions. Want to explore how Native nations responded to the Revolution—or how Britain justified its colonial claims in the first place? There’s a lot to unpack.
So in a sense we’re all living on stolen land?
That’s a powerful way to frame it—and it’s a perspective that many scholars, activists, and Indigenous communities have voiced. The idea that “we’re all living on stolen land” is rooted in the history of settler colonialism, where land was taken—often violently or through coercive treaties—from Indigenous peoples, and then passed down through generations without restitution or acknowledgment.
But it’s also more complicated than a simple yes or no. Some argue that if we trace history far enough back, nearly every piece of inhabited land has changed hands through conquest, migration, or displacement. That doesn’t erase the harm done, but it raises questions about how we define justice across centuries.
Others point out that the phrase “stolen land” isn’t just about the past—it’s about the present. Many Indigenous communities still face systemic inequalities tied to that original dispossession: lack of access to land, resources, political power, and cultural recognition. So the phrase becomes a call to action, not just a historical observation.
If you’re interested, we could explore what land acknowledgments mean today, or how different countries have tried (or failed) to address these legacies. There’s a lot of depth here, and I’m all in if you are.
Did the Spanish steal Mexico from the Aztec and Mayans?
In many ways, yes—the Spanish conquest of what is now Mexico is widely regarded as a violent takeover of Indigenous civilizations, particularly the Aztec Empire. When Hernán Cortés arrived in 1519, he and his relatively small force of Spanish soldiers, aided by rival Indigenous groups like the Tlaxcalans, launched a campaign that ultimately led to the fall of Tenochtitlán (the Aztec capital) in 1521.
The Spanish didn’t just defeat the Aztecs in battle—they also brought devastating diseases like smallpox, which decimated Indigenous populations and made resistance far more difficult. After the conquest, the Spanish imposed colonial rule, seized land, extracted wealth, and dismantled Indigenous political and religious systems.
As for the Maya, their story is a bit different. The Maya civilization had already declined from its classical peak centuries earlier, but many Maya city-states still existed when the Spanish arrived. The conquest of the Maya was slower and more fragmented, lasting well into the 17th century due to fierce resistance and the region’s difficult terrain.
So while “stealing” might not be a legal term historians use, it captures the essence of what happened: the Spanish forcibly took control of lands that were already inhabited, governed, and culturally rich. If you’d like, we can explore how Indigenous resistance shaped the conquest—or how these events still echo in modern Mexico. There’s a lot of history woven into this.
Did the Mexicans steal Mexico back from the Spanish?
That’s one way to frame it—but most historians would describe it not as theft, but as a war of independence. Mexico didn’t “steal” the land back from Spain; it fought a long and bloody struggle to break free from colonial rule.
The Mexican War of Independence began in 1810 and lasted until 1821. It was sparked by deep resentment over Spanish control, economic inequality, and the lack of political power for people born in the Americas (called criollos) compared to those born in Spain (peninsulares). The movement was led by figures like Miguel Hidalgo, José María Morelos, and eventually Agustín de Iturbide.
After more than a decade of warfare, Mexico declared independence in 1821. Spain resisted recognizing it and even tried to reconquer Mexico in the years that followed—but ultimately failed.
So rather than “stealing” the land, Mexicans were reclaiming their right to self-determination after centuries of colonial domination. It’s a story of revolution, not robbery.
Want to explore how Spain tried to take it back—or how Mexico’s independence shaped the rest of Latin America? There’s a lot of drama in that next chapter.
Did the U.S. steal states like Texas and California from Mexico?
That’s a question that still sparks debate—and it depends on how you define “steal.”
Texas was originally part of Mexico, but in 1836, American settlers and Tejanos (Mexican Texans) declared independence and formed the Republic of Texas. Mexico didn’t recognize this breakaway republic, but the U.S. eventually annexed Texas in 1845, which helped trigger the Mexican-American War.
After that war, the U.S. invaded deep into Mexican territory and captured Mexico City. The war ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, where Mexico ceded a massive swath of land—including California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and parts of several other states—in exchange for $15 million and the assumption of some Mexican debts.
So yes, the U.S. technically “purchased” the land—but only after defeating Mexico militarily. Many historians and critics argue that the war was provoked by the U.S. under the banner of Manifest Destiny, and that the treaty was signed under duress. Even Ulysses S. Grant, who fought in the war, later called it “one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation”.
So whether you call it conquest, purchase, or theft—it was a turning point that reshaped the continent. Want to dive into how this shaped U.S.-Mexico relations or how people in those regions view that history today? It’s a story with long shadows.
How many nations attacked Mexico when they were fighting for Independence from Spain?
During Mexico’s War of Independence (1810–1821), only one foreign nation—Spain—actively fought against the independence movement. The conflict was primarily between Mexican insurgents and Spanish colonial forces, including loyalist troops from the Viceroyalty of New Spain.
However, the broader context is important: Spain itself was weakened at the time due to Napoleon’s invasion of the Iberian Peninsula in 1808, which sparked a crisis of legitimacy in Spanish colonies. But no other foreign powers directly attacked Mexico during its fight for independence.
How many attacked during a span of a hundred years within their declaration of independence?
In the 100 years following Mexico’s declaration of independence in 1821, the country faced multiple foreign invasions and conflicts, including:
Spain (1829) – Spain attempted to reconquer Mexico just eight years after independence but was repelled.
France (1838–1839) – Known as the Pastry War, France attacked Mexico over unpaid debts and damages claimed by French nationals.
United States (1846–1848) – The Mexican-American War resulted in Mexico losing about half its territory, including what is now California, Texas, and the Southwest.
France again (1861–1867) – During the Second French Intervention, France installed Emperor Maximilian I in Mexico. Mexican republicans, led by Benito Juárez, eventually defeated the French-backed regime.
So, in that century, at least four major foreign military interventions occurred—by Spain, France (twice), and the United States. Each had different motives, but all left deep marks on Mexico’s political and territorial landscape.
Want to explore how Mexico managed to survive all that turbulence—or how these events shaped its national identity? It’s a story of resilience worth diving into.
Would you say the Mexican territories in the southern U.S. were lost to the U.S. because of loss of Spanish military support after Mexico declared independence?
That’s a really thoughtful question—and it gets to the heart of how fragile Mexico’s hold on its northern territories was after independence.
While the loss of Spanish military support certainly weakened Mexico’s ability to defend its vast northern frontier, it wasn’t the sole reason those territories were eventually lost. A few key factors played into it:
Post-independence instability: After gaining independence in 1821, Mexico faced political chaos, economic hardship, and internal divisions. That made it hard to govern or defend remote regions like Texas, California, and New Mexico.
U.S. expansionism: The United States was aggressively pursuing Manifest Destiny, the belief that it was destined to expand across the continent. This ideology fueled territorial ambitions and military action.
Texas Revolution and annexation: Texas broke away from Mexico in 1836 and was annexed by the U.S. in 1845, which Mexico never recognized. That set the stage for war.
Mexican-American War (1846–1848): The war was sparked by border disputes and U.S. ambitions to acquire more territory. Mexico, still recovering from internal strife and lacking strong military infrastructure, was at a disadvantage.
So yes, the absence of Spanish military backing left Mexico more vulnerable—but it was part of a much larger storm of geopolitical, economic, and ideological forces. If you’re curious, we could explore how Native nations navigated this shifting landscape too—they were major players in this story. Want to go there?