The History Debate Few Want To Revisit

At the 2026 Grammy Awards in Los Angeles, Billie Eilish accepted Song of the Year and used her moment at the podium to deliver a familiar political refrain. California, she said, is stolen land. No one is illegal on stolen land. The line drew applause. It always does. Slogans are designed for that effect. They compress moral judgment into a sentence short enough to chant, long enough to sound profound, and vague enough to resist scrutiny.

But slogans are not arguments. And when elevated to the status of moral axioms, they often do more damage than their authors intend. “No one is illegal on stolen land” is one such case. It presupposes a simple picture of California’s past, a picture in which a coherent and unified indigenous society peacefully inhabited a defined territory until an external power arrived and stole it. History does not cooperate with that picture. Nor does a serious respect for indigenous peoples as rational political agents.

Begin with a basic question. What would it mean for California to be stolen land? Theft is not merely the fact of loss. It is the wrongful taking of something from a rightful owner. To establish theft, one must identify an owner, a thing owned, and a taking that violates a recognized norm of acquisition or transfer. Each element matters. Remove any one, and the charge collapses into rhetoric.

California before European contact was not a single political entity. It was home to hundreds of distinct tribal societies, often estimated at 500 or more, speaking different languages, organized under different norms, and occupying overlapping or shifting territories. These societies traded with one another, fought with one another, enslaved captives, absorbed defeated groups, and displaced rivals. Territorial control was real, but it was not static. Land changed hands repeatedly through violence, negotiation, and migration. This was not an aberration. It was normal human history.

One might object that this observation trivializes later injustices. It does not. It clarifies them. Recognizing that indigenous societies exercised power, made war, and negotiated boundaries is not an insult. It is the opposite. It treats them as full political actors rather than as passive symbols in a modern morality play.

By the time Spanish missionaries and soldiers established a sustained presence in California in the late 18th century, indigenous California had already been transformed by forces internal to the continent. Disease, resource pressure, and intertribal conflict had reduced populations and altered political structures. Spain claimed California as a colonial possession, governed it for just over half a century, and integrated it into a broader imperial system. When Mexico gained independence, it inherited Spanish sovereignty. California then passed from Mexico to the U.S. in 1848 through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, a treaty negotiated between two recognized states following a declared war, and ratified under the international law of the era.

One can condemn the war. Many did, even at the time. But condemnation does not erase the legal fact of transfer. Mexico ceded California in exchange for $15M and the assumption of $3.25M in debt. That is not theft in any coherent legal sense. It is state succession, a mechanism by which sovereignty has changed hands throughout recorded history.

At this point, critics often shift the argument. The land may have passed legally between colonial powers, they say, but it was never theirs to give. It belonged to the tribes. This objection deserves careful treatment, because it raises the hardest questions.

The U.S. government itself recognized these questions. In the early 1850s, federal negotiators entered into treaties with California tribes, treaties that involved the cession of land in exchange for reservations, goods, livestock, and federal recognition. These agreements were not symbolic gestures. They were attempts, however flawed, to regularize sovereignty through consent rather than extermination. Some treaties were shamefully mishandled, delayed, or ignored by Congress. That failure remains a stain. But the existence of the treaties matters. It shows that tribal leaders were not treated merely as obstacles to be cleared, but as parties capable of bargaining, choosing, and surviving.

To insist that these agreements were meaningless because tribes were too weak to consent is to deny indigenous agency altogether. It implies that native leaders were incapable of understanding tradeoffs, incapable of acting strategically, and incapable of making binding decisions for their people. That view is not morally enlightened. It is condescending.

The moral record of the U.S. in California is mixed and often dark. Violence, displacement, and broken promises occurred. None of that is in dispute. But moral wrongdoing does not automatically negate sovereignty. If it did, nearly every nation on earth would be illegitimate. Borders everywhere are the product of conquest, negotiation, succession, and compromise. To single out California as uniquely stolen is to apply a standard that no historical society could meet.

Nor is this history frozen in the 19th century. Over the 20th century, federal policy shifted toward recognition, restitution, and self-governance. The Rancheria Act of 1958 transferred land titles to thousands of California Indians, converting federal trust lands into property owned by tribes and individuals. These were not gestures of guilt without substance. They were real assets. Many became the foundation for modern tribal enterprises.

Today, dozens of California tribes operate gaming and hospitality businesses, generating billions in annual revenue. These enterprises fund schools, healthcare, housing, and infrastructure. They are expressions of sovereignty, not relics of victimhood. They demonstrate that the relationship between tribes and the U.S. has been dynamic, contested, and evolving, not a single unresolved act of theft.

This brings us back to the slogan. “No one is illegal on stolen land” collapses all of this into a single moral accusation. It erases centuries of indigenous conflict. It ignores treaties, compensation, and legal succession. It treats sovereignty as something that can only be lost, never acquired. And it reduces indigenous peoples to rhetorical props, useful for condemning the present but denied their past complexity.

There is also a deeper incoherence. If California is stolen land in a way that nullifies all subsequent law, then property itself loses meaning. Ownership becomes arbitrary. Borders dissolve. So do contracts. If the original wrong poisons everything that follows, then no later arrangement can ever be legitimate. That conclusion is not radical justice. It is moral nihilism.

The irony is that those who repeat this slogan do not live by it. Billie Eilish, like many wealthy Californians, has sought restraining orders to keep unwanted people off her Malibu property. She asserts exclusive control over land, calls the police to enforce it, and relies on the very legal system whose legitimacy the slogan denies. If no one is illegal on stolen land, on what basis is anyone excluded? What right does she have to draw a boundary and say no farther?

The same question applies to intellectual property. If songs are written on stolen land using stolen resources, what grounds remain for exclusive copyright? Why should anyone be barred from reproducing, selling, or profiting from them? If the past invalidates all present claims, then everything belongs to everyone. Few who chant the slogan are prepared to accept that conclusion.

History is not a morality tale with permanent villains and permanent victims. It is a record of human beings acting under constraint, making choices, committing wrongs, striking bargains, and adapting. California’s history is no exception. Land there has changed hands by spear and treaty, by war and payment, by collapse and consolidation. To call that entire process theft is not clarity. It is theater.

California is not stolen land in any meaningful legal or philosophical sense. Acknowledging past injustices does not require us to deny the legitimacy of the present. And respecting indigenous peoples does not require us to pretend they were something less than fully human political actors. The slogan may be catchy. But it is false. And falsity, even when fashionable, is not justice.

If you enjoy my work, please subscribe https://twitter.com/amuse/creator-subscriptions/subscribe.

Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

READ NEXT: America’s Newest Babies Get A Special 250th Keepsake