> On what are you basing this assertion? According to the Online
> Etymology
> Dictionary [ http://www.etymonline.com/p10etym.htm ]
>
> "property - c.1300, "nature, quality," later "possession," from
> O.Fr.
> propreté, from L. proprietatem (nom. proprietas) "special character,"
> from proprius "one's own, special" (see proper)."
>
> To me the broad meaning appears to have changed little in 700 years.
Maybe not the broad meaning, but details are important, particularly the question of what rights a property owner can claim. In a capitalist society, property in land means an almost absolute rigtuneht to use the land in any way the owner pleases. When the commons were enclosed in England, the tenants were kicked off and had to work in factories, etc., while the new owners could raise sheep, etc., and make fortunes off the land. Is this the kind of property the "upper-class" Australian Aborigines had?
> Bennelong is famous as a senior man (and friend of the settlers) in
> the area
> that is now central Sydney --- that is the point, that "class" and
> "property" go hand in hand.
But what sort of "class" are we talking about here? "Class" is also an ambiguous term.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ When I was a little boy, I had but a little wit, 'Tis a long time ago, and I have no more yet; Nor ever ever shall, until that I die, For the longer I live the more fool am I. -- Wit and Mirth, an Antidote against Melancholy (1684)