Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (17371)	1/27/2002 7:19:00 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Lets not kid ourselves. All rights to "real property" in the world have started off as a result of the use of force. International Law still recognizes that property seized as a result of war can be legal. Yes, that's true. But CobaltBlue seemed to be talking of buying property in the case of the American settlement, which is particularly problematic because most of the Indian tribes didn't every have the concept of individual land ownership. A few thousand Indians would ride through a few millian acres once a year and say it was "theirs". The European settlers would not have had any good way to respect those land rights even if they had wished to, which they didn't. There is only one example I can think of where a nationalistic movement tried to acquire land rights to a country by legal purchase -- the Zionists bought all the land their acquired in Palestine before 1948. Much good it did them.