|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Who does land "rightly belong" to?
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
A slightly naughty question?
Would I be right in suspecting that those in North America or Australia who are not of First Nation or aboriginal descent themselves, but are most likely to be exercised for their historic land claims, are least likely to be favourable to Jewish historic claims to the land of Israel, and vice versa? I.e. those who are most likely unequivocally to support Jewish historic claims to the land of Israel, are likely to be dismissive of First Nation or aboriginal historic claims.
Or is that unfair and there likely to be no correlation?
[ 08. January 2016, 18:56: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Not at all sure why that might be even slightly naughty. I can't speak for the US, Canada or anywhere else where the question of the rights of the ancient inhabitants is an ongoing problem (NZ by and large seems to have reached a satisfactory position in the Treat of Waitangi). I have been involved in the land rights movement for 50 years now, Madame slightly less. Neither of us has ever heard of anything along the lines of what you raise.
There is support for land rights across the spectrum here, more from the left to start with but never and exclusively left policy. After the High Court's decision in Mabo , there was quite a lot of opposition to land rights from generally conservative country areas, being those most likely to think they would be directly affected. There was also a lot of shrill comment from the sort of base that supports UKIP. As the detail has been worked through, and the low impact has been realised, the topic has largely moved from the political agenda. Similarly there has been general support for the existence of Israel. At the same time, there has been a growing realisation that the establishment of Israel came at a great cost to those who had lived there for millenia.
The opposition to Israel was originally limited to the loopy right and connected with general anti-semitism; those opponents would probably not have given much thought to land rights until recently and would now be opposed to them. There are now pockets of strong anti-Israeli sentiment amongst the loony left - eg, the Greens in power in an inner-city municipality in Sydney. These are in favour of land rights in a fashion equally virulent to their anti-Israeli position; slogans are easier than thinking, that sort of approach to both issues.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
A slightly naughty question?
Would I be right in suspecting that those in North America or Australia who are not of First Nation or aboriginal descent themselves, but are most likely to be exercised for their historic land claims, are least likely to be favourable to Jewish historic claims to the land of Israel, and vice versa? I.e. those who are most likely unequivocally to support Jewish historic claims to the land of Israel, are likely to be dismissive of First Nation or aboriginal historic claims.
Or is that unfair and there likely to be no correlation?
I think views on both issues are too diverse in the US to follow that correlation. However, it would be fair to say that there is one sizeable section of conservative Americans who unequivocally to support Jewish historic claims to the land of Israel, and yet are dismissive of First Nation or aboriginal historic claims.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
A slightly naughty question?
Would I be right in suspecting that those in North America or Australia who are not of First Nation or aboriginal descent themselves, but are most likely to be exercised for their historic land claims, are least likely to be favourable to Jewish historic claims to the land of Israel, and vice versa? I.e. those who are most likely unequivocally to support Jewish historic claims to the land of Israel, are likely to be dismissive of First Nation or aboriginal historic claims.
Or is that unfair and there likely to be no correlation?
In my (Canadian) experience, the correlation can be found in a small group of people, but not much more than that. (Again) in my experience, people tend to be concerned about domestic or foreign issues, and not that often about the both.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Marvin the Martian: A better question to my mind would be what happens when the "right to use" period expires. If the occupier of a house hits the end of his "right to use" period but can't afford to buy a new one, does he just get turfed out onto the street?
I'm only vaguely familiar with this, but you seem to treat "right to use" as some kind of rent that people pay to the government. That's not what it is. It is something you buy from the previous user. In practice, it can only expire if you stop using the land.
In which case it's just ownership with a different name.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If it were the same thing as happens to a renter or a leaseholder when their rented term or lease expires, would you think there was anything objectionable about that?
If renting or leasing were the only options anyone was allowed to choose, yes I would. When ownership is also an option one can choose, then such things become part of the risk/reward equation used when deciding what to do, and are thus less objectionable.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Marvin the Martian: In which case it's just ownership with a different name.
I find the way you presume to know what it is without understanding a lot about it irritating.
Once again, I'm not an expert either, but to me the big difference is that in countries like Mozambique, it is easy to dispossess someone from their land if they don't use it.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
"Debt, the first 5000 years" by David Graeber - a good read (and free as a PDF download) - I think he would say that monetarising the value of anything creates ease of transaction (which is why it's done) but at a cost of depersonalising all elements of the deal (purchasor, purchasee, & item) and effectively removing them from moral and social obligation to some small or large degree.
In our view of land "belonging" to someone, we also tend to think of land having a "value" and therefore being a commodity, tradeable as described above. Once land is viewed in this way, it no longer has more subtle distinctions, relationships, symbology - because even if their potential is there, the placing of a finite value diminishes any sense of the non-commercial value. Hence we have difficulty defining "what is the value of a life?" but nevertheless we do place a value on it for compensation and insurance. e.g. we value our homes for many reasons, but if a home is really valued, it is not for sale, because it is irreplaceable for other than financial reasons - it becomes priceless. The question "who owns land" is likewise compromised - or "who does it belong to?" - as if it can be a belonging.
Dear Life, please hurry...
Grind me to crumbles
Between the palms of your hands.
Shove me into a heap
In your cupped hand,
And lift me close to your mouth.
Blow me in among the trees,
Down across all the upturned eyes of life;
Tracheaea and seed leaves.
Its so cold closer to the moon,
I’m so in love with the Earth.
Sandro Key-Åberg (Transl. Lennart Bruce)
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
