Sunny. High 88F. Winds NNW at 5 to 10 mph..
A few passing clouds. Low 61F. Winds N at 5 to 10 mph.
Updated: October 16, 2021 @ 1:23 pm
Your comment has been submitted.
There was a problem reporting this.
Note twosie - as usual lied - Jstor Daily – Where news meets is scholarly match – “There’s a myth that Europeans arrived in the Americas and divided the land up, mystifying Native Americans who had no concept of property rights. In reality, historian Allen Greer writes, various American societies had highly-developed systems of property ownership and use. Meanwhile, European colonists sometimes viewed land as a common resource, not just as individual property.
“Women in a particular family typically owned specific maize fields, although people of the area often farmed them, and distributed the harvest, collectively.
In reality, Greer writes, most people in the pre-Columbian Americas were primarily farmers, not hunter-gatherers. Around major Mesoamerican cities, cropland might be owned by households, temples, or urban nobles. As in Europe, less-cultivated areas like forests and deserts acted as a kind of regulated commons. They might belong to a person, family, or community, with legal provisions for local people to gather wood, berries, or game. In Iroquois and Algonquian nations, women in a particular family typically owned specific maize fields, although people of the area often farmed them, and distributed the harvest, collectively.
“Even among North American hunter-gatherer nations, Greer writes, societies often allocated hunting grounds to specific families. And these people didn’t simply harvest nature’s bounty. They used techniques like diverting streams and burning underbrush to manage the land to ensure future harvests.
If the idea of pre-Columbian America as a universal commons is a myth, so is the story that Europeans immediately divided the land into individual plots of private property. Greer notes that in Mexico and other parts of the Americas, Spaniards established pastures and other common lands around their cities. Officials granted parts of this land to individual owners, but much of it remained a municipal commons owned by the town, with all residents entitled to share its bounty.
"Similarly, in colonial New England, communal pastures were common. Some towns also used open-field tillage systems in which people owned plots of cropland individually but managed them collectively. It was only gradually, over the course of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, that New Englanders divided most agricultural land into family farms.
“When Native and colonial conceptions of property clashed, it was sometimes in the form of Europeans imposing their ideas of common land on territory that was already owned. Colonists often allowed their livestock to roam freely, disrupting the forest ecosystems and ownership systems that provided a livelihood for local people. As a Maryland Native leader named Mattagund explained to colonial authorities, ‘Your cattle and hogs injure us. You come too near to us to live and drive us from place to place.’
“When individual private property did finally become the norm across the Americas, it was through the destruction of prior systems of property rights.”
I held my breath when I clicked on view results. I was pleasantly pleased when I actually saw we mostly agreed on something. When Trump had reduced Bears Ears to a fraction of its size, I couldn't help but think it was yet another childish move by the former President to undo everything Obama had done. The Republican excuse
of course, is that it stifles potential commerce. Perhaps Republicans should try and think of others ways to stimulate commerce, jobs, and the economy without destroying these national treasures and trampling on indigenous people. I realize that the massive tax breaks they gave to big corporations didn't stimulate our economy, as China will always be the corporate world's "Favorite Trade Nation." I also realize their lack of foresight to understand the benefits of an infrastructure bill, including the social aspects, won't stimulate commerce either. But just leave the parks alone. It's one of the few shared joys that "We the People" enjoy together across party lines. Nuremberg style rallies certainly didn't accomplish that.
LET’S GO BRANDON!!!
Looks like a landslide support day for the Yes voters. Here is an old article that describes the WHY some areas were reduced in size.
In my opinion, the Federal Government controls far too much land in the Western U.S. and much of it should be returned to We-The-People for their use. This will become increasingly important as our population continues to grow. Our State and Federal park systems preserve millions of acres of land for public enjoyment.
". . . it should be returned to We-The-Indigenous-People for their use."
There fixed that for ya, Tom.
RO - You nailed it!
Yep. I heard it asked, Which tribes would get the money?" and, "There's no way we could possibly figure it out...". That seems easy, give the land back and let them decide. It wouldn't be our business...because freedoom.
Which tribes would be able to show some sort of ownership over whatever lands they seek? Most of them were nomadic and land ownership meant nothing to anyone in that era. It would be better for them if the government overhauled BIA into a truly helpful agency and threw out the red tape that restrains them now.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.
Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.
Error! There was an error processing your request.
Receive our newspaper electronically with the e-Edition email.