by Greg Walcher, E&E Legal Senior Policy Fellow
As appearing in the Daily Sentinel

For generations, playground bullies have repeated the rhyme, “finders keepers, losers weepers,” as justification for theft. It’s a catchy phrase, but it does not vindicate stealing. Adults sometimes put it differently, citing the equally dubious phrase, “possession is nine-tenths of the law.” But it isn’t. The mere fact of possession does not equate to ownership. If it did, there would be no deterrent to common thievery.

Thankfully, there is more to ownership than that, whether the property is a set of marbles on the playground, or a tract of land. A new debate rages among historians about what constitutes land ownership, thanks to blog posts from Sierra Club President Ramon Cruz, and the group’s former executive director, who lost his job over the dispute. They accuse the conservation movement’s greatest hero, and the Sierra Club’s own founder, John Muir (1838-1914), of racism, citing some of his early writings as evidence that he was not especially fond of the Native American tribes he encountered. Cruz wants Muir “cancelled.” The Sierra Club must focus not only on conservation, but on “being a part of a broader movement for social and environmental justice.” Fine. If the Sierra Club no longer wants John Muir as its hero — one of the great founders of the conservation movement — I’ll take him.

I’ve always thought accusing people from the past of racism is a slippery slope, as nearly everybody in the 19th Century shared that character flaw with Muir to some degree. Very few historical figures could pass today’s political correctness test. Cruz wants to reassert tribal ownership of New York, not that any modern people would want such a mess. No, these historical revisionists want the money that would be due, if everyone agreed that their ancestors owned it. But did they?