This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--part0_918625653_boundary
As someone who lives in both the Indian and non-Indian worlds, and just
returned today from the Peigan Blackfoot Reservation in Browning and the
Kainai Blackfoot Reservation in Alberta, I felt compelled to comment.
There is enough good and bad in all colors. The white developers, the BIA, the
mineral prospectors, the missionaries, the colonialists had their aspirations
and macinations made easier by sell-out Indians. And those same white
interests were the interests not of all white but only a few who exploit even
more whites than Indians and often in equally vicious ways.
As Andre Gunder Frank and others have noted, it is not a matter of as an
isolated process and entity over there and "development" as this disembodied
and self-perpetuating process and entity over there. They are dialectically
interrrelated.
The "Indians" are not saying give it all back and get out. What is being said
is that the rape even continues in addition to the lies and cover-ups of the
past. "Development", a euphemism for predatory malignant capitalism, needs,
feeds on and intensifies "underdevelopment" and all of its ugly features and
consequences. Last year, for example, on a list of 73 US Government-designated
toxic waste dumps, 72 were Indian Reservations. Right now, the US's largest
storage facility for aged and increasingly unstable nerve gas and other
chemical warfare weapons is at the Umatilla Reservation in Hermiston
Oregon--with no evacuation plan despite $25 million supposedly devoted to such
a plan.
So it is a matter that Indians are like the proverbial "Canary in the Mine"
Where genopcide is tolerated and facilitated for one group, so it can be for
others--in a malignant society that tolerates and facilitates genocide.
The reason for the present rush to Treaties in Canada and the sigfnificance of
100 lawsuits per day by Residential School victims in Canada is that when the
true story is told, they indict and expose the hypocrisry of the bourgeois
private property "sacreds"; they demand compensation or further exposure of
the bogus and selective use of supposed private property "universal" rights.
The surviving victims and their just causes and evidence expose the ugly
masks, machinations and consequences of imperialism, colonialism, racism,
capitalism and Tribal corruption.
Jim Craven
In a message dated 2/9/99 2:12:46 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Subj: [PEN-L:3134] Re: selling Manhattan
Date: 2/9/99 2:12:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Brown)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
File: PENL3134.txt (30032 bytes)
DL Time (48000 bps): < 1 minute
[Only the first part of this message is displayed. The entire message has
been turned into a text attachment, which you can retrieve by selecting
Download. Once downloaded, open it with a word processor or text editor for
reading.]
>>> "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/09 4:46 PM >>>
Charles,
Well, we're wearing this thin. But, just to put it in
context: I brought up the violent transfer of land control
between tribes to contrast it with the peaceful transfer
that occurred, at least initially, in some places such as
the "purchase" (however non-meeting of the minds) of land
by some Europeans from the Indians, e.g. the Dutch in
Manhatten, the English Quakers in Philadelphia, the
Russians in northern California. I put those activities
forward as more admirable certainly than the usual outright
forcible theft by Europeans, and as certainly not worse
than the forcible seizure of land by one tribe from
another.
________
Charles: But I don't agree that you made this factual point. You asserted it,
but did not prove it.
Many on this list, including you, denied any such
comparison, decrying all land transfers from Indians to
Europeans as equally invalid, illegimate, imperialistic,
and immoral.
_______
Charles: Want to show me where I said this ? The Indians probaby didn't think
of them as "transfers". Even if peaceful, they didn't anticipate it as prelude
to massive invasion.
Anyway, even if some Europeans were peaceful, ultimately the whole
relationship was by force. The determining occurrences as to how we got to
where we are today were the imperialistic takings. The few peaceful sharings
do not validate the warlike takings. Your effort to contrast European
"peaceful" actions with Indian fighting is really off and backward. All
Europeans should feel uncomfortable about this history, and any effort to
lessen the European crime is a disservice.
Charles Brown
Barkley Rosser
On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 16:32:40 -0500 Charles Brown
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >>> "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/09 4:02 PM >>>
> Charles,
> I think you are still evading the issue here. It is
>
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from rly-yb03.mx.aol.com (rly-yb03.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.3]) by
Received: from galaxy.csuchico.edu (galaxy.CSUChico.EDU [132.241.82.21])
by rly-yb03.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
Tue, 9 Feb 1999 17:12:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
Tue, 9 Feb 1999 14:16:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.ci.detroit.mi.us (mail.ci.detroit.mi.us [12.2.196.12])
Received: from Comm-Message_Server by mail.ci.detroit.mi.us
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [PEN-L:3134] Re: selling Manhattan
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by galaxy.csuchico.edu id
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.08 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN >>
--part0_918625653_boundary
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
by rly-yb03.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
Tue, 9 Feb 1999 17:12:42 -0500 (EST)
Tue, 9 Feb 1999 14:16:49 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 17:12:27 -0500
From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [PEN-L:3134] Re: selling Manhattan
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
boundary="part1_918625653_boundary"
--part1_918625653_boundary
[Only the first part of this message is displayed. The entire message has been
turned into a text attachment, which you can retrieve by selecting Download.
Once downloaded, open it with a word processor or text editor for reading.]
>>> "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/09 4:46 PM >>>
Charles,
Well, we're wearing this thin. But, just to put it in
context: I brought up the violent transfer of land control
between tribes to contrast it with the peaceful transfer
that occurred, at least initially, in some places such as
the "purchase" (however non-meeting of the minds) of land
by some Europeans from the Indians, e.g. the Dutch in
Manhatten, the English Quakers in Philadelphia, the
Russians in northern California. I put those activities
forward as more admirable certainly than the usual outright
forcible theft by Europeans, and as certainly not worse
than the forcible seizure of land by one tribe from
another.
________
Charles: But I don't agree that you made this factual point. You asserted it,
but did not prove it.
Many on this list, including you, denied any such
comparison, decrying all land transfers from Indians to
Europeans as equally invalid, illegimate, imperialistic,
and immoral.
_______
Charles: Want to show me where I said this ? The Indians probaby didn't think
of them as "transfers". Even if peaceful, they didn't anticipate it as prelude
to massive invasion.
Anyway, even if some Europeans were peaceful, ultimately the whole
relationship was by force. The determining occurrences as to how we got to
where we are today were the imperialistic takings. The few peaceful sharings
do not validate the warlike takings. Your effort to contrast European
"peaceful" actions with Indian fighting is really off and backward. All
Europeans should feel uncomfortable about this history, and any effort to
lessen the European crime is a disservice.
Charles Brown
Barkley Rosser
On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 16:32:40 -0500 Charles Brown
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >>> "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/09 4:02 PM >>>
> Charles,
> I think you are still evading the issue here. It is
>
--part1_918625653_boundary
name="PENL3134.txt"
>>> "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/09 4:46 PM >>>
Charles,
Well, we're wearing this thin. But, just to put it in
context: I brought up the violent transfer of land control
between tribes to contrast it with the peaceful transfer
that occurred, at least initially, in some places such as
the "purchase" (however non-meeting of the minds) of land
by some Europeans from the Indians, e.g. the Dutch in
Manhatten, the English Quakers in Philadelphia, the
Russians in northern California. I put those activities
forward as more admirable certainly than the usual outright
forcible theft by Europeans, and as certainly not worse
than the forcible seizure of land by one tribe from
another.
________
Charles: But I don't agree that you made this factual point. You asserted=
it, but did not prove it.
Many on this list, including you, denied any such
comparison, decrying all land transfers from Indians to
Europeans as equally invalid, illegimate, imperialistic,
and immoral.
_______
Charles: Want to show me where I said this ? The Indians probaby didn't t=
hink of them as "transfers". Even if peaceful, they didn't anticipate it =
as prelude to massive invasion.
Anyway, even if some Europeans were peaceful, ultimately the whole relati=
onship was by force. The determining occurrences as to how we got to wher=
e we are today were the imperialistic takings. The few peaceful sharings =
do not validate the warlike takings. Your effort to contrast European "pe=
aceful" actions with Indian fighting is really off and backward. All Euro=
peans should feel uncomfortable about this history, and any effort to les=
sen the European crime is a disservice.
Charles Brown
Barkley Rosser
On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 16:32:40 -0500 Charles Brown
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >>> "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/09 4:02 PM >>>
> Charles,
> I think you are still evading the issue here. It is
> fine to argue that there was no conception of "private
> property in land" and also that there was no juridically
> defined "territory" because (at least in what is now the
> US) there were no "states." But, are all those books one
> picks up that identify certain parts of North America with
> certain tribes some bogus "projection"?
> ________
> Charles: I'm not sure what you think is being evaded. Nothing in what I=
have said contradicts tribes being in certain places. Remember what I sa=
id about "sacred spots" ? What I am saying would exactly predict that tri=
bes would be located in a certain place - by their specific "sacred spots=
.."
>
> THE important thing in this discussion is they didn't have private prop=
erty. Private property is not panhuman. Communism is not a pipedream.
>
> I long ago addressed your implied argument that if the Indians took lan=
d from each other by force, then this justifies European taking from the =
takers. This is not a valid argument. So, what even if there was less tha=
n a peaceful process (it wasn't a "business") before European arrival, so=
what ?
>
>
> Barkley:
> We know that in
> those zones were spots viewed as sacred by the tribes in
> question, some of them ancestral burial grounds. Somehow
> it came about that certain tribes predominated in certain
> areas rather than others, with some zones being shared such
> as the collective hunting zone of West Virginia and the
> Shenandoah Valley. The process of this was not always a
> peaceful business.
> ________
>
> Charles: Ok but we are starting to go over the same thing again and aga=
in. Far from evasion, I am giving the same logical and cogent answer to y=
our same question repeatedly. When you say "the process of this was not a=
lways a peaceful business" I refer you to my previous posts. Fighting but=
not for "territory". And a different order of magnitude in fighting than=
Europe. What is new in what you are saying here ?
>
>
> Barkley
> BTW, it may be true that the ancestors of the Aztecs
> founded Tenochtitlan (Mexico City). But from there they
> conquered and dominated the previous rulers of the central
> valley of Mexico, who operated from a different
> headquarters, just as those rulers had conquered and
> displaced as rulers the "Teotihuacaners" some time earlier
> who had their base at the pyramids about 30 miles north of
> modern Mexico City. I note that the central valley of
> Mexico has long been a major culture basin, as being near
> the likely original site of the cultivation of maize (corn).
>
> Charles: Yea, I think the Toltec were there before the Aztec. I mention=
ed Teotihuacan in another post (or was that another list ?) pyramids of t=
he sun and the moon. I'm not sure the occupants of Teo were conquered. I=
think it might be a mystery still what happened to them. They have Maya =
settlements that just "went down" and they don't know why yet.
>
> Archeologist Kent Flannery (University of Michigan) argues that maize w=
as invented by paleo-botanists. I think it was derived from teocintle (sp=
elling) However, I think that is like 200 BC or earlier.
>
> Charles Brown
>
> Barkley Rosser
> On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 13:55:01 -0500 Charles Brown
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > >>> "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/09 1:22 PM >>>
> > Charles,
> > Well, I guess I'll add a bit more on this pre-European
> > intertribal conflicts issue. Again, of course, except for
> > places like the central valley of Mexico where there are
> > historical records, we only know about things that went on
> > either after or just before the Europeans arrived in other
> > places. But I fear that conjuring an Edenic paradise where
> > all the tribes lived in harmony with one another is yet
> > another "projection," however lovely.
> > ________
> >
> > Charles: Of course, I didn't say that. I said there is evidence of fi=
ghting, but there is also evidence of lack of private property and territ=
ory. There is archaeological evidence too, of course. Also, there is an a=
nthropological generalization about modes of production, so that evidence=
from elsewhere , though "projected", is more scientific than projecting =
a Hebrew Biblical myth ( although I find it interesting that the Garden o=
f Eden was a GARDEN , and horticulture is what anthropology/archaeology h=
as concluded was the mode of production which "fell out of the Garden" wi=
th agriculture and civilization)
> > ___________
> >
> > Barkley:
> > Certainly there were lots of intertribal conflicts
> > that were triggered by the European colonists pushing
> > tribes west, as with the Chippewas pushing the Sioux out of
> > northern Wisconsin even before any Europeans got into that
> > area. But a lot of other cases are less clear.
> > In the case of the Tuscaroras versus the Shawnees in
> > the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, I am not aware of their
> > conflict being triggered by other tribes moving in pushed
> > by the Europeans. Neither of them lived east of the Blue
> > Ridge, the limit of settlement at the time of the Battle of
> > Rawley Springs between them. It may be "European
> > projections" but it is certainly recorded that it was over
> > access to the valley. I note that the Shenandoah Valley
> > and what is now West Virginia were one of the few (on some
> > maps the only) places in North America that was not clearly
> > predomiantly under the control and use of a single tribe or
> > group of tribes. It was an intertribal collective hunting
> > ground. But that in itself meant that priority rights of
> > use were murky and could be disputed from time to time,
> > possibly even violently as happened at Rawley Springs
> > sometime in the 1720s (forget the exact date).
> > ________
> >
> > Charles: You have no evidentiary basis for saying that because it was=
intertribal , therefore the priority of rights of use were murky, etc. I=
t is possible for human beings from different groups to share with almost=
no disputes compared to our experience. Communism is possible. Capitalis=
t and acquisative conceptions are not human universals.
> > ________
> >
> >
> > Barkley:
> > Actually that particular conflict reflected a broader
> > one that get tangled up in European conflicts but which
> > most reports suggest had been around before they arrived.
> > ________
> >
> > Charles: Unfortunately, these reports were written by people who had =
a motive to say what you are saying here: that " we Europeans are not doi=
ng anything that the Savages (sic) weren't doing to each other already." =
- in other words, as justification for taking the land themselves. The re=
gularly used term "savage" implies they were even more warlike than the E=
uropeans. I definitely disbelieve that.
> >
> > You have to read those reports with a very jaundiced eye,sort of like=
with a CIA analysis of Viet Nam from the 1960's.
> >
> > __________
> >
> > Barkley:
> > That was the one between the Iroquois group of tribes
> > (including the Tuscaroras) and the Algonkian group of
> > tribes (including the Shawnees). Indeed, the Iroquois
> > Confederacy, viewed by Benjamin Franklin as a model for the
> > United States, was by most accounts formed to defend those
> > tribes against the larger numbers of Algonkians around
> > them, who were not so well organized. These differences
> > were linguistic and also socio-cultural, with the Iroquois
> > being matrilineal whereas the Algonkians were patrilineal.
> > In the "French and Indian War" the Iroquois sided with the
> > British against the French and the majority Algonkians. In
> > the American Revolution, the British opposed the entry of
> > settlers into the Iroquois lands because of this past
> > alliance (although by then the British were defending
> > Indian land rights against the colonists in many areas) and
> > I know that my original hometown, Ithaca, NY, was not
> > settled by Europeans until 1782, after the defeat of the
> > British and the removal of their protection of the Iroquois.
> > Although the arrival of the Europeans may have
> > aggravated the Iroquois-Algonkian conflict and certainly
> > the conflicts on both sides became intertwined, I see
> > little reason to believe that there was total peace between
> > these two groups prior to the arrival of the Europeans.
> > ___________
> >
> > Charles: Yes, but most of the above is clearly after "contact". The E=
uropeans had the motive to stir up stuff between the tribes in divide and=
conquer, for example. Things probably changed quickly after contact.
> >
> > I didn't say there wasn't some fighting. I said there was not fightin=
g for territory, as I defined that in relation to a state. The fighting w=
as a completely different order of magnitude, qualitatively different, th=
an European warfare, from the Greeks to the Romans to the 100 Years War.
> >
> >
> > Charles Brown
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Barkley Rosser
> > On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 10:48:17 -0500 Charles Brown
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >>> "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/08 6:28 PM >>>
> > > Barkley:
> > > Charles,We're getting close enough to a "meeting of the minds"
> > > here that are transactions might be almost not void. Just
> > > a couple of points.
> > > _______
> > >
> > > Charles: Sounds good to me.
> > > __________
> > >
> > > Barkley:
> > > One is that it may well be (I don't know) that the
> > > Dutch actually did not do anything that was unexpected of
> > > them by the Indians they dealt with. The unexpected and
> > > unpleasant may have come later after the British displaced
> > > the Dutch. After all, the northern border of Nieuw
> > > Amsterdam was Wall Street (named for the wall). Broadway
> > > was the country road linking it to the Dutch village of
> > > Haarlem. There was still plenty of land for the local
> > > Indians to do their thing on Manhatten, although perhaps
> > > the Dutch had already acted badly. This is a reminder that
> > > sometimes Europeans attempted to deal fairly with the
> > > Indians only to have their agreements undercut and violated
> > > later by their descendents or others taking their place.
> > > Something similar happened in Pennsylvania I believe.
> > > _______
> > > Charles: This may be. I don't think that the European invasion was =
uniformly purposeful viciousness, or that all Indian/European relations w=
ere European crimes. Neither the Europeans nor Indians understood exactly=
what was going on especially early on. I don't think that every ( or eve=
n any necessarily at sometimes) European had a conscious "genocidal"motiv=
e for their actions. That kind of creeped up on everybody.
> > >
> > > One comment though: I don't know the specific traditions of the Man=
hattan Indians, but in general the attitude to the land was not that each=
plot was a commodity fungible with other plots. There are special or "sa=
cred" spots that tie into the tradition, myths and culture. So , possibl=
y , they couldn't "do their thing" just anywhere. I don't know that there=
were old sacred spots within the area that the Dutch occupied, so this m=
ight not be a pertinent comment.
> > > _________
> > >
> > > Barkley:
> > > Probably the remaining major disagreement we have
> > > involves how the Indians determined rights of use of land
> > > among their respective tribes (I agree that they, by and
> > > large, did not have concepts of "property in land" like the
> > > Europeans). I would contend that we lack evidence about
> > > much of what went on. But where we do have evidence there
> > > certainly was intertribal warfare and some of it involved
> > > who could live and hunt where. A major one of course
> > > involves the changes in who controlled the central valley
> > > of Mexico regarding which there are historical records.
> > > Periodically outside tribes would come in and conquer and
> > > take over, as did the Aztecs who came out of the north. I
> > > know that near where I live about ten years before any
> > > Europeans arrived, there was a major battle between the
> > > Tuscaroras and the Shawnees over access to the Shenandoah
> > > Valley. I seriously doubt that such things were as rare as
> > > you make them out to be.
> > > __________
> > >
> > > Charles: Well, the Aztecs had a state. Most of the groups did not h=
ave states, i..e. standing bodies of armed personnel etc. By the way, I h=
ad a class on Mexican picture writing, and "read" some of the codices tha=
t tell the indigenous dynastic histories. Yes, the Colhua Mexica migrated=
from up North, founding Tenochtitlan on a spot where an eagle had a serp=
ent in its mouth in the middle of a lake. At least , that's what I was to=
ld.
> > >
> > > The general problem with concluding that , as in your example, the =
warfare was for taking land or territorial, is that all we have comes thr=
ough Europeans who had a "state" conception that they may be "projecting"=
onto the situation. In other words, these Europeans , who are the primar=
y sources for us on what happened, had no conception of a society where l=
and is not territory or private property, so their interpretations are su=
spect. Plus, "ten years before any Europeans arrived" is still within a p=
eriod when indirect "waves" of European disruption of the pristine circum=
stances may have occurred even before Europeans arrived on that direct sc=
ene..
> > >
> > > Overall, I just wish the Europeans had had more respect for the ind=
igenous societies, because I think our species would be better off with =
a wider variety of cultures, and preservation of the knowledge and cultur=
al treasuries of the indigenous peoples. I would like to see the whole ra=
nge of human cultural types, modes of production , from history preserved=
so that maybe even part of basic education would be for children to live=
and learn them, reiterating cultural evolution , so to speak. There may =
have been knowledge of many natural medicines, herbs and "spices", which =
are now lost. Also, our gungho technological development regime could use=
some of the Indian philosophy of ecological harmony. It is perhaps wishf=
ul thinking now, but I would like to see more of a synthesis of the wisdo=
ms of various phases of human development, rather than obliteration of th=
e socalled primitive ways of life.
> > >
> > >
> > > Charles
> > >
> > > ________
> > >
> > > BTW, thanks to Lou for the informative post on wampum.
> > > So, does anybody know if the Dutch paid in wampum shells or
> > > glass beads or what?
> > > Barkley Rosser
> > > On Sat, 06 Feb 1999 14:26:15 -0500 Charles Brown
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >>> "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/05 5:48 PM >>=
>
> > > > Charles,
> > > > I think that we need to be clear about exactly at what
> > > > point there was a "taking" here, illegal, unethical,
> > > > inappropriately capitalistic, insufficiently "meeting of th
> > > > minds" or whatever. I would contend that it was not when
> > > > the Dutch gave some Lenapes or whomever some glass beads,
> > > > but when they enforced that the Lenapes could not use
> > > > certain parts of the land that they were somehow under the
> > > > impression that they could still use after having received
> > > > the glass beads.
> > > > _______
> > > >
> > > > Charles: This seems ok to me.
> > > > __________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I would contend that we still do not know
> > > > what was meant in the minds of the receivers of the glass
> > > > beads when they did that.
> > > > ________
> > > >
> > > > Charles: I would contend we DO know that they didn't have the sam=
e thing in mind as the Dutch. That's enough to "void the transaction" the=
oretically. Practically is another matter.
> > > > __________-
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps it was that they would
> > > > "share" the land, even though you and others accept that
> > > > somehow there were recognized areas that certain groups had
> > > > some kind of agreed upon primary rights to usufruct.
> > > > ________
> > > >
> > > > Charles: I didn't say it exactly that way. The important thing is=
that the overall system (and there was an overall system, a culture) was=
not the same as the European one. Or was an organized relationship to pr=
oduction and "the land", the Earth that was quite different than the Dutc=
h and European, such that the Indians had no reasonable expectations ( as=
the contract professors say) that the Dutch were going to do all that th=
ey did.
> > > > _________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Did
> > > > the receivers of the glass beads in doing so recognize that
> > > > the Dutch had somehow some kind of primary right of
> > > > usufruct that superseded their own, or did they believe
> > > > that this allowed the Dutch to share with them the land?
> > > > _______
> > > >
> > > > Charles: Probably closer to the latter if that at all. This was a=
very new relationship from the Indian end too. But they certainly didn't=
have a custom that you give me some beads and then you take over and dom=
inate this area of the Earth that has been the home of our ancestors and =
our people from time in memorium.
> > > > _______
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In any case, I would say that, especially that the
> > > > Dutch themselves thought that they were "purchasing" the
> > > > land, that they are in a much superior legal and moral
> > > > position than the other Europeans who simply seized land or
> > > > the tribes who, prior to the invasion of the Europeans,
> > > > displaced other tribes by force from territory that the
> > > > displaced tribe had previously inhabited. I do not know
> > > > whether or not this was how the Lenape took Manhatten
> > > > originally or if there were earlier inhabitants. But
> > > > anybody who thinks that this did not happen prior to the
> > > > arrival of the Europeans, and a whole lot, is simply naive.
> > > > _______
> > > >
> > > > Charles: No they aren't. Anyone who just believes those stories a=
bout how the "savages" took land from each other in the way the Europeans=> > > > >
the Sioux out of Northern Wisconsin after they defeated
> > > > > them in a battle in 1666 in Solon Spring. Of course the
> > > > > Chippewa were fleeing from European invaders, but there
> > > > > were plenty of such displacements prior to the European
> > > > > arrival that we just don't know the exact dates or details
> > > > > of.
> > > > > _________
> > > > >
> > > > > Charles: The "we know there were plenty " is suspect, for reas=
ons I stated regarding ulterior motives of European "knowers". But even a=
ssuming "we know" some of what you say, Europeans can't assert Sioux righ=
ts vis-a-vis Chippewa in order to justify or legalize Eurpean takings. Th=
e "best" they might do is give the land back to the Sioux and get their E=
uropean shit out of Dodge, so to speak. " Who was that masked man who gav=
e us back our land from the Ojibwa (Chippewa) ? It was the great white d=
o gooder Kemosabi. He went back to Europe."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Charles Brown
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Barkley Rosser
> > > > > On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 16:30:12 -0500 Charles Brown
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>> "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/05 3:45 P=
M >>>
> > > > > > Charles,
> > > > > > In most locations the tribes that were in place when
> > > > > > Europeans first showed up were not the first tribes to
> > > > > > inhabit or claim as "tribal territory" that land.
> > > > > > ________
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Charles: "Territory" is a term referring to the land within a=
state. The groups around Manhattan didn't have states.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ______
> > > > > > So, if
> > > > > > the tribes there when the Europeans arrived have permanent
> > > > > > property rights because they had no concept of property
> > > > > > ________
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Charles: They had property concepts. They didn't have PRIVATE=
property concepts in land. Property means relations between people with =
respect to things, with respect to production. They had an organized rela=
tionship to the land, but the form of organization was not private proper=
ty relations.
> > > > > > __________
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > therefore could not sell their property, what are the
> > > > > > rights of the tribes that they displaced, often by warfare?
> > > > > > _________
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Charles: Assuming arguendo that your claim of violent displac=
ement is true, that's between them. The Europeans ain't in it. But every =
European claim of indigenous "savagery" as in warfare worse than what the=
Europeans did, IS SUSPECT as European propaganda as an excuse to displac=
e them.
> > > > > > __________
> > > > > >
> > > > > > __________
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Such a "transaction" looks no better than the thefts by
> > > > > > warfare by most of the Europeans and arguably worse than
> > > > > > the transactions where the Europeans actually paid, as with
> > > > > > the Dutch for Manhatten, even if the "sellers" did not know
> > > > > > what was going to be the long term result.
> > > > > > _______
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Charles: The European claims that regarding indigenous transa=
ctions worse than European transactions are suspect as evidence from bias=
ed witnesses. Europeans had an ulterior motive to portray indigenous peop=
les as "savage" as an excuse for taking the land as "unsettled by humans"=
.. The Europeans are in no position to judge the situation and say, "their=
'crime' justifies our crime ( I refer to the indigenous "crime" arguendo=
, for the sake of argument, but I don't accept it as anything but a fanta=
stic and grandiose false generalization).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Charles Brown
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Barkley Rosser
> > > > > > On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 15:28:47 -0500 Charles Brown
> > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/05 3:06
> > > > > > > I would note that among most tribes there was at least
> > > > > > > a rudimentary sense of tribal ownership, if not of personal=
> > > > > > > ownership.. Certain tribes had primary rights in certain
> > > > > > > territories and this was often decided by intertribal
> > > > > > > warfare. Sometimes a home base involved some kind of
> > > > > > > tribal burial grounds. I note that Lewis Mumford in his
> > > > > > > _The City in History_ claims that burial grounds were the
> > > > > > > original nuclei of urban settlements (cemetary by the
> > > > > > > church in the center of town) and also the original form of=
> > > > > > > landed property.
> > > > > > > But, again, I doubt that anybody on this list knows
> > > > > > > what was the actual conception of the Indians who "sold"
> > > > > > > Manhatten to the Dutch and any efforts to claim what they
> > > > > > > did think is pure fantasy.
> > > > > > > _________
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Charles: We may not know exactly what the indigenous concep=
tions were, but archeology, anthropology and paleo-history
> > > > > > > are not based on pure fantasy. There were definite cultural=
rules just as we are sure that they had languages with grammars, though =
we may not know the exact grammar. We know what they didn't have, which w=
as a conception that was the same as the Dutch. Thus, when I did legal re=
search for the land recovery project of the Yuroks of Northern California=
, I argued that the early land transfers to whites should be voided for f=
ailure of meeting of the minds, which is necessary for a contract; and ot=
her theories based on the anthropological principle that whatever the Yur=
ok coneption of land, it was not of European capitalist private property.=
There is quite a bit of ethnography on what the Yurok conceptions of lan=
d were ( Waterman ; Kroeber, a famous student of Boas ). There are lots o=
f sacred spots etc. such that the land becomes a giant library of the tri=
be's history. The land was a repository of indigenous knowledge in conjun=
ction with myths and the whole culture. Th!
!
!
er!
> !
> !
> e !
> > !
> > !
> > is!
> > > !
> > > !
> > > l!
> > > > !
> > > > !
> > > > ik!
> > > > > !
> > > > > !
> > > > > el!
> > > > > > !
> > > > > > !
> > > > > > y !
> > > > > > > to be some similar affirmative evidence of the Manhattan gr=
oups' conceptions. It is not fantastic that indigenous Manhattan concep=
tion would not meet with a Dutch mind (conception) as necessary for a co=
ntract ,and it is possibly less fantastic than theories about long econom=
ic waves.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Charles Brown
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Rosser Jr, John Barkley
> > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Rosser Jr, John Barkley
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Rosser Jr, John Barkley
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rosser Jr, John Barkley
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Rosser Jr, John Barkley
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> --
> Rosser Jr, John Barkley
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
Rosser Jr, John Barkley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--part1_918625653_boundary--
--part0_918625653_boundary--
