In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

• Land Locked
• Steven Stoll (bio)

Allan Greer, Property and Dispossession: Natives, Empires, and Land in Early Modern North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. xvii + 450 pp., maps, illustrations, acknowledgments, index. $99.99. Claudio Saunt, Unworthy Republic: The Dispossession of Native Americans and the Road to Indian Territory. New York: W.W. Norton, 2020. xix + 396 pp. Illustrations, maps, notes, index. $26.95.

In 1689, John Locke published Two Treatises of Government, written during years of political turmoil and revised in exile from persecution. In the Second Treatise, Locke attacks the legitimacy of monarchy and aristocratic power. Lordship rested on wealth derived from control over land, which by the seventeenth century increasingly meant an exclusive right, or ownership. Locke doesn't question the legitimacy of private property; instead, he reconfigures the social process through which property becomes private, eliminating aristocratic inheritance in favor of natural rights. Scholars have parsed "Of Property" for Locke's view of enclosure and the connective tissue between liberalism and capitalism. But in his most crucial pivot, he turns away from England altogether, seeing it as fatally corrupt. Locke projected his experiment in political genesis onto the North American colonies. A new order required the New World.

But North America posed a similar problem. A long-established society possessed the land essential to the economic and ecological foundation of liberalism. These inhabitants weren't English or Christian, and they didn't live within a nation-state or government that Locke recognized. (Thomas Hobbes agreed, writing "For the savage people in places in America … have no government at all.")¹ All of which emboldened Locke to undermine them as owners with a series of reasons and excuses for why colonizers could enclose land at will. Sounding just like the English aristocracy, he said what lies in common lies in waste. In this view, anyone who removes land from eternal stagnation creates value for all humankind and thereby generates a right to property.

Locke didn't invent the English fantasy of an uncultivated continent. Jonathan Winthrop put to parchment the same idea—in nearly in the same words—in 1628. The Puritan attorney and founder of Boston concluded that [End Page 205] Indigenous people "inclose no land neither have [they] any settled habitation … and so have no other but a natural right to those countries."² Events on the ground looked like nothing Locke described. Winthrop either didn't know or didn't care that Nipmucs and Nausets cultivated domesticated plants in sturdy villages. And rather than float in an imaginary State of Nature, Winthrop established the Bay Colony as a quasi-state, inserting segments of England's legal DNA almost immediately. An administrative structure for creating property, along with the military power to enforce those claims, began to forge what Allan Greer calls "English-owned and English-ruled space" (p. 202). Locke haunts our understanding of European colonization not because anything he wrote had any influence on colonizers, but because the way he naturalized enclosure and blended it with an implicit claim to European supremacy reflected the actions and beliefs of Europeans and white Americans in the ensuing centuries.

Two new books broaden and deepen the way we should think about the motives of the colonizers, the Indigenous response, and how the drive to dispossess continued into the nineteenth-century United States, including the exile of the Cherokees, Creeks, Choctaws, Chickasaws, and Seminoles from their homelands. Allan Greer's Property and Dispossession and Claudio Saunt's Unworthy Republic offer new sources and evidence, synthesize previous scholarship, and render stories we thought we understood with admirable texture and complexity.

________

Greer presents a comprehensive narrative and analysis of the confluence and conflict between Indigenous and European conceptions of property. One of his most important arguments is that even historians tend to overstate the differences between Indigenous and European landholding. Native American systems were not simple or static, writes Greer, nor can they be understood merely as opposed to everything European, calling this "utterly wrong-headed" (p. 29). We never doubt that colonization in Central Mexico, New England, and Quebec followed distinct legal foundations, cultural traditions, and environmental conditions, but we sometimes fail to apply the same assumptions to...

中文翻译：

---

土地锁定

代替摘要，这里是内容的简短摘录：

• 土地锁定
• 史蒂文·斯托尔（生物）

Allan Greer，财产和剥夺：早期现代北美的土著人、帝国和土地。剑桥：剑桥大学出版社，2018 年。xvii + 450 页，地图、插图、致谢、索引。99.99 美元。克劳迪奥·桑特，《卑鄙的共和国：对美洲原住民的剥夺和通往印第安领土的道路》。纽约：WW Norton，2020 年。xix + 396 页。插图、地图、注释、索引。26.95 美元。

1689 年，约翰·洛克出版了两本政府论，写于多年的政治动荡，并在因迫害而流放时修订。在第二篇论文中，洛克攻击君主制和贵族权力的合法性。主权依赖于从对土地的控制中获得的财富，到了 17 世纪，这越来越意味着一种专有权或所有权。洛克不质疑私有财产的合法性；相反，他重新配置了财产成为私有的社会过程，消除了有利于自然权利的贵族继承。学者们已经为洛克关于自由主义和资本主义之间的圈地和结缔组织的观点解析了“财产”。但在他最关键的转折点上，他完全背离了英格兰，认为它是致命的腐败。洛克将他的政治起源实验投射到北美殖民地。新秩序需要新世界。

但北美也存在类似的问题。一个历史悠久的社会拥有对自由主义的经济和生态基础至关重要的土地。这些居民不是英国人或基督徒，他们也没有生活在洛克承认的民族国家或政府中。（托马斯霍布斯同意，写道“对于美国某些地方的野蛮人......根本没有政府。”）¹所有这些都使洛克有胆量破坏他们作为所有者的一系列理由和借口来解释为什么殖民者可以随意圈出土地. 听起来就像英国贵族一样，他说共同点在于浪费。在这种观点下，任何使土地摆脱永恒停滞的人都会为全人类创造价值，从而产生财产权。

洛克没有发明关于未开垦大陆的英国幻想。乔纳森·温思罗普 (Jonathan Winthrop) 于 1628 年将同样的想法——几乎用同样的话——写在了羊皮纸上。这位清教徒律师和波士顿的创始人得出结论，[结束第 205 页]土著人民“没有土地，也没有 [他们] 任何定居的住所……等等除了对这些国家的自然权利外，别无其他。” ²地面上的事件与洛克所描述的完全不同。Winthrop 要么不知道，要么不在乎 Nipmucs 和 Nausets 在坚固的村庄里种植驯化植物。温思罗普并没有漂浮在想象的自然状态中，而是将海湾殖民地建立为准国家，几乎立即插入了英格兰的合法 DNA 片段。用于创造财产的行政结构以及执行这些要求的军事权力开始形成艾伦·格里尔所说的“英国拥有和英国统治的空间”（第 202 页）。洛克困扰着我们对欧洲殖民的理解，并不是因为他写的任何东西对殖民者有任何影响，

两本新书拓宽并深化了我们思考殖民者动机、土著反应以及剥夺财产的动力如何持续到 19 世纪美国的方式，包括切罗基人、克里克人、乔克托人、奇克索人的流放，和来自他们家乡的塞米诺尔人。Allan Greer 的Property and Dispossession和 Claudio Saunt 的Unworthy Republic提供了新的来源和证据，综合了以前的学术成果，并以令人钦佩的质地和复杂性呈现了我们认为我们理解的故事。

________

格里尔对土著和欧洲财产概念之间的融合和冲突进行了全面的叙述和分析。他最重要的论点之一是，即使是历史学家也倾向于夸大土著和欧洲土地所有权之间的差异。格里尔写道，美洲原住民系统既不是简单的也不是静态的，也不能仅仅将它们理解为与欧洲的一切相反，称之为“完全错误的头脑”（第 29 页）。我们从不怀疑墨西哥中部、新英格兰和魁北克的殖民遵循不同的法律基础、文化传统和环境条件，但有时我们无法将相同的假设应用于……