[PEN-L:3006] Re: selling Manhattan

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <rosserjb@xxxxxxx> 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 same thing in mind as the Dutch. That's enough to "void the transaction" theoretically. 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 production and "the land", the Earth that was quite different than the Dutch and European, such that the Indians had no reasonable expectations ( as the contract professors say) that the Dutch were going to do all that they 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usufruct that superseded their own, or did they believe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 dominate 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 about how the "savages" took land from each other in the way the Europeans do is the naive one, believing European propaganda used as an excuse to take the land themselves. Even evidence of war among the original Americans does not prove that they "took land" from each other. Taking land is a European concept in ths context.

You are projecting European land theft concepts onto the original Americans. Captalist/feudal expropriation is not panhuman.

Charles Brown


Barkley Rosser
On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 17:16:21 -0500 Charles Brown
<CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>
> >>> "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <rosserjb@xxxxxxx> 02/05 4:51 PM >>>
> Barkley comments:
>      Not so simple.  You say that "it's between them," but
> then if a European shows up the latest holder somehow has a
> mystical right that their ignorance of what the Europeans
> are about grants them in perpetuity.
> ______
>
> Charles: Again, I don't grant your premise that the "latest holder" got the land by violence. But even assuming that, the European wrongful taking does not become valid. If I steal Louis' land, you can't assert my wrongful act as a basis for validating your subsequent wrongful taking from me. You can't assert Louis' right as making your taking legal.
> _______
>
> Barkley:
>   Why does this not
> apply to former Indian tribal holders of the land, if you
> don't like the term "territory" for a defined piece of land?
> ______
>
> Charles: The Dutch can't validate their wrongful taking through a prior wrongful taking by those from whom they take.
>
> But please note, I am going along with these reasoning chains,
> arguendo. I have problems with some of your factual and "legal" or cultural logic premises.
> ___________
> Barkley:
>      I note as a simple example, that the Chippewa drove
> 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 reasons I stated regarding ulterior motives of European "knowers". But even assuming "we know" some of what you say, Europeans can't assert Sioux rights vis-a-vis Chippewa in order to justify or legalize Eurpean takings. The "best" they might do is give the land back to the Sioux and get their European shit out of Dodge, so to speak. " Who was that masked man who gave us back our land  from the Ojibwa (Chippewa) ? It was the great white do gooder Kemosabi. He went back to Europe."
>
>
> Charles Brown
>
>
> Barkley Rosser
> On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 16:30:12 -0500 Charles Brown
> <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > >>> "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <rosserjb@xxxxxxx> 02/05 3:45 PM >>>
> > 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 relationship to the land, but the form of organization was not private property 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 displacement 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 displace 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 transactions worse than European transactions are suspect as evidence from biased witnesses. Europeans had an ulterior motive to portray indigenous peoples 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 fantastic and grandiose false generalization).
> >
> > Charles Brown
> >
> >
> > Barkley Rosser
> > On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 15:28:47 -0500 Charles Brown
> > <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > >>> "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <rosserjb@xxxxxxx> 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 conceptions 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 was a conception that was the same as the Dutch. Thus, when I did legal research for the land recovery project of the Yuroks of Northern California, I argued that the early land transfers to whites should be voided for failure of meeting of the minds, which is necessary for a contract; and other theories based on the anthropological principle that whatever the Yurok coneption of land, it was not of European capitalist private property. There is quite a bit of ethnography on what the Yurok conceptions of land were ( Waterman ; Kroeber, a famous student of Boas ). There are lots of sacred spots etc. such that the land becomes a giant library of the tribe's history. The land was a repository of indigenous knowledge in conjunction with myths and the whole culture. There is l!
!
!
ik!
> !
> !
> el!
> > !
> > !
> > y !
> > > to be some similar affirmative evidence of the Manhattan groups' conceptions. It is not fantastic  that indigenous Manhattan  conception would not meet with a Dutch mind (conception)  as necessary for a contract ,and it is possibly less fantastic than theories about long economic waves.
> > >
> > >
> > > Charles Brown
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Rosser Jr, John Barkley
> > rosserjb@xxxxxxx
> >
>
> --
> Rosser Jr, John Barkley
> rosserjb@xxxxxxx
>

--
Rosser Jr, John Barkley
rosserjb@xxxxxxx