Colonisation was rarely presented as simple theft. Those taking control of inhabited land usually created a moral, religious or legal justification that portrayed conquest as lawful, necessary or even virtuous.
The words changed across different countries and centuries, but the underlying claim remained remarkably similar: the people already living on the land were treated as though their rights mattered less than the ambitions of a king, an empire, a settler movement or a state.
The speech bubbles in this image are historical paraphrases rather than direct quotations. They summarise some of the arguments used to legitimise taking land from Indigenous populations.
English Colonies: “The King Granted Us This Land”
English colonisation of North America accelerated during the 17th century, with Jamestown established in 1607 and Puritan settlements spreading through New England from the 1620s.
Royal charters issued by the English Crown gave companies and settlers permission to occupy and govern vast territories. Those documents were treated as legitimate grants even though the land was already inhabited and controlled by Indigenous nations.
The Library of Congress describes European colonisation of North America as an invasion of territory that Native Americans had controlled and inhabited for centuries. By the end of the 17th century, approximately 250,000 Europeans were living in the territory that would later become the United States.
The claim that “the King granted us this land” exposes the central contradiction. The Crown behaved as though it possessed the authority to distribute territory belonging to people who had never surrendered their sovereignty to England.
British Colonial Africa: The “Civilising Mission”
During the 19th century, British imperial expansion across Africa was frequently defended through the language of civilisation, Christianity, progress and development.
Colonial advocates claimed European rule would bring education, infrastructure, commerce and orderly government. This so-called civilising mission provided a moral cover for military conquest, political domination, resource extraction and the displacement of African communities.
Cecil Rhodes became one of the most recognisable figures associated with British imperial expansion in southern Africa. His ambitions helped extend British control while advancing commercial interests and a system built around white colonial authority.
Britain acquired the Cape Colony in the early 19th century, while the wider European partition of Africa accelerated dramatically during the late 1800s. Between 1870 and 1914, European control expanded from roughly one-tenth of Africa to approximately nine-tenths of the continent.
“We bring civilisation” was therefore not a neutral promise. It was an assertion that European powers had the right to rule other populations because they considered their own society superior.
Australia: Declaring an Inhabited Land Empty
Lieutenant James Cook claimed Australia’s eastern coast for the British Crown in 1770 and named it New South Wales. Eighteen years later, the First Fleet arrived and established the British penal colony that began permanent British colonisation.
The National Museum of Australia confirms that Cook’s claim occurred in 1770 and that the First Fleet established the colony in 1788. Both events occurred during the 18th century.
British colonisation proceeded on the false premise later described as terra nullius—land belonging to no one. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples had already occupied, cared for and maintained deep cultural relationships with the continent for tens of thousands of years.
Calling the land empty did not describe reality. It created a legal fiction that allowed Britain to dismiss existing ownership, laws and sovereignty while taking control without negotiating a treaty covering the continent.
The speech bubble—“This land belongs to no one, so Britain can claim it”—captures the brutal logic behind that fiction.
Israel: “God Promised This Land to Us”
The modern State of Israel was established in 1948. Israel subsequently occupied the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza during the 1967 war, with settlement construction in occupied territory beginning soon afterwards.
Religious-nationalist arguments have frequently invoked biblical history and divine promise to justify Jewish sovereignty and Israeli settlement across land also inhabited and claimed by Palestinians.
The United Nations Security Council has reaffirmed that Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, have no legal validity under international law.
The statement “God promised this land to us” is not presented as a direct quotation from Benjamin Netanyahu. It summarises a religious justification used by parts of the Israeli settler movement and political right.
A claimed divine promise cannot erase the existence, homes or political rights of the people already living there.
Different Justifications, the Same Result
A royal charter, a civilising mission, terra nullius and a biblical promise may sound very different. Yet each was used to elevate the coloniser’s claimed authority above the rights of the original population.
That is the message connecting the four scenes. Colonisation rarely announces itself by saying, “We want your land.” Instead, it creates an excuse that makes dispossession appear lawful, moral or inevitable.
Different flags carried those claims. Different leaders promoted them. Different institutions enforced them. But for the people pushed aside, the result was painfully familiar.
The language may change with time, but changing the language does not change what happened—or what continues to happen.
The land already had people, identity, culture and history. It did not become meaningful only when a colonising power decided to claim it.