4 ms·

I think the principle of "Finder's Keepers" is completely illegitimate when it comes to transportable objects like artwork, but it's at least a little bit legit

I think the principle of "Finder's Keepers" is completely illegitimate when it comes to transportable objects like artwork, but it's at least a little bit legitimate when it comes to land - in the case of North America, generations of people have been born there and made their lives there, so they have some claim to the land even if its original seizure was a crime. I think the legitimacy of US sovereignty over its land (or Canadian or Australian etc) is also strengthened by the fact that it is a representative democracy, so to some degree its management of the land is carried out on behalf of all of its citizens, including the descendants of natives. If the US were governed by an aristocracy of descendants of settlers, as in Apartheid South Africa, then that would be clearly unjust to me. edit: to be clear, I think that native populations in all these countries have legitimate grievances today, I just wouldn't go so far as to say that all their original land is still rightfully theirs.

JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
Wow, so much random justification to make it fit your view.
- chrisbennet 8y ago
  Is it your view that the US should return land to whomever the Indians took it from or just the most recent conquerors?
  - WalterSear 8y ago
    Who did they take it from?
    - reaperducer 8y ago
      Other indians.
      - WalterSear 8y ago
        That's a huge claim - it requires a source. As I understand it, most north American indiginous groups had very little concept of realty. Moreover, in this context, it's a specious argument.
        reaperducer 8y ago
        That's a huge claim - it requires a source. Here ya go: https://www.google.com https://www.google.com As I understand it, most north American indiginous groups had very little concept of realty. But they did understand war, and the taking of land/territory from one another. The idea that the indians were all kind of peace-loving pacifist hippies is a historical revision. It will come as news to some people who don't read anything published earlier than the 1960's, but many indian tribes were proud warriors, and routinely fought and conquered other tribes. There were also indian tribes that were shunned (for example, the Karankowa (sp?) in Texas who were known for being cannibals), and those who were considered backwater misfits (for example, Moapa Paiute). The indian tribes were much more interesting and varied than modern history teaches.
        dang 8y ago
        > Here ya go: https://www.google.com https://www.google.com Please keep this sort of rude trick off HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        WalterSear 8y ago
        I did not call them peace loving or non-violent. I said they had no concept of land ownership. You are making my point for me - though condescendingly and with a source that is somewhat rambling and obtuse. Of course they were violent and murderous: they are human beings. They did not, however, commit genocide in the pursuit of property.

JohnJamesRambo 8y ago

Wow, so much random justification to make it fit your view.

chrisbennet 8y ago
Is it your view that the US should return land to whomever the Indians took it from or just the most recent conquerors?
- WalterSear 8y ago
  Who did they take it from?
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    Other indians.
    - WalterSear 8y ago
      That's a huge claim - it requires a source. As I understand it, most north American indiginous groups had very little concept of realty. Moreover, in this context, it's a specious argument.
      - reaperducer 8y ago
        That's a huge claim - it requires a source. Here ya go: https://www.google.com https://www.google.com As I understand it, most north American indiginous groups had very little concept of realty. But they did understand war, and the taking of land/territory from one another. The idea that the indians were all kind of peace-loving pacifist hippies is a historical revision. It will come as news to some people who don't read anything published earlier than the 1960's, but many indian tribes were proud warriors, and routinely fought and conquered other tribes. There were also indian tribes that were shunned (for example, the Karankowa (sp?) in Texas who were known for being cannibals), and those who were considered backwater misfits (for example, Moapa Paiute). The indian tribes were much more interesting and varied than modern history teaches.
        dang 8y ago
        > Here ya go: https://www.google.com https://www.google.com Please keep this sort of rude trick off HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        WalterSear 8y ago
        I did not call them peace loving or non-violent. I said they had no concept of land ownership. You are making my point for me - though condescendingly and with a source that is somewhat rambling and obtuse. Of course they were violent and murderous: they are human beings. They did not, however, commit genocide in the pursuit of property.