.. Yes. By Locke's definition, you can say... So maybe by Locke's definition, the Native Americans could have claimed a property right in the land itself.

是的，按照洛克的定义，你可以说。,也许按照洛克的定义，印第安人可以宣称拥有对该土地的财产权。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

The settlers were enclosing land and engaged in wars with the Native Americans.

殖民者在圈地，并挑起了与印第安人的战争。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

Well, the Native Americans, as hunter-gatherers, didn't actually enclose land.

印第安人，作为采猎者，事实上是没有圈地。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

Because if you are right that this would justify the taking of land in North America from Native Americans who didn't enclose it, if it's a good argument, then Locke's given us a justification for that.

因为如果你是对的,洛克此举将正义化从印第安人手中占领,他们尚未圈定的土地这一行为，如果他的观点是正确的，那么洛克给出了占领土地的正当理由。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选