5 ms·

> After some months spent living in a shack in town, the Ingalls family claimed a plot of land through the Homestead Act, one of the country’s earliest large-sc

> After some months spent living in a shack in town, the Ingalls family claimed a plot of land through the Homestead Act, one of the country’s earliest large-scale social welfare programs, which promised free land to white settlers willing to cultivate it. After five years, if a family could “prove up,” showing they had built a profitable farm, they could keep it. Centuries ago, home ownership was readily obtainable for anyone willing to endure the hardship of settling “the new world”. Case in point, the early Australian settlers essentially paid nothing for enormous swathes of farm land [1]: > From about 1815 Sydney began to grow rapidly as free settlers arrived from Britain and Ireland and new lands were opened up for farming. Despite the long and arduous sea voyage, settlers were attracted by the prospect of making a new life on virtually free land. Many settlers occupied land without authority; they were known as squatters and became the basis of a powerful landowning class. In light of today’s hot housing market, and the increasingly burdensome restrictions on immigration, it’s difficult to fathom how easy it used to be to change your lot in life with just some gumption. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_history_of_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_history_of_Austral...

shkkmo 5y ago
I think you are romanticizing both who this was available to and how "easy" being a settler was...
- atweiden 5y ago
  These days anywhere desireable to live, and likely all known available farm land, is already owned by someone or some company. Vagabonding isn’t what it used to be, insofar as there is seemingly not even the remotest chance in modernity of backdooring your way into zero cost homesteading. Societal advancement has come at the cost of those opportunities which have more or less vanished.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    The "pioneers" you are jealous of did not homestead unoccupied land...
    - atweiden 5y ago
      We’ve never homesteaded truly unoccupied land by some definitions of “unoccupied”. Depending on how far back we want to take the social justice, even Neanderthals drove out earlier pre-humans from their rightful homes, however sporadically inhabited and/or poorly defended they might’ve been. Regardless, I think it’s a horrible critique of the miserably dystopic political climate we’re in today that such plain statements about factual reality can’t even be made without someone feeling it necessary to call attention to a more recent historical example of the powerful driving out the powerless — a dynamic which has been with humans and every other creature on this planet since time immemorial. Nomadism in antiquity had at least some chance of resulting in zero cost homesteading for those brave people willing to endanger their own lives to engage in it. It was more a reflection on the hidden plight of modernity — not being able to afford a home, despite our forefathers being able to just homestead at zero up front cost mere centuries ago — than a projection of jealousy or some other contrivance.
      - shkkmo 5y ago
        The comment was not factually correct since it asserted the land was unowned. It also asserted that the homesteading was zero cost. In factual reality, the land was already owned and the homesteading of that land was paid for by genocide. There is a long history of invaders getting stuff for "zero cost", it still happens today in parts of the world more ruled by violence and law. Is this what you are nostalgic for? Edit: Also, homesteading went on up to about 40 years ago.
        atweiden 5y ago
        What Neanderthals did to Homo Erectus, and what early indigenous Homo Sapien tribes did to Neanderthals; later indigenous tribes did to earlier indigenous tribes; and so on and so forth. At no point was the land homesteaded — by indigenous tribes or otherwise — ever fully unoccupied prior, by some definition of “unoccupied”. Intelligent lifeforms had to be driven from their rightful homes by “invaders”, categorically. Nomads in antiquity — oweing to the lack of societal advancement — could settle air quotes “unoccupied” land. This is no longer possible in the modern, advanced world where every square inch of earth is claimed by a reasonably well-organized group of (highly violent) people, at minimum. Which means nomadism in today’s world isn’t what it once was. Nomadism in antiquity might even be viewed as outright nation building; after all, every nation has to start somewhere. But nomadism in modernity — and I say this as someone with a reasonable level of experience backpacking in various countries — is really just glorified homelessness, and I think that’s a point worth making.
  - jamiek88 5y ago
    I know man, genocide is just so unfashionable nowadays...
gostsamo 5y ago
Weren't there some locals that had to be ... moved out first before the land was virtually free?
- atweiden 5y ago
  At some point in antiquity, it was feasible for human adults to settle “unsettled” land. It is a boring and simple fact that this is no longer possible. TFA used an example from the 1800s, so I stuck with that era. This is getting off topic.
  - cheschire 5y ago
    Don’t cherry pick your favorite bits of the past. America used genocide and racial persecution to create living space. Remember when the Germans tried that using lebensraum as justification? We could have it again too if you just decide to go wipe out a less advanced race somewhere in the world and give their land to your people. It solves both your homeless problem and your need to squat on national resources at the same time. But if you want people to be able to settle on truly unsettled land, I hear Mars is opening up soon.
  - anovikov 5y ago
    There's hell lot of virtually free land in the world today. A lot of it is very habitable and has decent climate, or has moderate issues easily solvable with today's technology (say air conditioning for hot and humid climates). It never went away. It's just that money one can make from just a piece of land is not enough anymore: these people in the XIX century went after some arable land for family farms, but it just doesn't work today: food is too cheap to make a living growing it on a small scale. Agricultural era is gone. Industrial and post-industrial society requires people to live in cities and there is no free land in cities as living in them is a competition by definition. Free land never went away. Demand for it did. Just equally, there is plenty of virtually free or very cheap homes in the U.S., many of them are in good condition (or at least, plots of land to build oneself, do get dirt cheap). It's just this happens in places with no jobs - but people in XIX century were not looking for jobs. That's also the reason why free and open-for-all immigration was banned in 1930s: that was a turning point when people stopped coming for "20 acres and a mule" (while these were still plentiful), but wanted industrial jobs, and thus homes in the cities, and these were a scarce resource.
lazyasciiart 5y ago
"Easy" is a hell of a word to use there - plenty of settlers in Australia and America had gumption and got nothing for it.

shkkmo 5y ago

I think you are romanticizing both who this was available to and how "easy" being a settler was...

atweiden 5y ago
These days anywhere desireable to live, and likely all known available farm land, is already owned by someone or some company. Vagabonding isn’t what it used to be, insofar as there is seemingly not even the remotest chance in modernity of backdooring your way into zero cost homesteading. Societal advancement has come at the cost of those opportunities which have more or less vanished.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  The "pioneers" you are jealous of did not homestead unoccupied land...
  - atweiden 5y ago
    We’ve never homesteaded truly unoccupied land by some definitions of “unoccupied”. Depending on how far back we want to take the social justice, even Neanderthals drove out earlier pre-humans from their rightful homes, however sporadically inhabited and/or poorly defended they might’ve been. Regardless, I think it’s a horrible critique of the miserably dystopic political climate we’re in today that such plain statements about factual reality can’t even be made without someone feeling it necessary to call attention to a more recent historical example of the powerful driving out the powerless — a dynamic which has been with humans and every other creature on this planet since time immemorial. Nomadism in antiquity had at least some chance of resulting in zero cost homesteading for those brave people willing to endanger their own lives to engage in it. It was more a reflection on the hidden plight of modernity — not being able to afford a home, despite our forefathers being able to just homestead at zero up front cost mere centuries ago — than a projection of jealousy or some other contrivance.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      The comment was not factually correct since it asserted the land was unowned. It also asserted that the homesteading was zero cost. In factual reality, the land was already owned and the homesteading of that land was paid for by genocide. There is a long history of invaders getting stuff for "zero cost", it still happens today in parts of the world more ruled by violence and law. Is this what you are nostalgic for? Edit: Also, homesteading went on up to about 40 years ago.
      - atweiden 5y ago
        What Neanderthals did to Homo Erectus, and what early indigenous Homo Sapien tribes did to Neanderthals; later indigenous tribes did to earlier indigenous tribes; and so on and so forth. At no point was the land homesteaded — by indigenous tribes or otherwise — ever fully unoccupied prior, by some definition of “unoccupied”. Intelligent lifeforms had to be driven from their rightful homes by “invaders”, categorically. Nomads in antiquity — oweing to the lack of societal advancement — could settle air quotes “unoccupied” land. This is no longer possible in the modern, advanced world where every square inch of earth is claimed by a reasonably well-organized group of (highly violent) people, at minimum. Which means nomadism in today’s world isn’t what it once was. Nomadism in antiquity might even be viewed as outright nation building; after all, every nation has to start somewhere. But nomadism in modernity — and I say this as someone with a reasonable level of experience backpacking in various countries — is really just glorified homelessness, and I think that’s a point worth making.
- jamiek88 5y ago
  I know man, genocide is just so unfashionable nowadays...

gostsamo 5y ago

Weren't there some locals that had to be ... moved out first before the land was virtually free?

atweiden 5y ago
At some point in antiquity, it was feasible for human adults to settle “unsettled” land. It is a boring and simple fact that this is no longer possible. TFA used an example from the 1800s, so I stuck with that era. This is getting off topic.
- cheschire 5y ago
  Don’t cherry pick your favorite bits of the past. America used genocide and racial persecution to create living space. Remember when the Germans tried that using lebensraum as justification? We could have it again too if you just decide to go wipe out a less advanced race somewhere in the world and give their land to your people. It solves both your homeless problem and your need to squat on national resources at the same time. But if you want people to be able to settle on truly unsettled land, I hear Mars is opening up soon.
- anovikov 5y ago
  There's hell lot of virtually free land in the world today. A lot of it is very habitable and has decent climate, or has moderate issues easily solvable with today's technology (say air conditioning for hot and humid climates). It never went away. It's just that money one can make from just a piece of land is not enough anymore: these people in the XIX century went after some arable land for family farms, but it just doesn't work today: food is too cheap to make a living growing it on a small scale. Agricultural era is gone. Industrial and post-industrial society requires people to live in cities and there is no free land in cities as living in them is a competition by definition. Free land never went away. Demand for it did. Just equally, there is plenty of virtually free or very cheap homes in the U.S., many of them are in good condition (or at least, plots of land to build oneself, do get dirt cheap). It's just this happens in places with no jobs - but people in XIX century were not looking for jobs. That's also the reason why free and open-for-all immigration was banned in 1930s: that was a turning point when people stopped coming for "20 acres and a mule" (while these were still plentiful), but wanted industrial jobs, and thus homes in the cities, and these were a scarce resource.

lazyasciiart 5y ago

"Easy" is a hell of a word to use there - plenty of settlers in Australia and America had gumption and got nothing for it.