|
|
|
|
|
by jhpriestley
2868 days ago
|
|
I think the principle of "Finder's Keepers" is completely illegitimate when it comes to transportable objects like artwork, but it's at least a little bit legitimate when it comes to land - in the case of North America, generations of people have been born there and made their lives there, so they have some claim to the land even if its original seizure was a crime. I think the legitimacy of US sovereignty over its land (or Canadian or Australian etc) is also strengthened by the fact that it is a representative democracy, so to some degree its management of the land is carried out on behalf of all of its citizens, including the descendants of natives. If the US were governed by an aristocracy of descendants of settlers, as in Apartheid South Africa, then that would be clearly unjust to me. edit: to be clear, I think that native populations in all these countries have legitimate grievances today, I just wouldn't go so far as to say that all their original land is still rightfully theirs. |
|