We may be closer than we think - though we may argue politics to the end of our times.
Georgists feel that while the things you produce are yours, the earth belongs to us all.
As Jefferson remarked "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living: that the dead have neither powers or rights over it."
Usufruct means, as I'm sure you know, that one has the right to enjoy the fruits of the land, not to destroy or devalue the land.
I think that Indians have similar beliefs - which may be why that politician sneered at the Cherokee and called them Georgists.
It seems remarkable to me that neo-Classical economists mix capital and land together. Capital is a product of human exertion applied to land. Land was waiting for us when we arrived - never a human product - but something on which our entire existence depends.
So, the neo-Classicals toss land in with bulldozers, skyscrapers, and assembly lines, apparently without realizing how silly that is.
A major difference between neo-Classical Economics and Classical Political Economy is that our study could be called holistic.
Remember, how we start the study. Not with statistics and graphs, but with people, with whom we attempt to find characteristics that are common to all.
It doesn't matter whether or not you agree the assumptions are well-founded, what is important is our manner of inquiry. We find out about people, then use standard scientific method to find how they relate to each other and to the earth.
Ed, in his excellent essay, chided us for not being able to handle the new things that have happened since the 19th century, but of course we do.
We simply start at the beginning, which is not a bad place to start, then build. Along the way, all is grist to our mill.
I think we may be called holistic.
Harry
_________________________________
Ray wrote:
No Harry, I had a misprint. I said: There was also that key word about culture in the article. I was interested in why they didn't mention that (the people in the article were or were not Indian) but all of the articles about Tar Creek and the Quapaw Reservation (where I'm from) always mention the town and never anything about it being Indian either. I assume that is because they are in denial about Indians being from a different place than White Folks.
I was saying that the use of the word "culture" always means something other than the dominant culture. Otherwise they don't use the word. Like "Alcoholic" it is often a code word. The reason the program worked in our school was because of the different culture and its willingness to enter into the dominant culture from a special place. Our code word was "Picher" or the town on the reservation. Our culture was Picher and our way of being in the world was "from Picher". What I learned later was that being "from Picher" really was a different culture from the dominant culture and that it was Indian. I learned that from Jews in NYCity and from the Iroquois and the American Indian Community House in New York who I was a lot more like than any of the others. The Jews demanded to know who I was and where I was from? They could see that I was different even though I was an artist, another kind of different. When I walked into the American Indian Community House I knew that I had returned home to my own culture or one very much like the one I knew in Oklahoma.
As for the article. Many people that I have sent it to on the web come back with the statement that it can't work elsewhere because it seems too specific to that place, i.e. culture. My statement was that I grew up in a similar situation that came from our culture and in point of fact from the Cherokee in my family. I also said that when Indian people want to maintain their culture, the best way is to find some White Man who does something similar and hire him to come in and teach us since the dominant culture generally won't fund anything Indian that is not very conventional and stereotypical. As an example, the way they justified the Chugach experiment was to quote the President saying something that Indian people believe intensely. " Leave no one behind."
The President is not an Indian and he generally doesn't follow that rule except maybe with children. However, like Jews in the world, we are very few. We are committed to every Indian making a difference. That is why we don't fire people from their jobs. We consider jobs to be a part of a person's life path and their learning. When they are finished with that learning they will move on. The job is for the person and not the reverse.
We really don't relate much to what you say at all Harry and it is because you are from a different culture with different values that we don't believe. However, I would say that there are people who are your culture and who both believe and live by what you say. Remember, though, Cherokees were and are very good at business when we don't have the issue of governmental monopolies and Capitalist lobbying against ownership of our properties. Remember they blamed us as FOLLOWERS of Henry George just before they stole our lands, disbanded our courts and governments and banned our religion in 1883-1893. It seems that there were White Folks out there that didn't relate to you or George and they used it against us. I think it all comes down to an issue of sovereignty and a willingness to walk in the other person's shoes until you really can be and think like them. Once that happens then culture is not as important because you have become a translator and can understand it as a space that you inhabit and not some vague story that you use to advertise and sell snake oil with.
Peace,
Ray
P.S. You said you read that 1491 article and then you used an example about Indians knowing the forest as if we didn't design it. We did and that was why we knew the forest. Until you design the market you will always be at its mercy. The question is whether you are capable of intelligent design or not. We were in the forest and in agriculture and our process of "market" at Tlaxcala was the most successful in the world. The idea of Capital is translated in most Indian languages as "Power." The difference is you percieve it economically while we percieve it holistically. REH
******************************
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of LA
Box 655
Tujunga CA 91042
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: (818) 352-4141
Fax: (818) 353-2242
*******************************
