Giving everyone back their land
Do you believe that some countries are illegitimate in that they took someone's land with out permission? If so, what should be done about it ideally? Should we give back the the land? To whom? the original owners or the previous owners?
Should Israel give the land back to Palestine? Should Australians give back their land to aborigines? Should Americans give back the land to the natives? Surely that's the only fair thing to do.
All humans took land away from animals. Should we abandon civilization and give back the land to animals? Wait a minute...those animals took land from other animals. Perhaps we should give land to the original animals. What are the original animals? They're probably extinct by now. Now what?
Should Israel give the land back to Palestine? Should Australians give back their land to aborigines? Should Americans give back the land to the natives? Surely that's the only fair thing to do.
All humans took land away from animals. Should we abandon civilization and give back the land to animals? Wait a minute...those animals took land from other animals. Perhaps we should give land to the original animals. What are the original animals? They're probably extinct by now. Now what?
Comments (54)
And the corollary question is: should we just allow people to take others' land with impunity? Which on a grand scale translates to, is ethnic cleansing OK? The answer by the way is "no" and it's very easy to hold that position without demanding New Yorkers vacate Manhattan and give it back to the Indian population their ancestors decimated hundreds of years ago. Anyway, we've already had these facile comparisons of Palestinians with Native Indians in another discussion. Are we really going to rehash that nonsense here? If that's the direction this is going in, then just take it to that discussion which is already a mess rather than start a new mess here.
If we go down the first come-first served route, then the vast majority of land is unethically held. If we agree that unethically held land should be returned, then it follows that the vast majority of land should be returned.
Seems like a good case for status quo bias, given the complexity of the alternatives.
The complexity requires the application of intelligence, patience and empathy for both sides in any dispute over land, particularly one that has already, or has the potential to, end up in war. That paid off in Northern Ireland, for example. What isn't helpful is ignoring the complexity in favor of arguing about binary oppositions that could be written on the back of a postage stamp, such as "give everyone back their land" vs "don't give anyone back their land".
We bite the bullet; accept that land-ownership is unethical, and think about how to move forward given that it is impossible to right this wrong in every case.
Re: Northern Ireland, I was unaware that this was a land-rights issue. However, it's certainly the case that Viking invaders stole significant territory from the previous population. Perhaps, we can test the current population for Viking gene-markers and return the land to its prior owners, or should we delve deeper into human history and find the autochthonous settlers and give everything to them? Or is, as you suggest, the right to land ownership only proportional to the clamour made by those demanding reparations?
There has already been a political-philosophical proposal to solve this problem. Remember, "Property is theft!"? Not terribly successful.
What point are you disputing?
Quoting jastopher
What on earth are you talking about?
Viking Invasions:
Protestant Plantations:
.
Quoting Baden
Not necessarily. You don't have to ethnically cleanse a country to take it over. Peutro Rico for example was acquired from the Spanish by the United States in the Treaty of Paris 1898.
I saw you in the OP as attempting a reductio on the idea of giving everyone back their land, or political control of territories previously settled or seized by foreigners (as applies in N.Ireland, for example). Which you can do, but it's just as easy to do a reductio on the idea of allowing the illegal seizure or settling of a territory to always go unchecked. My objection is to the idea, which I inferred from your OP that as the former is absurd, the latter must not be (correct me if I misread you). What is absurd in my view is reducing disputes over land and the control of territory in general to this level of simplicity.
The right of Americans to continued posession of its land and to create their system is based on nothing other than political acceptance of that right by Americans and to some extent the international community. Should Americans begin to question their right to the land and should the international community question it, their claim to the land will be weakened.
The solution to this attack on American legitimacy will be to (1) convince its citizens and the international community of its legitimacy and (2) to be unwavering in its defense of its land. That is, it's got to convince others and be thoroughly self-convinced that the land is its own.
The opposition wanting the land would therefore be required to do what is necessary to delegitimize the American claims to the land if it wanted to reaquire the land.
What arguments? I responded already to your misunderstandings about Vikings and N. Ireland. Apart from that, there is an "er no" which I already asked you to connect to one or more of my previous statements. Then there's a strawman where you claim I suggest "the right to land ownership [is] only proportional to the clamour made by those demanding reparations" (obviously not only given what I've already written, so this is hardly worth spending time on). Finally there is an allusion to the anarchist statement that "property is theft", which doesn't address anything I've written.
That's more or less it. Although the pressure the international community can bring to bear on a particular country depends to a large degree on the relative power of that country so we don't always get fairness in this process.
That's true, with a good example being Russia's aquisition of Crimea, a modern day crime if there ever were one.
I would agree with that, yes.
Both Palestinians and Jews have reasonable claims to the land in that area. Zionism is the Jewish part of that claim and it's been internationally recognized as valid. That boat has sailed justifiably. The issue now is how to find a balance with the Palestinian claims. It won't be by pushing the Israelis into the sea.
You can take your hate for Zionists elsewhere. Address the general principle under discussion or don't post.
That isn't how we normally understand property rights. I don't have a 'reasonable claim' to somebody else's property because of my race or religion.
So what? Palestinians and Jews have claims to this land because they live there and have lived there historically not because of their race and religion.
Yes, Master! At once, Master!
Gee, "Sir" would have been enough. :hearts:
The idea that diversity is a universal good which communities at all levels ought to seek is a current vogue, at least for the last several decades. "Ethnic cleansing" appeared in print only in the mid 1990s. It was first applied, if memory serves, in the Balkan conflicts in the 1990s--Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, etc. (The disputed issues weren't new in 1995; they had been the subject of conflict there for over a century.)
Since then it's been used quite a lot, per this Google Ngram (representing usage in print)
Heh. I put right and might in the same sentence. Oh.
If I have a claim on some land I am asserting ownership. If my claim is because other people of the same race or religion as me have lived in that area 'historically', then my claim would be based on my race or religion.
The thread is about 'giving everyone back their land'. If the people who once lived there are dead, then that isn't possible. Not unless we believe in some form of tribal inheritance.
Ethnic cleansing is "the mass expulsion or killing of members of an unwanted ethnic or religious group in a society" so you can be against diversity / multi-culturalism and limit immigration accordingly (that's a legitimate position to take in my view), and also be against ethnic cleansing. And I'd presume most of the anti-immigrant crowd would be against that.
In the case of Zionism in particular, there is that element, yes, but national identity is not solely based on race and religion. You can be Palestinian and Christian, Israeli and atheist etc., so it's not a particularly accurate way of viewing the situation.
Legal rights under national and international law guided by treaties, mutual understandings, precedent etc.
No. I don't believe that countries are illegitimate if they took someone's land without their permission. The history of our species involves waves of populations over-running other populations. There is no plot of land on earth, as far as we know, that hasn't been contested at some point during the last, oh, 50,000 years, on down to this very moment.
The way peoples and nations behave isn't governed by the rules of etiquette. Real Politic tends to be brutal. I am not applauding that fact, and I am not asking anyone else to applaud it, but that is in fact how things work most of the time.
Yes, it is true that European empires seized ownership of the western hemisphere from the native people. All of the European empires were founded by people who were not originally occupants of their imperial states. Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal had been over run in previous centuries before they started their imperial careers--several times in some cases. The Western Hemisphere had been populated for 10,000 years+ by populations who were definitely not above running over neighboring peoples.
The only recourse that protects nations from being over-run is defensive warfare. Had the Axis been slightly more successful in WWII, and the Allies been slightly less successful, the map of Europe and Asia would look much different today than it does. Had the Axis been significantly more successful, there would probably not be a lot of dispute that the new map made perfectly good sense.
They really do talk funny up there. I've seen enough Coen brothers movies to know that. But the meatballs...
Quoting Bitter Crank
Historically that's been true, which is part of the reason for the development of the United Nations, and international law in general etc., so you're not supposed to get away with it any more either legally or morally. (Obviously if you have done already for hundreds of years, it's too late to do much about it, but that's not a good argument for laissez faire now.)
Where there is national law, it would appear any such questions have already been answered (someone is already claiming the land).
I'm not sure I understand what international law is (beyond a nice idea). Wouldn't there have to be an international government for that?
And treaties come and go. History testifies to the insignificance of treaties. And mutual understanding? Again, where that exists, there is no issue.
So if People-X believe they have a right to Land-Y, they best demonstrate that right through military force, otherwise, they're probably just confused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law
Quoting jastopher
The 'we were here first' argument doesn't work.
No, I don't think we simply need to go down the first come, first served route. It's much more complicated than that (and that should be crystal clear from what I have already said in this discussion). Everything else I dealt with in my last comment.
Quoting jastopher
What specific quote of mine is this supposed to connect to?
This is the second time I've asked you. The last time was your "Er no" which you have still haven't connected to anything specific I said. That's not how it works. I make a point, you address it and vice versa.
I think there's value in realizing that we're all just passing through, making "transient abodes." One of the terrible things that happens when we forget that is that it becomes right to kill somebody else's son. Can you imagine?
It may come as a surprise, but this thread is not all about you.
This is a summary of my position for anyone who might wish to engage.
Your position, far from being 'crystal clear', strikes me as being elusive to the point of insignificance.
If that's all your argument boils down to, OK, I'll leave it to others, but nobody here is claiming or is likely to claim that the first inhabitants of any particular tract of land have exclusive rights over it forever.
The 'we were here before you' argument doesn't work in most cases.
Some countries were forcibly made up by splitting an existing country in order to weaken it and ultimately destroy.
And today the denizens of these countries, stubborn donkeys that they are, refuse to acknowledge this and continue on pretending.
History repeats itself, I guess.
Reparations are made when the victors feel like it. This is not ethical, or just, or right, it ONLY IS SO.
Much like you breathe in billions of microbes with the air, and some you kill, some kill you, but it has nothing to do with justice, with what's right and or ethical. It only has to do how IT IS.
A lot of history is interwoven with justifying this or that, whereas the forces of historical politics are not justice, fairness or ethics, but greed, force, and survivalism. The most common misinterpretation of wars and genocide by both the religious and the secular atheists (is this a redundant expression?) is that they blame the other for huge obliterations of masses of people. It never is about religion or lack of conscience. It is always about women, gold, oil, arable land.
There is nothing we can do about it. There were no wars stopped due to ethical reasons, no land was ever given back to their previous owners, no reparations were ever made by the victors.
This is how it IS. If anyone wants to change this, they have an enormous task on their hands.
Illegitimate? Not at the time, in most cases. Rude, disrespectful, oppressive, dismissive - yes.
To be honest, giving the land back - even if you could work out who to give it ‘back’ to - wouldn’t really solve the problem, and it’s not even close to ‘fair’. Because it isn’t just the land that was taken without permission in most cases.
In Australia, land ‘ownership’ for Aboriginal people amounts to their spiritual and cultural connection to country. Fences and trespassing laws prevent them from accessing their songlines - cultural histories, songs and myths that are linked to natural landmarks and the experience of walking the land. Access to fishing and hunting grounds as well as other food or water sources and meeting spaces also play a significant role in their family and social dynamics, and in retrieving their cultural confidence.
Restoring or at least striving to understand and respect these connections goes some way towards ‘giving back’ to Aboriginal communities the freedom and confidence to then connect with the world on their terms - as a rich and vibrant culture that has value, and as a proud people deeply connected to their environment - instead of a displaced and scattered people with a lost culture.
What Aboriginal culture can teach us about connecting to the land we live on and the diversity of life it sustains, how to listen to the country and restore its strength, and how to respect someone else’s connection to (instead of ‘ownership’ of) the land, are more valuable to us now, in this current climate, than they ever have been.
The whole world belongs to you, so don't wait for anyone to give you a scrap of it, or imagine you can give a scrap of it to anyone.
Quoting Purple Pond
They were illegitimate (not sure that's the adjective I'd use, but it's not far off), then it hardened, and they become legitimate. Because now the original victims and conquerers are dead. And because to take the land away now would be abuse by whatever power managed to accomplish this.
Should we return it? Well, if it very recently happened possibly. Depending who we are and who they are and the effects of doing this or trying to will be. If it means WW3, then probably not.
I think Israel needs to make it equal under the law for Palestinians. In theory and in practice. I am not sure there is a way to go back in time, but they need to stop doing new things that should get reparations.
Native Americans: It's not practical to give them back the continent. But I could see giving them more land.
Animals: we should try to minimize the damage we do to them. At least, that's my preference.
I think the main thing is to try to set the history right. To acknowledge that certain actions were not only not noble nor manifest destiny nor the right of Kings etc. but even just malicious behavior often based on hallucinations. That's a tough enough goal. Get past that one and perhaps something else could be done.
These are different cases.
The aboriginals in Australia are not being banned from (parts of) Australia. The same holds true for native Americans. A native American can go to New York or San Francisco and live there like he wants.
That is not the same for a large number of Palestinians who fled (or were "helped" to flee) and who are now being denied the right to return to where they originally lived. A Palestinian who ended up in Gaza or Bethlehem will be prevented to travel to Haifa or Tel Aviv if he wanted to live there.
In that sense, it is not even about "giving back the land".
These people were citizens and residents of the complete former British mandate of Palestine. They had free movement all over mandatory Palestine. They could live anywhere they wanted in mandatory Palestine. These rights were taken away by the State of Israel. There is absolutely no reason why they should accept such reduction of their rights.