It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
FyreByrd
monkofmimir
reply to post by WhiteAlice
monopolies come and go, theyre strangle hold is usually broken by inovation. however our society has reguated inovation to the point only the largest companies can be truly inovative in most markets. Also governments now view many of these monoplies as to big to fail and will quite happily bail them out or hobble the compition with selective legislation.edit on 26-9-2013 by monkofmimir because: (no reason given)
Not when game-changing innovation is bought up and shelved.
FyreByrd
Not when game-changing innovation is bought up and shelved.
MystikMushroom
reply to post by WhiteAlice
As I said in another thread, no one "owns" anything.
If you don't pay property taxes, your land is seized. If you don't pay your debts, your physical assets could be seized.
When you buy land, you are basically just buying the right to live on it and possibly develop it.
We haven't been "free" since mankind put a person in charge of another.
WhiteAlice
reply to post by greencmp
Yeah, he's got me a little confused, too. My response to the idea of property, specifically land, is who are we to claim ownership of it? Did we buy the shares of the millions of critters also inhabiting it? Just as somebody who spent a number of years in a tribe whose concept of land is that "no single person owns it as it belongs to all that live upon it".
WhiteAlice
reply to post by greencmp
In the tribe that I was living in for nearly a decade, the concept of land ownership varied between repugnant to an uncomfortable concept. What's fallacious is to presume that every tribe is the same and to paint their beliefs under the same brush. I lived with the Navajo. They believed that use of the land found between the Four Sacred Mountains (Dinehtah) was given to them as community on which to inhabit and share with other forms of life. In fact, the respect for that life can be found in the intense number of taboos found in the cultural beliefs. You don't mess with any other critter, no matter how small. Dinehtah was the area in which they inhabited and they would sometimes defend it in response to encroachments by other tribes.
In fact, part of the reason why they got in trouble with the US was because of their concept of property ownership. In the Navajo culture, theft was considered to be a redistribution and a correction of an imbalance so when they saw these ranchers settling near Dinehtah with all of their sheep and cattle, they thought "oh they have too much" and took some. Even today, to be rich out there is to be viewed with suspicion. One of the things I frequently heard was "Beware rich medicine men." It sounds like socialism but not entirely as there was zero centralization and the economic redistribution was solely left up to the individual.
Like I said, not all tribes are the same. That's the real fallacy.edit on 27/9/13 by WhiteAlice because: (no reason given)
Adding a small portion of the Navajo list of taboos in regards to nature and wildlife as it's kind of entertaining. Some make sense, some don't but perhaps on a karmic level: www.navajocentral.org...edit on 27/9/13 by WhiteAlice because: added the taboo list
In the Navajo Nation, the challenge for the Navajo Partnership for Housing is to develop a housing market where there is not one, and where land ownership runs counter to traditional practice and values.
The Navajo concept of the earth is that of a deity whose bounty is held in common. In the traditional way of thinking, the idea of buying and selling pieces of Mother Earth is a sacrilegious act.
WhiteAlice
reply to post by greencmp
Lived nearly a decade out there and also in a time where they were introducing the concept of private land ownership through the development of Karigan Estates in St. Michael, AZ. Karigan Estates was the tribe's desperate attempt to maintain the population of educated Navajo through the provision of housing when the tribe had a tremendous housing shortage. I am most certainly not mistaken. It was quite a change and one that had varying responses. Most of the families that moved in there were either mixed couples or educated (Westernized) Navajo. I know this very well.
Report on the case study for this new development by Navajo Partnership for Housing:
In the Navajo Nation, the challenge for the Navajo Partnership for Housing is to develop a housing market where there is not one, and where land ownership runs counter to traditional practice and values.
The Navajo concept of the earth is that of a deity whose bounty is held in common. In the traditional way of thinking, the idea of buying and selling pieces of Mother Earth is a sacrilegious act.
www.nw.org...
As I said, be extraordinarily cautious when lumping together tribal beliefs under some single banner. Each tribe is fundamentally different and it's disrespectful to those differences.
The Navajo concept of the earth is that of a deity whose bounty is held in common. In the traditional way of thinking, the idea of buying and selling pieces of Mother Earth is a sacrilegious act.
WhiteAlice
reply to post by greencmp
You're trying to frame a concept under your specific world view. Look at this quote:
The Navajo concept of the earth is that of a deity whose bounty is held in common. In the traditional way of thinking, the idea of buying and selling pieces of Mother Earth is a sacrilegious act.
You can't own a deity. That's the tradition. Even the idea of "tribal property" is a foreign one that was brought to the tribe by the US government.
Timber, water, the vegetation--communal property. If a patch of timber is near another family's hogan, then one must ask permission to use it (and as a note, hogans were traditionally only built with fallen logs--they didn't even cut down trees for them) out of respect for tradition despite it being communal property. The use of a patch of land may "belong" to a family through tradition but they do not "own" the land. It seems like a little thing but it's a huge distinction. To say that that the land is owned by the tribe or an individual would be sacrilege.
Livestock, jewelry, clothing. blankets--privately owned but may be subject to economic redistribution.
There's an important story about how the Navajo acquired agriculture. When they arrived in Dinehtah, they found the Pueblo already there and growing fields of corn. Needing corn themselves, they would go and steal it from the Pueblo. Finally, the Pueblo got fed up with it and, instead, taught the Navajo how to grow corn for themselves so that they would no longer need to steal corn from the Pueblo.
However, even these tenuous concepts of property ownership in terms of livestock or fields are still not really how we equate property. They do not "own" the livestock. It is a gift of nature that can be taken away. In a lot of ways, they were raiders. Even things like jewelry were not owned by a single person but by that person's family. Out there, you can see Navajo grandmothers completely decked out in probably thousands of dollars in jewelry. She doesn't wear this to show off her own personal wealth. She wears it to honor her family and clan. Those Navajo who choose to accumulate personal wealth are not admired or pointed out as someone to be emulated. In fact, they may be suspected of witchcraft--something traditionally punishable by death.
So, there is property but it is almost always communal property. Gifts of nature--a stand of trees, livestock--can be considered private property only in so much that they are not taken away by act of nature or other. However, the stand of trees does not belong to you so that you can cut it down. Traditionally, only fallen logs should be used. Livestock? It may belong to your family (extended) but its life does not belong to you. If you take its life, you thank it for its gift and sacrifice and honor what it will bring to you and yours. The sheep owns its own life. I've gone to many butcherings of sheep and this was tradition as the knife slit the throat.
I really hope you get it this time. The concept of "belonging to" or property ownership, even on a tribal level, for the Navajo is extraordinarily foreign to those of European descent.