Originally posted by AThousandYoungThis discussion even goes beyond these immediate concerns.
Should this be allowed? Arizona is kicking the Apache off their land that they hold by treaty with the USA in order to mine it for copper.
Stealing the valuable land instead of using the free market to buy the copper...shameful.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/29/opinion/sel ...[text shortened]... mpany for what may be the first time in our nation’s history.
Anglos pissing me off again
Originally posted by vistesdDon't hold your breath; a bill was introduced in the House on June 17, 2015 to do the same thing and has languished in committees with no votes taken as of this date.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraFrom the NY Times article:
The notion that some citizens should have different rights from others is ludicrous and should be rejected. I am 1/4 Frisian so possibly I have some ancestors who were subjects of the Frisian kingdom that was defeated by the Franks in the 8th Century AD. Should I demand compensation from the French government?
Originally posted by FishHead111We are witnessing here an example of the "godlike wisdom" of government, in terms of Locke's Treatise on Government and the neoliberal idology that derives from this. From the outset, it was always abhorrent to see native Americans squatting on natural resources in their primitive manner at the expense of economic exploitation. Notice the peculiar use of the term "liberty," another standard feature of the neoliberal project. This was the logic of genocide and it has not changed. Naturally enough, on this occasion it comes from the mouth of this forum's most committed / explicit racist.
So instead of mining for copper you'd have the land saved so a couple hundred indians can gather acorns?
34. God gave the world to men in common; but since he gave it them for their benefit and for the greatest conveniences of life they could get from it, he can’t have meant it always to remain common and uncultivated. He gave it for the use of the reasonable and hard-working man (and labour was to be his title to it), not to the whims or the greed of the man who is quarrelsome and contentious.
37 .....So he who encloses land, and gets more of the conveniences of life from ten ·cultivated·acres than he could have had from a hundred left to nature, can truly be said to give ninety acres to mankind. For his labour now supplies him with provisions out of ten acres that would have needed a hundred ·uncultivated· acres lying in common. I have here greatly understated the productivity of improved land, setting it at ten to one when really it is much nearer a hundred to one.
40. It isn’t as strange as it may seem at first glance that the •property of •labour should be able to outweigh the •community of •land. For labour affects the value of everything. Think of how an acre of land planted with tobacco or sugar, sown with wheat or barley, differs from an acre of the same land lying in common without being cultivated; you will see the improvement brought about by labour creates most of the ·extra· value ·of the former·.
42 .....the great art of government is to have the land used well, and that any ruler will quickly be safe against his neighbours if he has the wisdom—the godlike wisdom—to establish laws of liberty to protect and encourage the honest industry of his people.....
44. All this makes it clear that •though the things of nature are given in common, man had in himself the great foundation for ownership—namely his being master of himself, and owner of his own person and of the actions or work done by it; and that •most of what he applied to the support or comfort of his being, when invention and skills had made life more comfortable, was entirely his own and didn’t belong in common to others.
Originally posted by no1marauderComparing Notre Dame Cathedral to an open unimproved patch of desert they gather acorns off of once in awhile and hop around on when a girl turns 12 or whatever is a retarded analogy.
Somehow I doubt that the French government would tear down Notre Dame Cathedral for a strip mine no matter how much copper was there.
Originally posted by finneganIt's not worth replying to your endless ignorant BS on that topic.
We are witnessing here an example of the "godlike wisdom" of government, in terms of Locke's Treatise on Government and the neoliberal idology that derives from this. From the outset, it was always abhorrent to see native Americans squatting on natural resources in their primitive manner at the expense of economic exploitation. Notice the peculiar use of ...[text shortened]... ade life more comfortable, was entirely his own and didn’t belong in common to others.
Originally posted by FishHead111No one really cares about your bigoted beliefs; what is sacred to the Apache is just as deserving of protection as what is sacred to Roman Catholics.
Comparing Notre Dame Cathedral to an open unimproved patch of desert they gather acorns off of once in awhile and hop around on when a girl turns 12 or whatever is a retarded analogy.
And I really doubt they gather acorns , they got government food stamp debit cards for that. I see indians all the time at the supermarket with shopping carts full of sod ...[text shortened]... eir gubmint free food cards for it. Never seen 'em buying acorns.
Do people even eat acorns?
Originally posted by no1marauderNot if they stand in the way of progress.
No one really cares about your bigoted beliefs; what is sacred to the Apache is just as deserving of protection as what is sacred to Roman Catholics.
Originally posted by FishHead111Progress = the social and environmental wasteland of uncontrolled capitalist appropriation and exploitation.
Not if they stand in the way of progress.
We need the copper, acorns are all over the place.
They can find another section of sand to dance on, there's nothing magic about the hunk of dirt they like to mill around on once a year for all the girls that started having their periods. .
Originally posted by no1marauderYes I could have included that; notably "So that God, by commanding to subdue, gave authority so far to appropriate: and the condition of human life, which requires labour and materials to work on, necessarily introduces private possessions." Property is both God given and natural, and as such beyond political challenge. Right in property is established by "labour" and those who fail to make full (maximal) use of natural resources forfeit any assumed rights, communal or otherwise. Therein is the justification for expropriating land and resources from native peoples and it has been explicitly cited by imperialist on many occasions.
It's not worth replying to your endless ignorant BS on that topic.
Locke was referring to the initial appropriation of property from nature not justifying the seizure of already owned property. There is nothing in Locke justifying wars of conquest or oppression of minorities.
EDIT: Your cherry picking is rather shockingly dishonest; here's a secti ...[text shortened]... our and materials to work on, necessarily introduces private possessions.
45......Even after all this, however, there are great tracts of ground that still lie in common ·and so could legitimately be claimed on the basis of labour·. These are in territories whose inhabitants haven’t joined with the rest of mankind in the consent of the use of their common money [Locke’s exact words, starting with ‘joined’], and are lands that exceed what the inhabitants do or can make use of.