If they really want to commit to being the Ayn Rand institute, they should use Ayn Rand’s argument for why Native Americans didn’t have the rights to their land
I “like” the text of that speech because it just nakedly shows how much a monster Rand was and the natural conclusion of her “philosophy”. Showed it to a Rand stan I know and she never responded to it.
" [Native Americans] didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their ‘right’ to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent." - Ayn Rand, West Point lecture 1974
To be clear, Indigenous peoples did have property rights in their own legal codes and did work the land, so she’s even wrong on the basics here, and even if they didn’t would not justify genocide.
“The memorandum noted that the Arabs had done nothing for centuries to develop the land and thus had forfeited their rights to the Jews, who, with their skill, energy and resources, had already demonstrated their capacity for developing Palestine and making it prosper. Moreover, it was asserted that the Arabs of Palestine were not ready for self-government in view of widespread illiteracy and lack of education. German interests and aims in Palestine were defined as primarily economic in nature; the Jews, not the Arabs, were considered most capable of creating conditions in Palestine conducive to those interests and aims.”
is there any reading you’d recommend on pre-colonial conceptions of indigenous property rights? since grade school i was always lead to believe that native americans didn’t have land ownership.
Graeber likes talking about the topic, see both Debt: The First 5000 Years and The Dawn of Everything. I’m sure there’s more indigenous sources.
An opening point would be that “native american” is a very broad category. Many different cultures with different lifestyles and legal codes. Hierarchies and morals. They have effectively been homogenised (in the eyes of their colonisers) by their common oppression and conquest.
Even if they didn’t, that argument would only hold up until the very first treaty signed between colonizers and indigenous peoples. 99% of the story of colonization isn’t people showing up to uncontacted tribes, it’s settlers breaking their agreements with contacted ones.
If they really want to commit to being the Ayn Rand institute, they should use Ayn Rand’s argument for why Native Americans didn’t have the rights to their land
I “like” the text of that speech because it just nakedly shows how much a monster Rand was and the natural conclusion of her “philosophy”. Showed it to a Rand stan I know and she never responded to it.
In the land of anticommunism, all roads lead to fascism.
weird suddenly people don’t have a right to property
They do, its just that these ones are not people.
Dare I ask?
" [Native Americans] didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their ‘right’ to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent." - Ayn Rand, West Point lecture 1974
To be clear, Indigenous peoples did have property rights in their own legal codes and did work the land, so she’s even wrong on the basics here, and even if they didn’t would not justify genocide.
“The memorandum noted that the Arabs had done nothing for centuries to develop the land and thus had forfeited their rights to the Jews, who, with their skill, energy and resources, had already demonstrated their capacity for developing Palestine and making it prosper. Moreover, it was asserted that the Arabs of Palestine were not ready for self-government in view of widespread illiteracy and lack of education. German interests and aims in Palestine were defined as primarily economic in nature; the Jews, not the Arabs, were considered most capable of creating conditions in Palestine conducive to those interests and aims.”
many such cases
What is this a quote from?
The Third Reich and the Palestine Question by Francis Nicosia. I think re: German support for Zionist settlement in the 1920s
Fuck the troops
Fuckhead couldn’t even stay consistent; it was always a grift for her.
I’ve seen plenty of takes that are just this from zionists the last couple of weeks. It is just the same shit over and over with settler colonialists.
me when i’m a secular natural rights “anarchist”: “um but the state didn’t say it was theirs?”
is there any reading you’d recommend on pre-colonial conceptions of indigenous property rights? since grade school i was always lead to believe that native americans didn’t have land ownership.
Graeber likes talking about the topic, see both Debt: The First 5000 Years and The Dawn of Everything. I’m sure there’s more indigenous sources.
An opening point would be that “native american” is a very broad category. Many different cultures with different lifestyles and legal codes. Hierarchies and morals. They have effectively been homogenised (in the eyes of their colonisers) by their common oppression and conquest.
Maybe not 100% what you’re looking for, but probably covering a lot of the same territory - check out Theft Is Property! by Robert Nichols.
Even if they didn’t, that argument would only hold up until the very first treaty signed between colonizers and indigenous peoples. 99% of the story of colonization isn’t people showing up to uncontacted tribes, it’s settlers breaking their agreements with contacted ones.
that’s basically the same argument they made, yeah :/