Okay, following your metonym: If I took the house from him by use of force, the "stranger" has every right to ask that I leave. If I bought the house in good faith, or inherited the house without knowing the history of its being acquired (or having had no part in that history), I would first ask the individual for some evidence of his claim (or, I could simply take his word)... with sufficient evidence, the right thing would be to invite him back into the house, discussing arrangements for living together mutually. If there was not sufficient room to house both of our families, I would suggest discussing arrangements for expanding the house in order to support the two families. If neither of the two options were possible: If I bought the house, I would assist the stranger in locating the family of those who originally forced his family from the house so that they might be able to attain suitable reparations in order to establish their own home... this might include allowing the stranger to have access to the house at certain times, especially in times of need. If it were determined that I inherited the house directly from those responsible for the wrong, I would attempt to offer to make reparations myself, within my means, allowing the stranger to establish his own home... I would again offer access to the house. The key points: -Acknowledgement that both parties have had a history of occupation of the house, with no intent by either of the present parties involved to do harm. Thus, -Honest, and continuous, negotiation between the two parties, acknowledging that BOTH have the right to a continued, shared presence within the house (at least access to the house). -Both parties must work together to ensure that each is able to maintain a suitable home environment, which includes at least partial access to the house. -The stranger has a right to seek out restitution from those who had wrongfully forced out his family... this restitution may be extracted from the heirs, but not so far as to deprive them of their means to a home. -Use of force is ill advised, as it will naturally be met with use of force.
John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Michael, first: I am NOT the "Dr John" posting in the list (although I do HAVE a Ph.D). Consider this: if a stranger comes to your house, where you actually live and you open your door to let him in, do you expect him to abide by your house-rules, or accept what he sais: that he was living in this house earlier and your rules are invalid for him? Even chases YOU out as an intruder? You may argue that 'this is MY house, I do live in it" - just as well as the newcomer can argue "I (i.e. my ancestors?) lived here earlier than you so it is MY house". Get out! If you cannot call the police ot have none, the argument may go into violence. Between the two of you there is no reasonable way to settle. (Even if you accept that you stole the house, it has to be scrutinized whether the newcomer is a righteous (former) owner and did he, or if his ancestors were owners, did THEY not steal the house just the way as he says you did? John ----- Original Message ----- From: michael haaheim To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 8:20 AM Subject: Re: [PNEWS-L] No One Is Illegal Again, a misconception. I do not seek past dreams. I seek a future. However, I fully recognise that that future might well be impossible to achieve. Better to admonish me for being an idealist. It was perhaps a mistake to suggest a complete return to their own laws... the point, rather, is that we have no right to subject them to our laws. A mutual recognition and harmonial integration is what I would suggest. As I have time, I hope to talk more about the ideology behind what I mean. --- John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael, > I would like to understand "what you are saying" in > rational terms. How do you 'practically' imagine a > territory of 21th c, institutional society filling > it up to their lifestyle and activity, to imbibe out > of a sudden a (or more) million people claiming that > their ancestors were living here centuries ago and > start living there - maybe in 19th c or earlier > activities, morals, laws, as you put it: "according > to 'their' own laws" (of the ancestors, of course, > not their modernized, changed terms, what would be > questioning their 'right' to the domain). > Amerindians to start roaming the savnnahs and shoot > the cattle of the US farmers? Zulus recap > Johannesburg? you referred to the topic I wanted to > bring up: is it in your preference that a million > Palestinians return to their former habitat and > start living on the orchards of the Israeli > kibutz-s? > All I had in mind was: > recognize the changes! nothing can be turned back > that happened. Hungary cannot get back 2/3 of her > historical domain lost after WWI, no matter how > emotional it was. The Zionists could not "get back" > something what was lost from ancestors 2000 years > ago, - but now: the real 2007 fact is that > Israelis ARE living in the country. By mistake? by > political mishap? never mind. NOW it is a fact that > there is a 'nation' (call it a racist aberration, - > if you like to use this word) - and this 'nation' > has its right to live. With a 21th c. law system, > not Sharia. Whoever lost in the past - and I may be > sorry for their loss - should realize the loss and > adjust to the changed world. The Amerindians may > adjust to the 21th c. US and merge in, or enjoy > their life in the reservatum and stay obsolete. > Recent generation cannot be responsible for the > mistakes - crimes? - of their ancestors, nor have > the right to claim what was lost by their ancestors. > THAT would be the racist thing. > > Wake up, Michael to the present, don't live in the > past dreams! > > John > ----- Original Message ----- > From: michael haaheim > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 5:12 AM > Subject: Re: [PNEWS-L] No One Is Illegal > > > Not exactly correct. I am not advocating that the > current inhabitants be displaced in return to make > room for the older. I am saying that the older > inhabitants have the right to return to the land and > live upon it according to their own laws... that > current inhabitants don't have the right to bar them > from lands. > Specifically, I am saying that Israelis have no > right to bar the land from Palestinians, nor to > impose their laws upon the Palestinians. Nor do > "Americans" have the right to hold Amerindians on > reservations or to impose American law upon them. > > John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael, I appreciate most of your > writing...not all of it. > Looks to me like a kind of racist (what I do not > call racist!) imprint as "original", meaning > "earlier" owners meaning "inhabitants" of a > territory. All Europeans live on stolen property IN > EUROPE, (not only in America), because ancestors > stole land from earlier inhabitants all over human > history and imposed always their rules on it - > including upon the remnants of the earlier 'owners' > (at least those whom they did not kill). > I call it 'quasi racist', because it ackowledges > 'ancestrial' right superseding the living people > reality. I consider "humans" as the actual people, > not the "heirs" of foggy and idolized ancient > brutes. I try to think in terms of "WE are here, WE > want to live and in this respect a community has the > right to protect itself, no matter how scoudrelish > the 'ancestors' acquired the land. > Ancestors lived in another time, other morals, > other sins. If we go back, back, and back, we > eternalize the blood-revenge in a war of racist > philosophy about 'ancestrial heritage and damage'. > I will come back to more later > John > ----- Original Message ----- > From: michael haaheim > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 6:09 AM > Subject: Re: [PNEWS-L] No One Is Illegal > > To rephrase something... yes, the descendants of > the original Amerindians should be given the right > to reoccupy their ancestral lands, while living > according to their laws. We are ALL OF US living on > stolen lands. ALL who "own" lands in the US are in > possession of STOLEN lands. According to the > traditions of the original rightful inhabitants, > land was not subject to ownership. It is not wrong > for us to live also upon these lands, it is wrong > that we enforce our laws upon those who were here > first, and had the rightful claim. > Those of European descent have NO RIGHT to > enforce territorial laws upon others in the US. > It is not correct to say that there are no > illegal aliens. Better to say that the US has no > moral right to impose such laws condemning aliens as > illegal. > > John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hank, > your 'attacking' style is losing logic. > Ignorance? of course and I am aware of more and more > what I don't know, the more I learn. > You did not answer my quetion: do the > decendants of the Amerindians have the 'right' to > recapture Manhattan? It is the relevant question > regarding the illigal Mexican workers to 'survive' > (and claim their heritage in this country) beacuase > the territory was historically "Mexican property" (I > could add: rightfully, or not: Mexico had a Habsburg > emperor, Maximilian, > so Austria also could claim Texas, New Mexico, > Arizona and California?). Start tackling with > history and the world is over. You get to > 'travesties' of justice (your word). > And I object to your tactical trick to invoke > Nafta against me: I am no proponent of Nafta. Never > was. > Similarly I object to plant opinions (even > words) into my writing, > I wonder where and when did I express to > equate survival with illegality? Did you read at all > what I wrote? Or you just decided how to paraphrase > somebodies well crafted different opinion? > Such policy of yours is discrediting not only > you, but also the 'causes' you represent.( "Does > this guy have no rightful arguments?") > > I accept criticism if it is just and right. I > fight back if I am attacked unjustly. And if you > throw me out from your list > my wife will send you a thankyou note for all > those free hours I will be able to spend with her > instead of reading PNEWS-L. > John > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: adar > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 7:35 PM > Subject: Re: [PNEWS-L] No One Is Illegal > > The entire Southwestern U.S., was part of > Mexico until the U.S. military > invaded that sovereign nation in 1846 to > FORCE the Mexican government to > "sell" one-third of its territory for a > paltry sum. IN essence, this was a > theft. There are no absolutes John and your > contention that Mexicans in > what was and still should be their own > territory are illegal is a travasty > of justice which obviously you support. > > As for Donnella even thinking that immigrants > are taking something away > from her that is simply her lack of > understanding what wealth these people > bring with them and how much she is actually > being ripped off by the > ruling elites in her own country, not the > Mexicans we have forced to come > here to survive. If it a shame she can't see > this - but for you John, it > is simply ignorance that you equate their > survival with illegality. What > should be illegal is NAFTA which has caused > death and suffering and > capitalism for which it was meant to provide > unjust enrichment to the > rich. Unjust enrichment is a crime which > goes beyond tort law for the evil > inherent in it. > > Hank > > On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, John wrote: > > > Hank: > > > How long do you want to ride this ridiculous > and fallse usage of words, > > to mix up for the not-so-attentive > gullible reader the term "illegal > === message truncated === __________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC Progressive News/Views (since 1982) Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --------------------------------- Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
