A few news cycles ago, the “great replacement theory” was much bandied about. At bottom, proponents of the theory urge that there’s a conspiracy among left-leaning progressives to “replace” the descendants of European-Americans with non-European immigrants who will supposedly become reliable Democratic voters. Opponents of this position argue that it is nonsense—the true driver of immigration has always been the capitalist appetite for cheap, non-unionized labor. I don’t propose to wade into this causal swamp; rather, I want us to think about the historical fact of conquest and immigration and what this has meant for social constructs and institutions, especially the law. Language and literature will be our guides.

Our species, homo sapiens, is itself a “great replacer,” having pushed aside other early humans (like Neanderthals) a few tens of thousands of years ago. That process has continued unabated ever since, even though the evidence of subsequent displacements is often reduced to mere traces. Take, for example, the notion that the American legal system was founded on English common law, which is certainly true enough, given the reference in the Seventh Amendment. But is “English” a static and monolithic concept?