|
|
|
|
|
|
by Inconel
3444 days ago
|
|
|
>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? |
|
|
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.