literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org

Sitaram · Site Admin Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 1079

Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 9:43 am
Subject: The Concept of Private Property

Sitaram is grateful to Odysseus for asking an important question,
namely:

"What is the philosophy behind accepting a reference point to the
claim of land and property ? I mean, once upon a time red indians
owned america. but today, they can not claim they
want to take the country over and drive away whoever they want to In
light of Palestine, Kashmir etc problems, what do we accept as a
reference point, what is the philosophy behind it?"

I do hope that my initial reply to his post held some interest. I
have continued to think upon this good question. Below, you will
find an excellent article on Native American Property Rights.

As a child, I had a lunch box which displayed a drawing of Davy
Crockett confronting an angry and savage looking Native American.
The drawing obviously suggests that Davy Crockett is the "good guy"
while the Native American is evil, wicked, "the bad guy". As an
adult, I looked one day at that lunch box (which I still have), and
realized that it was DAVY CROCKETTE who was the bad guy, and the poor
Native American was simply trying to defend his home and family.

=======================
http://www.wvculture.org/history/indland.html

Native American Concept of Land
A major factor in the treaty disputes was Native Americans' concept
of land. Indians fought among themselves over hunting rights to the
territory but the Native American idea of "right" to the land was
very different from the legalistic and individual nature of European
ownership. John Alexander Williams describes this in his book, West
Virginia: A History for Beginners:

The Indians had no concept of "private property," as applied to the
land. Only among the Delawares was it customary for families, during
certain times of the year, to be assigned specific hunting
territories. Apparently this was an unusual practice, not found among
other Indians. Certainly, the idea of an individual having exclusive
use of a particular piece of land was completely strange to Native
Americans.

The Indians practiced communal land ownership. That is, the entire
community owned the land upon which it lived. . . .1

http://www.daniland.com/writing/nativeamericans.html

THE CONCEPT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY AMONG NOMADIC PEOPLES

The "Threat" of Wanderers

Firstly, nomadic or pastoral peoples were a threat to growing
capitalist entities such as monarchists, the Church, and later,
centralized government. A nomadic people is one that is hard to tax
and control. They have a tendency to hold little regard for the
concept of private property. Property was becoming increasingly
important to the new capitalist societies in Europe.

While most Europeans thought the Romani were from Egypt (hence the
given name "Gypsy"), these people actually have Indian roots. It is
unclear why the Roma people left India and began roaming Asia and
Europe. What is clear is that the nomadic nature of these people left
them open to exploitation at the hands of the Catholic Church, who
saw them as a threat. It has been speculated that the Romani left
India because of an ideological split in religion. It may be that
they left India when overwhelmingly patriarchal influences took over
the Hindu religion. When they reached Europe around 1200, it did not
take long for the Church (and therefore government) to take offense
of their presence. Some of the first written history of Roma in
Europe are bills of sale for their bodies. By the 1400's, those in
power made it the law throughout Europe that Gypsies were either
slaves or dead. The groups to own the most Romani slaves were
monasteries and abbeys. Not only did this group exploit the Roma
people as labor, these "men and women of God" profited greatly from
their sale. To this day, there still exist posters that advertise
slave auctions taking place inside monastery walls as late as 1852.
Gypsies in Europe were seen as "debased creatures, inferior even to
the animals" by at least one observer, Wickenhauer, whose rationale
for such a statement was that if they had any redeeming qualities at
all, Gypsies would not have been slaves.

The Church started making Gypsies official enemies of the Church-
State early on. The Church started the first laws against vagrancy in
Europe to help the Inquisition haul off Romani and especially their
property. In 1500, the Diet of Augsburg ruled that Christians could
kill Gypsies without penalty, but a Gypsy injured by a Christian had
no legal redress. Stories started spreading about the Gypsies helping
crucify Christ. Since the Romani were famous for their smithing, it
was said that the Gypsies smiths forged the nails for Christ's
execution. Gypsies countered this myth with one of their own. They
claimed to have stolen one of the four nails meant for Jesus, but
failed to steal the other three. For this, Jesus gave them the sacred
right to steal.

Gypsies have existed as an oppressed people for a variety of reasons.
They arrived in Europe as a scattered nation of people united by
language, culture, religion, and origin, but at the same time lacking
any means that European power respected. Gypsies had no political or
military strength; no geographical territory with which they could
identify in this emerging capitalist economy where land was
everything.

=======

(Sitaram continues:) We see from the above URL excerpt that Native
North Americans had a very different concept of private property
from the European settlers.

I am also reminded of a VERY important chapter in American history
regarding the SHAKERS, who lived communally, sharing all in common.
Few people realize how greatly the success of the Shaker communes
impressed Karl Marx and Engels. When Marx was on his death-bed,
Engels wrote him a final letter in which he said (amoung other
things), "do not loose heart, but remember the Shakers!).

Thomas Merton wrote a book entitled "The Sign of Jonas" (title taken
from a quote of Jesus in the New Testament) Luke 11:29-30 "And when
the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an
evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given
it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.

Sign of Jonas by Authors: Thomas Merton Released: October, 1979 ISBN:
0156825295

I believe that it is in that Book of Merton that I was struck by an
observation about Abraham and Lot. Merton was trying to make the
simple, obvious point that POSSESSIONS and PROPERTY are spiritual
roadblocks and impediments. Merton pointed to the example of Abraham
and Lot, who had both acquired so many flocks and servants that they
were clashing with each other, getting in one another's way.

So Abraham suggested to Lot that they each choose a different
direction and migrate in that direction, so putting a distance
between themselves, so that the conflicts might end. Lot, of
course, as we know, chose the direction of Sodom.

http://www.ubdavid.org/knowbiblefolder/knowbiblepages/pkbkaa02.html

Each day the servants of Abraham and the servants of Lot took their
flocks of sheep out to find grass. And then trouble began. For both
Lot's servants and Abraham's servants tried to get the place where
the best grass grew for their sheep. Both Lot's servants and
Abraham's servants wanted to be first at the wells where they got
water for their sheep.

"We were here first," Lot's servants would cry angrily. "Our master
is greater than yours, so we have a right to the place," Abraham's
servants would answer.

And so the servants quarreled among themselves. They could not work
together happily at all.

One day Abraham was out walking. He heard the loud and angry voices.
He listened. He could hear the servants quarreling. And Abraham was
sorry. He did not want his servants and Lot's servants to fight among
themselves.

Abraham went to find Lot. He took him up on a hill where they could
see all the land around them.

Then Abraham said to Lot: "There must be no quarreling between you
and me, and between your servants and my servants. Do you see the
whole land here before us? There is room for all of us to live and
work without quarreling. There is grass for your sheep and mine.
There is water for all.

"So now," said Abraham, "we must make a plan so our servants will not
quarrel. You can choose whatever part of the land you like for your
servants and for your sheep. And I will take what is left. Take
whichever part you like."

Lot stood by Abraham and looked at all the country before them . Then
he said, " I will go to the east." So Lot took his tents and gathered
together his flocks and herds and moved to the east.

Abraham was happy because he had put an end to the quarreling. And
God was pleased with Abraham, too. One day after Lot had left him,
God spoke to Abraham and said," Lift up your eyes and look. As far as
you can see, north and south and east and west, I will give the land
to you and to your people forever."

"Blessed are the peacemakers" Matthew 5:9

http://www.churchisraelforum.com/in_the_shadow_of_abrahams_tent.htm

Lot must have been delighted to be free of those difficult mountains
of the high country. He would no longer have to endure that bone-
chilling wind, and the winter rain and snow of the highlands. He
could now be free of Abraham and his many religious scruples. All
seemed rosy indeed. Lot chose what seemed to be the bright and easy
road, but unknown to him, a cloudy future lay just ahead. The Bible
tells us that "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the
end it leads to death" (Prov. 14:12). Jesus also speaks to us of a
narrow way that leads to life, and a broad, easy, and popular way
which that leads to destruction (Matt. 7:13). The broad, easy road
usually places us directly in the path of this world's principalities
and powers.

Lot had no sooner settled himself in the lush pastureland of the
Jordan Valley when he was attacked and carried away captive by the
kings of Babylonia (Gen. 14:1-24). In scripture, Babylon has always
represented captivity that comes to those who are willing to forsake
the heritage of God. Many millions have been carried to 'Babylon'
today. It seems there are a thousand ways to go there. One can go
through the allurements of the media, the lure of drugs or alcohol,
or by just by the life of ease and plenty. Had it not been for the
heroic faith of Abraham, and his miraculous rescue of Lot (Gen.14:1-
16), the latter would have surely died as a captive in Babylon.
Surely by now, the old tent didn't seem so bad to Lot. In the shadow
of Abraham's tent there was always that blessed security. One could
occasionally even greet heavenly visitors from the tent door. Now
that Lot was shut up within the city walls, he was vexed and
smothered by the unrighteousness all around him (2 Pet. 2:7). Once
again Lot would have to be rescued by Abraham's faithful intercession
(Gen. 18:22-33).

Like many today, Lot exchanged blessing for cursing. Sometimes that
exchange is at first almost imperceptible. However, when Lot lived in
the shadow of Abraham's tent there were plenty of flocks, herds,
servants, and wealth. When he was later dragged out of Sodom by
angelic rescuers, there were no flocks, no herds, no servants, and
apparently no wealth. There was only a skeptical wife and two
daughters, and what appears to be a gnawing fear of the future within
Lot (Gen. 19:19). Not even the sons-in-law were willing to follow the
old man. Lot plainly had become a "has been." He had lost almost all
that he had acquired when he once followed God more closely.

http://www.uppostle.org/letgod.htm

================

http://www.co-freedom.com/ari/ilib/natives.html

Native American Property Rights
by Ari Armstrong

I wrote this paper in college. While it certainly is not of scholarly
quality, it is I think a reasonable review of some portion of the
literature.

There seems to be two common views on how Native Americans were
treated by the Europeans. One view, the "Romantic" view, goes
something like this: the Indians were a noble race who, despite an
occasional dispute, lived in peace and harmony in communal villages,
untainted by the evils of private property and capitalistic greed.
This notion is preserved often in the environmental movement, often
with a strong religious emphasis. Gore('s aids, working with taxpayer
money), tells us that a "panreligious perspective may prove
especially important where our global civilization's responsibility
for the earth is concerned. Native American religions, for instance,
offer a rich tapestry of ideas about our relationship to the
earth."(1) Gore does quote Chief Seattle, who said in 1855, "Every
part of this earth is sacred to my people,"(2) but this sentiment can
not be said to be representative of the Native American mentality
(and I would even say that it is the exception).

The second common view is that the Indians were a barbarous people
who killed each other and Europeans at whim, that they had no concept
of property and no respect for property, and that Europeans had every
right to take the land, as no one else was using it properly. The
Indians, "for want of improving it [their fruitful soil] by labor
have not one-hundredth part of the conveniences we enjoy,"(3) and
many have taken this to imply some "white right" to improve the
American soil regardless of Indian claims. We ought to have discarded
these common views into the Popular Mythology dump long ago.

So let us begin again, and this time develop a view closer to the
truth. I begin with the Native Americans. It is true that, quite
often, the Native Americans were a warring, robbing, and cruel
people. For instance, "The [post-European invasion] horse tribes were
most noted for their superiority in war. War, in fact, was a way of
life, and it is no exaggeration to describe these Indians as
perpetually involved in fighting one another."(4) The Algonkian
Native Americans who inhabited the area around Jamestown, led by
Powhatan, filled John Smith's hapless companions with arrows before
forcibly introducing John Smith to Powhatan and Pocahontas. Later,
after John Smith had established Native American-European colonist
trading relations, Powhatan resorted to simply stealing swords from
the English after Smith refused to trade the swords.(5)

But we cannot conclude that the Native Americans were a strictly
barbarous people (one might think modern Los Angeles is at least as
barbarous, given the headlines of only a few newspapers). The Native
Americans were, more often, concerned with maintaining a peaceful and
productive life. In fact, contrary to environmental Native American
mythology, the Native Americans were quite impressed with the
products of European civilization and eager to pursue good relations
with the Europeans. The following is a 1609 address from Powhatan to
John Smith, which urges the whites to cease hostilities, and praises
the virtues of free trade and even technology:

Why should you take by force that from us which you can have by love?
Why should you destroy us, who have provided you with food? What can
you get by war? We can hide our provisions in the woods; and then you
must consequently famish by wrongdoing your friends. What is the
cause of your jealousy? You see us unarmed, and willing to supply
your wants, if you will come in a friendly manner, and not with
swords and guns, as to invade an enemy. I am not so simple, as not to
know it is better to eat good meat, lie well, and sleep quietly with
my women and children; to laugh and be merry with the English; and,
being their friend, to have copper, hatchets, and whatever else I
want, than to fly from all, to lie cold in the woods, feed upon
acorns, roots, and such trash, and to be so hunted, that I cannot
rest, eat, or sleep.(6)

(Note: I am dealing with a vast historical era, and the Indian
peoples are anything but homogeneous. But it is simply impossible,
given space and my limited knowledge, to give a full treatment of all
the distinct Native American tribes and sub-tribes, in all the
different time periods. Such a venture would take many years and many
volumes. I can only draw what seem to me to be the best and most
accurate generalizations about the Native Americans. But history of
necessity deals with generalizations, and it is always wise to
remember that an exception can be found to nearly every
generalization. I warn the reader that that is especially true when
discussing Native Americans as a whole.)

So, from the beginning, the Native Americans were concerned with
improving the material well-being of their lives. Not surprisingly,
then, they recognized, at least implicitly, that some form of private
property is needed in order to preserve their material well-
being. "Private property rights in such items as cooking and eating
utensils, weapons, and jewelry were respected among the Native
Americans."(7) Even before the white man came, "The Native Americans
were experienced barterers, knew something of values and markups, and
were prepared to pay for what they wanted."(8)

It is simply inaccurate, then, to claim that the Native Americans had
no use for private property. But we usually think of property in
terms of land. Did the Native Americans have any notions of land
property? If they didn't, then perhaps the white man did not "steal"
the land at all; perhaps it was simply up for grabs. Hagan
writes, "Private property in land, as we understand the concept, was
not known."(9) However, he continues, certain ground was considered
the property a particular family or tribal group. So, while Native
American land property was not organized "as we understand the
concept," it was organized in some way. The main difference between
European land property and Native American land property is that the
European system divided land among particular individuals, while in
Native American culture land was the property of some community of
people.

But perhaps this is not so foreign a notion to us as some might let
on. After all, as Jennifer Roback points out, communal property is
still an important part of our culture today, both in households and
in corporations.(10) Powhatan's "empire" was run by him and his sons,
and John Smith became an adopted son for purposes of trading.(11)
Actually, the early white communities in America operated according
to communal property along with their Native American counterparts.
When I hear talk that Native Americans held no rights of land
property, I must only conclude that a) the statement is made without
knowledge of Native American culture, or b) the statement is intended
to rationalize white appropriation.

Is it so surprising that land was not divided among individuals but
only groups? Roback also points out that the types of economic
activities the Native Americans most often engaged in - such as
agriculture, hunting, and fishing - was done efficiently in groups,
(12) given the (low) level of technology available. If there is no
need for land to be subdivided among individuals, why must "property"
be defined strictly in terms of particular individuals? "Demsetz has
shown that property rights are in fact established if and only if the
benefits of doing so outweigh the costs."(13) Extending this
analysis, property rights also evolve according to costs and benefits.

We might predict that, as land becomes more highly demanded and thus
more valuable, land property will develop with greater complexity.
This indeed happened among the Native Americans; after the Europeans
moved in, land did indeed become subdivided among individual Native
Americans in many instances, and Native Americans became much more
aware of land as a good. "We know our lands are now more valuable,"
says Canasseteego on behalf of the Six Nations, 1742, pointing out
the development in land rights that had taken place.(14)
Native Americans even became involved in the white court systems in
order to protect their private land property. In New England in the
17th century, "court records show Native Americans appearing as both
plaintiffs and defendants in suits over land," even though "in pre-
European times there was probably nothing like a market for land of
the modern sort or even a market of the much more restricted sort
known in seventeenth-century England."(15) Necessity is the mother of
invention - and this rule applies to the development of land property
rights as much as anything.

Private property developed most among the "Five Civilized Tribes" of
the south: "the Cherokees, Chicksaw, Choctaws, Creek, and Seminoles
were settled agricultural people." These Native Americans had adopted
European technology and had developed their own agricultural
communities based on private land ownership.(16)

By the time of Andrew Jackson, the southern Native Americans had so
far advanced in learning and culture as to establish themselves
permanently on the soil, build homes and farms, cultivate the land,
raise herds and varied crops.... They laid out roads, built mills,
engaged in commerce, and sent their children to schools conducted by
missionaries....(17)

One might think that the white settlers would have respected
especially these people as equals, but unfortunately such was far
from the truth.

Let us now examine the actions of the white settlers. Quite often,
the Europeans were a warring, robbing, and cruel people. During the
early years of European settlement, often the white man engaged in
peaceful trade, including the trading of goods for land, with the
Native American. But this peaceful coexistence was short lived.
Unfortunately, it was the white man who was guilty of the greater
hostilities. Some Native Americans attacked and killed the white man -
usually in small groups of brash young soldiers. More Native
Americans saw the benefits that resulted from interacting with the
white man. But the Europeans were guilty of a massive invasion upon
Native American land - robbery for the white man became the dominant
method of dealing with the Native American.

Canassateego,1742: [W]e are not well used with respect to the lands
still unsold by us. Your people daily settle on these lands, and
spoil our hunting. We must insist on your removing them, as you know
they have no right to settle to the northward of Kittochtinny Hills.
(18)

(Unknown:) I like the place very well, but now since the white man
come I cannot go anywhere onless they steal my belongs. - I aint
tired of my ranch or the work I do, if only there was no white man to
bother me.(19)

Black Kettle, October 12, 1865: ...I once thought that I was the only
man that persevered to be the friend of the white man, but since they
have come and cleaned out (robbed) our lodges, horses, and everything
else, it is hard for me to believe white men any more.... Little
Raven: There is something very strong for us - that fool band of
soldiers that cleared out our lodges, and killed our women and
children.(20)

James Mooney, 1839, at The Trail of Tears: Families at dinner were
startled by the sudden gleam of bayonets in the doorway and rose up
to be driven with blows and oaths along the weary miles of trail that
led to the stockade. Men were seized in their fields or going along
the road, women were taken from their wheels and children from their
play. In many cases, on turning for one last look as they crossed the
ridge, they saw their homes in flames, fired by the lawless rabble
that followed on the heels of the soldiers to loot and pillage. So
keen were these outlaws that on the scent that in some instances they
were driving off the cattle and other stock of the Native Americans
almost before the soldiers had fairly started their owners in the
other direction.(21)

Peter Iverson: In the late-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
white ranchers played a central role in dispossessing Native
Americans of much of their tribal estate. They argued successfully
that Native Americans had more land than they needed and that the
were not using their lands to full advantage.(22)

Need I say more?

I will add a few analytical points, though. First, why were the
settlers able to take the land so readily, when the government had
signed treaties protecting the land? Roback holds an interesting
thesis which seems to me to explain the circumstances quite well:
white squatting became a problem too large to solve because the
government - first the English government and then the United
States' - relegated to itself monopoly power in purchasing Native
American land. This policy kept potential white land owners from
bartering directly with the Native Americans, and therefore also
weakened the Native Americans' ability to sell their land. The
government signed treaties with the Native Americans, but destroyed
the mechanism by which white settlers and Native Americans could have
actually gotten along - the (land) market. I add a point to Roback's
analysis: by preventing the white settlers from negotiating with the
Native Americans, the government hindered the natural development of
Native American property rights - which would have otherwise tended
towards a more individualistic system (as individuals can more easily
sell land).

The government destroyed the Native American's ability to control
their land in other ways, too, through other regulations. Perhaps the
most destructive force the Europeans brought with them to the
Americas was unnecessary legality. The notion that the Americas was
legally the British Empire's to dispose of led to illegitimate white
claims of Native American land.(23) In the 1800's, "Native Americans
were prohibited from testifying in court cases involving whites,"
which would obviously hurt one's ability to protect one's land.
Further, a "state law prohibiting a Cherokee from employing a white
was used as a pretext for seizing plantations, which then were
disposed of to whites by lottery."(24) Homesteading fees were
mandated, which many Native Americans could not afford.(25) The Dawes
Act, ostensibly passed to help the Native American, succeeded only in
upsetting the system of land property that existed by Native American
tradition and creating a dysfunctional, bureaucratized system of land
holdings.(26)

The net result of the government's policy was only to help settlers
steal Native American land. Is it any wonder that the Native
Americans became hostile? Following the squatter invasion, "the
bright flames of war were flickering up and down the plains,"(27) and
around a great many other Native American habitations. Perhaps von
Mises spoke rightly when he said, It is not capitalism that produces
[conflicts], but precisely the anticapitalistic policies designed to
check the functioning of capitalism. [Conflicts] are an outgrowth of
the various governments' interference with business, of trade and
migration barriers and discrimination against foreign labor, foreign
products, and foreign capital.(28)

I wish only to add a brief critique of the current reservation
system. While the reservations are relieved from the burdens of
taxation,(29) they are weighted down by a "stifling bureaucracy that
spans federal and tribal governments."(30) James Cook puts it
poignantly: "Fundamentally, then, the reservation economy is a
welfare state economy, both federal and tribal, and its becoming more
so all the time. A pocket of socialism in a capitalistic society, and
no very good argument for socialism at that."(31) The government
destroyed the Native Americans' autonomous right over their own
property, destroying their livelihood in the process, and then added
insult to injury by turning the Native Americans into a clan
dependent upon Uncle Sam. Is it any wonder that the tribal leadership
turns to statist methods for dealing with problems, when the tribe
has been legally subject to the greater state of our federal
government for decade upon decade?

Get your own free IRC Chat room