I always hear that about Indians not having private property. I suspect if you walked up and tried to take their horses, or put up a tent 200 years away from their camp, they would quickly inform you that the horses and that site belonged to them.
I think that no private property thing because of modern leftist construction. They understood private property quite well, they just didn’t respect it.
I've always understood the basic position to be that if an Indian could steal some horses, say, then they were his private property as long as he could keep someone else from stealing them. He might give some of the horses away, but they were his to give.
> They understood private property quite well, they
> just didn’t respect it.
+1