And the corollary question is: should we just allow people to take others' land with impunity? Which on a grand scale translates to, is ethnic cleansing OK? The answer by the way is "no" and it's very easy to hold that position without demanding New Yorkers vacate Manhattan and give it back to the Indian population their ancestors decimated hundreds of years ago. Anyway, we've already had these facile comparisons of Palestinians with Native Indians in another discussion. Are we really going to rehash that nonsense here? If that's the direction this is going in, then just take it to that discussion which is already a mess rather than start a new mess here.

Is it even possible to 'own' land in any but the legal sense. If we agree that it is, when do we draw the line on original ownership? Do we start with the labour-mixing of the agricultural revolution as Locke does or do hunter-gatherers also have a claim to land?

If we go down the first come-first served route, then the vast majority of land is unethically held. If we agree that unethically held land should be returned, then it follows that the vast majority of land should be returned.

Seems like a good case for status quo bias, given the complexity of the alternatives.

The complexity requires the application of intelligence, patience and empathy for both sides in any dispute over land, particularly one that has already, or has the potential to, end up in war. That paid off in Northern Ireland, for example. What isn't helpful is ignoring the complexity in favor of arguing about binary oppositions that could be written on the back of a postage stamp, such as "give everyone back their land" vs "don't give anyone back their land".

Er, no.

We bite the bullet; accept that land-ownership is unethical, and think about how to move forward given that it is impossible to right this wrong in every case.

Re: Northern Ireland, I was unaware that this was a land-rights issue. However, it's certainly the case that Viking invaders stole significant territory from the previous population. Perhaps, we can test the current population for Viking gene-markers and return the land to its prior owners, or should we delve deeper into human history and find the autochthonous settlers and give everything to them? Or is, as you suggest, the right to land ownership only proportional to the clamour made by those demanding reparations?

There has already been a political-philosophical proposal to solve this problem. Remember, "Property is theft!"? Not terribly successful.

Er, no — jastopher

What point are you disputing?

Re: Northern Ireland, I was unaware that this was a land-rights issue. However, it's certainly the case that Viking invaders stole significant territory from the previous population. — jastopher

What on earth are you talking about?

Just in case anyone is wondering, the Vikings never "stole significant territory" in Northern Ireland. They settled the South (see map). And in my comment, I was obviously referring to the protestant settlers from Britain and their ongoing conflict with those who came before.

Viking Invasions:


Protestant Plantations:



.

And the corollary question is: should we just allow people to take others' land with impunity? — Baden

Taking land usually involves war which can get really ugly. I don't think fighting a war in order to take someone's land is moral.

Which on a grand scale translates to, is ethnic cleansing OK? — Baden

Not necessarily. You don't have to ethnically cleanse a country to take it over. Peutro Rico for example was acquired from the Spanish by the United States in the Treaty of Paris 1898.

I saw you in the OP as attempting a reductio on the idea of giving everyone back their land, or political control of territories previously settled or seized by foreigners (as applies in N.Ireland, for example). Which you can do, but it's just as easy to do a reductio on the idea of allowing the illegal seizure or settling of a territory to always go unchecked. My objection is to the idea, which I inferred from your OP that as the former is absurd, the latter must not be (correct me if I misread you). What is absurd in my view is reducing disputes over land and the control of territory in general to this level of simplicity.

Thanks for the maps. It would great if you could engage with the arguments, though.

The right to possess land within an established system is determined by the system. My right to own my land is clear under the American system and to deprive me of it would victimize me and unfairly benefit another.

The right of Americans to continued posession of its land and to create their system is based on nothing other than political acceptance of that right by Americans and to some extent the international community. Should Americans begin to question their right to the land and should the international community question it, their claim to the land will be weakened.

The solution to this attack on American legitimacy will be to (1) convince its citizens and the international community of its legitimacy and (2) to be unwavering in its defense of its land. That is, it's got to convince others and be thoroughly self-convinced that the land is its own.

The opposition wanting the land would therefore be required to do what is necessary to delegitimize the American claims to the land if it wanted to reaquire the land.

What arguments? I responded already to your misunderstandings about Vikings and N. Ireland. Apart from that, there is an "er no" which I already asked you to connect to one or more of my previous statements. Then there's a strawman where you claim I suggest "the right to land ownership [is] only proportional to the clamour made by those demanding reparations" (obviously not only given what I've already written, so this is hardly worth spending time on). Finally there is an allusion to the anarchist statement that "property is theft", which doesn't address anything I've written.

The right of Americans to posess the land and to create their system is based on nothing other than political acceptance of that right by Americans and to some extent the international community. Should Americans begin to question their right to the land and should the international community question it, their claim to the land will be weakened. — Hanover

That's more or less it. Although the pressure the international community can bring to bear on a particular country depends to a large degree on the relative power of that country so we don't always get fairness in this process.

Although the pressure the international community can bring to bear on a particular country depends to a large degree on the relative power of that country so we don't always get fairness in this process. — Baden

That's true, with a good example being Russia's aquisition of Crimea, a modern day crime if there ever were one.

I would agree with that, yes.

Where did anyone ever get the right to property in anything? Still, we prosecute people for theft, and the Zionists are prime candidates. Even assuming that some of their ancestors actually lived in that territory, does that give us all the right to claim territory our myths tell us 'our people' once lived in? The ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, who were manifestly living in that Country when the Zionists arrived, is a provable fact. It's a question, I suppose, about how far you go back. Could we establish, now, who inherits the responsibility for racist slavery in the US, and to whom compensation should be paid? Fair numbers would, given the doings of plantation owners and such, on genetic inheritance, be in both camps. Should we accept as true the Nineteenth Century fantasies of vast German hordes (swimming, doubtless, since they appear to have had no sails) repopulating eastern Britannia? We all know pretty well about what has happened over the last hundred years or so, however, and the criminal behaviour of the Zionists is definite enough, surely? But, as with the doings of China and others, have we the power to do anything about it? Probably yes, just, but not immediately.

We shouldn't assume that the land was owned by whatever group happened to live there before it was taken over by others, such that they should be given it back. Freehold is very rare historically.

Both Palestinians and Jews have reasonable claims to the land in that area. Zionism is the Jewish part of that claim and it's been internationally recognized as valid. That boat has sailed justifiably. The issue now is how to find a balance with the Palestinian claims. It won't be by pushing the Israelis into the sea.

I am at a loss to understand your first sentence. The dominant world power, the USA, and its opponent, the USSR, set up 'Israel' to avoid having many dp's arriving at their own gates, and the 'state' has survived ads a favoured American colony since then. It seems to me that (reasonably in the circumstances of the time) the Zionists saw their survival in imitating Hitler, and would have been content with some other reich, Madagascar for instance. Lots of pirate ships have sailed over time, but people had to stop them eventually.

You can take your hate for Zionists elsewhere. Address the general principle under discussion or don't post.

Both Palestinians and Jews have reasonable claims to the land in that area. — Baden

That isn't how we normally understand property rights. I don't have a 'reasonable claim' to somebody else's property because of my race or religion.

I don't have a 'reasonable claim' to somebody else's property because of my race or religion. — Londoner

So what? Palestinians and Jews have claims to this land because they live there and have lived there historically not because of their race and religion.

'You can take your hate for Zionists elsewhere. Address the general principle under discussion or don't post. '

Yes, Master! At once, Master!

Gee, "Sir" would have been enough. :hearts:

ethnic cleansing — Baden

The idea that diversity is a universal good which communities at all levels ought to seek is a current vogue, at least for the last several decades. "Ethnic cleansing" appeared in print only in the mid 1990s. It was first applied, if memory serves, in the Balkan conflicts in the 1990s--Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, etc. (The disputed issues weren't new in 1995; they had been the subject of conflict there for over a century.)

Since then it's been used quite a lot, per this Google Ngram (representing usage in print)

I think the word "right" is being used so loosely in this thread that it doesn't mean much. Can a people have a natural right to a stretch of land? They could if Nature gave a damn. What other type of right might we be talking about?

Heh. I put right and might in the same sentence. Oh.

So what? Palestinians and Jews have claims to this land because they live there and have lived there historically not because of their race and religion. — Baden

If I have a claim on some land I am asserting ownership. If my claim is because other people of the same race or religion as me have lived in that area 'historically', then my claim would be based on my race or religion.

The thread is about 'giving everyone back their land'. If the people who once lived there are dead, then that isn't possible. Not unless we believe in some form of tribal inheritance.

The idea that diversity is a universal good which communities at all levels ought to seek is a current vogue, at least for the last several decades. "Ethnic cleansing" appeared in print only in the mid 1990s. — Bitter Crank

Ethnic cleansing is "the mass expulsion or killing of members of an unwanted ethnic or religious group in a society" so you can be against diversity / multi-culturalism and limit immigration accordingly (that's a legitimate position to take in my view), and also be against ethnic cleansing. And I'd presume most of the anti-immigrant crowd would be against that.

In the case of Zionism in particular, there is that element, yes, but national identity is not solely based on race and religion. You can be Palestinian and Christian, Israeli and atheist etc., so it's not a particularly accurate way of viewing the situation.

What other type of right might we be talking about? — frank

Legal rights under national and international law guided by treaties, mutual understandings, precedent etc.

Do you believe that some countries are illegitimate in that they took someone's land with out permission? If so, what should be done about it ideally? Should we give back the the land? To whom? the original owners or the previous owners? — Purple Pond

No. I don't believe that countries are illegitimate if they took someone's land without their permission. The history of our species involves waves of populations over-running other populations. There is no plot of land on earth, as far as we know, that hasn't been contested at some point during the last, oh, 50,000 years, on down to this very moment.

The way peoples and nations behave isn't governed by the rules of etiquette. Real Politic tends to be brutal. I am not applauding that fact, and I am not asking anyone else to applaud it, but that is in fact how things work most of the time.

Yes, it is true that European empires seized ownership of the western hemisphere from the native people. All of the European empires were founded by people who were not originally occupants of their imperial states. Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal had been over run in previous centuries before they started their imperial careers--several times in some cases. The Western Hemisphere had been populated for 10,000 years+ by populations who were definitely not above running over neighboring peoples.

The only recourse that protects nations from being over-run is defensive warfare. Had the Axis been slightly more successful in WWII, and the Allies been slightly less successful, the map of Europe and Asia would look much different today than it does. Had the Axis been significantly more successful, there would probably not be a lot of dispute that the new map made perfectly good sense.