> > Just like
> > receiving stolen property today, it can be hard to
> > prove in some cases but even if someone takes
> > possession unknowingly they still lose possession
> > once the crime is acknowledged. [JT]
>
> My point about the right wing property thesis
> underlyingyour argument still stands.
>
> Your proposition that you losde possession once "the
> crime is acknowledged" is not geberally correct as a
> matter of law. At least in sales of personal property
> a purchaser in good faith retais title. I know yoy
> think there aren't any such, but you'd have to show,
> as a martter of law, depending on the state, and I
> don't know if this applies to real estate purchases,
> but I bet it does, that the buyer had specific
> knowlede that his purchase was tainted. And within in
> a certain time period (which we are well out of for
> any UCC sales of goods purposes.) It wouldn't do even
> do to show that the buyer had general knowledge that
> property like his was stolen.
No it does not apply to real estate but it applies to other property. Recently a man recovered a car stolen almost 35 years ago. He never filed an insurance claim so he was given possession of the car. The last owner, who bought in good faith, was SOL. He lost possession of the vehicle and received nothing. This is rare because most people file a claim for such items and are compensated for their loss but if the original owner never receive compensation they get their property back regardless of the good faith of the last purchaser of the item. This has happened with paintings and other goods recently as well with some of the items having been stolen in the 1930's. Whether they are charged with receiving stolen property is determined by their good faith. Conveniently this does not hold true for real estate? I wonder why?
> Moreover, there is the law of adverse possession,
> which does apply to realty, and says roughly,
> depending on state, taht if you occupy someone'
> property openly an notoriously without their
> permission and without their taking specific steps to
> evict you, after a certain period, usually seven to
> ten years, it's yours.
>
> I'm not talking ethivs here, obviously, but you raised
> the legal issues,
A legal convenience that originated to allowed settlers to legally steal land. In other words, the exceptions to the rules concerning property are also made to enhance the position of the occupiers in gaining control over more property. Pretty slick.
> > This is what really
> > drives the fear of accepting responsibility. The
> > fear that minorities will demand "excessive"
> > reparations. [JT]
>
> Don't be childish. It doesn't matter what
> "reparations" minorities demand; these are merely
> symbolic statements. There's no serious possibility of
> any legal; basis for their winning excessive or indeed
> any reparations for things that happened over 100
> years ago. So I don'tthink there's any such fear, even
> if people know the details, Which they don't.
Nothing childish about this. The fear isn't on the part of most citizens but many policy makers in this country fear exactly this very thing. Your denial doesn't change that.
What symbolic statements are you referring to? You think minorities want reparations as a symbol of some kind? No one I know wants any symbolic reparations, they want something concrete. Maybe you're not actually saying reparations are merely symbolic statements rather than an attempt to correct a past injustice but it sure looks like this is what you mean. The only reason to make it symbolic would be to allow it to be insignificant. In other words, allow the original injustice to amount to nothing significant either.
What is the legal cut-off date? 1930? 1910? 1880? Someone can recover a car stolen in 1910 but they cannot sue the state for forcibly removing their children from their home and placing them in the Carlisle Indian School in 1910? If this is so tell me why I'm wrong to think European derived US standards hold property rights sacred above almost all else?
> > There is almost no way the ceding of native lands
> > could ever be considered non-coercive. How would one
> > work out such a thing? Something like "Well since we
> > "accidentally" killed 90% of you and you obviously
> > don't need as much space now could you sell us some
> > land so we don't have to feel bad about ourselves
> > and just take it?" To talk about land being
> > voluntary ceded to any conquering invader is hugely
> > disingenuous. At what point during WWII did the
> > French cede their country to Germany? [JT]
> You should know perfectly well that at least some of
> the relations between the NAs and the settlers was on
> fairly equal terms. Moreover, your definition of
> coercion is too braud. Even if we broaden it to
> include force or fraud, taht only encompasses some of
> the property acquisitions. Bargaianing froma
> position of strength may be unfair, but if it does not
> involve force or fraud, on your Nozickean theory it is
> OK. Indeed it is the point of the game.
It is not just a position of strength but of occupier. From the very moment Europeans came here diseases drastically weakened NA populations. To claim that those treaties were made on equal terms is ridiculous. Why don't you give me list of these treaties that were made on equal or near equal terms that relinquished native claims to the land so I can see the evidence for this myself. I know of no such treaties but apparently you do. Which ones are they? I can easily provide a list of treaties made under coercive conditions. Or do you believe these treaties exist without ever having seen any proof of their existence?
It isn't my Nozickian theory but the systemic application of such theory when it suits those in power and its rejection when that suit them. I think no one should own land, that it should all be held in a public trust but that isn't the reality of this time and place.
> > No NA's did not steal anything. You can't steal from
> > no one. No one was here to steal from. The idea that
> > NA's behaved except in a few isolated cases "like
> > everyone else as a general rule in grabbing each
> > other's
> > land" is difficult for you to truly believe if you
> > also believe, as you claim, "notions of private
> > ownership of
> > real estate that are Euro-American and (in my
> > understanding) often have no NA counterparts.". How
> > could
> > NA's behave just like Europeans concerning land if
> > they held differing concepts about land ownership? [JT]
>
> Now you are switching the rules. I thought we were
> applying European standards as you (mis)understand
> trhem. But even by NA standards, there were wars, land
> grabs, dispossessions, and enslavements in many cases
> that it is hard to believe were acceptable by ethical
> system.
I'm not switching any rules. Which is it? Did NA's behave just like Europeans concerning land or did they have differing concepts about land ownership. You cannot claim both are true. It seems a little hypocritical to state NA's were just as much land grabbers as Euro's but then also claim since NA's property concepts differed we need to find better ways of explaining what the wrong was than to apply notions of property and theft.
By European standards you cannot steal land that has no inhabitants so NA's who first populated this continent stole nothing. There were wars, there was enslavement, but there was no land grab. You cannot take possession of something you have no concept of possession over. A war for access to resources is not to say that you claim all those resources for your exclusive use but that you are entitled to access to it and fight for that right or fight a neighbour who you believe is over-exercising that right. How much access each group is entitled to will always be a matter of dispute between humans but it is not the same as a land grab by any means. Two competing groups can fight over resource extraction from an area without claiming private or exclusive ownership of that area. That is not a land grab. Maybe this idea is too abstracted from your reality for you to grasp? You certainly strike me as more than intellectually capable of understanding it.
> > Whites have a responsibility to admit the crimes
> > from the past that they directly benefit from and
> > make a realistic attempt to make amends on some
> > terms that recognizes that minorities should benefit in
> > similar ways. In the US this means money/land and
> > access to power/ increased representation. If you can pull
> > that off without invoking guilt I'm all for it
> > brother but guilt can be a powerful motivator and I'm not ready to
> > throw it away as a tool to gain social justice [JT]
>
> So whoa re whites? Jews (I'm Jewish) weren'tw hite
> when my ancestors got here -- mostly after the
> dispossesion of the Indians was complete. Jewsare
> white now, but how am I responsible for anything bad
> that General Sheridan did? Maybe I'm responsible for
> seeing that the oppressed are treated fairly, but
> that's really something different. Guilt-tripping
> people seems to me counterproductive.
>
> Back to work, no time to spell-check, sorry
Your non-use of a spell check is just an endearing quality of your posts. It's not a problem; no need to apologize to me anyway.
Whether your ancestors arrived here in 1580 or 1880 makes no difference. They arrived here to take advantage of a situation that was put in place by enslaving and killing Africans and their descendants as well as enslaving, displacing and killing Native Americans. Is this difficult to understand? They came here to reap the fruits slavery, displacement, and murder made possible. Why should there be no culpability for people who do this or their ancestors who directly benefit from it?
To answer Wojtek's questions we can make a laundry list of crimes if that will make you feel better but I doubt that is what you want. As far as who is white we will use the standard that whites used. One drop of negro blood was allegedly all that was sufficient for the state to apply its stick as it were and discriminate against and deny equality to some. 1/32 blood quantum was the minimum for the state to apply the carrot, land distribution, in determining NA population. Since reparations will be considered a carrot we'll go with anyone who can prove they are 1/32 NA or African American. We will determine who is not white and just consider everyone not excluded white. Since whites considered themselves the default human for most of this countries history this is as fair a standard as we can find. It isn't perfect but no human endeavor ever is. Because we can't get reparations made in a manner that is perfect is a weak reason not to do it. With that standard we cannot ever move forward.
John Thornton