[jeswin]

I am surprised by the number of people who claim this is rich bashing.

Indigenous people around the world have lived for centuries with widely different concepts of property ownership. In many cultures, once you reach a working age you build your house where land is available and do your bit (say farming, or crafts) towards a functioning society. There is no land ownership record, but rather it's based on trust. Once these lands become part of countries without adequete protection for indegenous cultures, they become susceptible to exploitation. Interpreting their culture through our legal system is one way to do this.

The indigenous people of Hawaii (and elsewhere in the world) are the true owners of that land. Even if you get legal rights from each one of the current owners, it still deprives the unborn children of their rights.

It's unfair at best. At best.

[0bfus]

I agree with you that the social structures we've set up have largely forced the hands of the indigenous people who want to keep their lands in their families in perpetuity to sell. How can we actually make sure these lands stay within families forever possible though? To do something like disallowing the sale of these lands outside of their communities doesn't seem particularly ethical either. In this case, that could mean that some of the landowners who might be hard pressed for money might have a pressing need to sell, so how could we forbid that? Just like preserving our diverse cultures, I totally understand the value proposition, but how can you ethically force cultural preservation? Not a perfect analog, but I'm curious how you think a more equitable system might work here.

[matt4077]

Isn't that the exact problems that Indian reservations were set up to solve? A kind of community-administered perpetual land grant, basically.

It seems that – some problems within the tribal administrations non-withstanding – the external legal relationships are solved pretty well within that framework.

[RA_Fisher]

What you're describing is forced (w/ threat of violence) migration and I don't think it's easily justified. Care to take a shot?

[matt4077]

I was talking about today's reservations as a legal vehicle to allow perpetual group ownership & administration of land, so as to preserve it for a culture. I may have forgotten the part where, once the structure is set up, owners would voluntarily add their property if their shared this objective.

[pyrale]

Just accept that the property which you buy is provided with agreements granted to neighbours, and that by buying the property, you inherit the duty to said neighbours.

And then, don't fill a lawsuit to put people out of their homes in order to void these duties.

[Inconel]

>Even if you get legal rights from each one of the current owners, it still deprives the unborn children of their rights.

Would you mind expanding on this a bit, I'm having trouble understanding what you mean? Does this only hold true for land or other types of private property as well?

With regards to land ownership, was it really solely based on trust, or servitude and force? I'm no expert on traditional Hawaiian land ownership but didn't all the land essentially belong to the King/Chiefs who then allowed others to use the land in exchange for payment or loyalty?

Also, how would you propose land ownership disputes be settled among indigenous communities who went to war with other indigenous communities? Didn't the unification of Hawaii by Kamehameha I involve forced annexation of other islands? Who does the conquered land rightfully belong to, the ancestors of the winning Hawaiian tribes or the non existent ancestors of those Hawaiians who were killed fighting unification?

[matt4077]

> Would you mind expanding on this a bit, I'm having trouble understanding what you mean? Does this only hold true for land or other types of private property as well?

Not op, but I believe the idea here is that use of the land has a cultural dimension, and not just the usual economic dimension. The concept seems quite foreign to me (and probably most) but that may be because nature has a much lower significance in christian mythology compared to others. Maybe as an analog: if Trump were to suggest selling the declaration of independence to the highest bidder (or everything in the Smithsonian, or Yellowstone etc.), could you imagine people invoking their not-yet-born grandchildren, and their right to see these things?

Regarding your other points, I know there were many communities with a structure much closer to egalitarianism than we can imagine among the pacific islands, and even where "chiefs" existed, their position was probably something completely different than what we're bound to imagine upon hearing the term. But I have no specific knowledge of Hawaii.

[Inconel]

Thanks, your point about the Declaration of Independence is a great analogy that makes a lot of sense to me.

[Torgo]

I want to know why there are considered to be "indigenous peoples" of Hawaii at all, it was a normal, internationally-recognized country ruled by a Hawaiian with subjects as its inhabitants for almost a hundred years before the US annexed it. It had formal land ownership laws before it became part of the USA.

[largehotcoffee]

>it still deprives the unborn children of their rights

Hmmmmm