This Land Is My Land

[Minotaur]

This Land Is My Land
Apologies to Woody Guthrie

This land is my land This land is my land
From California to the New York island;
From the red wood forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for only Me.

As I was walking that ribbon of highway,
I saw above me that endless skyway:
I saw below me that golden valley:
This land was made for only me.

I've roamed and rambled and I followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts;
And all around me a voice was sounding:
This land was made for only me.

When the sun came shining, and I was strolling,
And the wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling,
As the fog was lifting a voice was chanting:
This land was made for only me.

As I went walking I saw a sign there
And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."
But on the other side it didn't say nothing,
Both sides was made for only me.

In the shadow of the steeple I saw some people,
By the relief office I seen them people;
As they stood there hungry, I stood there singing
This land aint made for you, just me,

Nobody living can ever stop me,
As I go walking that freedom highway;
Nobody living can ever make me turn back
This land was made for only me.

So if yer wantin to take my country
Stretchin' east to westward
Or north or south, may I remind you
This land was made for only me.

Dedicated with appreciation to Bundy and his feral cows.

 

[freyasman]

This Land Is My Land
Apologies to Woody Guthrie

This land is my land This land is my land
From California to the New York island;
From the red wood forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for only Me.

As I was walking that ribbon of highway,
I saw above me that endless skyway:
I saw below me that golden valley:
This land was made for only me.

I've roamed and rambled and I followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts;
And all around me a voice was sounding:
This land was made for only me.

When the sun came shining, and I was strolling,
And the wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling,
As the fog was lifting a voice was chanting:
This land was made for only me.

As I went walking I saw a sign there
And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."
But on the other side it didn't say nothing,
Both sides was made for only me.

In the shadow of the steeple I saw some people,
By the relief office I seen them people;
As they stood there hungry, I stood there singing
This land aint made for you, just me,

Nobody living can ever stop me,
As I go walking that freedom highway;
Nobody living can ever make me turn back
This land was made for only me.

So if yer wantin to take my country
Stretchin' east to westward
Or north or south, may I remind you
This land was made for only me.

Dedicated with appreciation to Bundy and his feral cows.

I'm going skinny-dipping in your pool, Min.... Enjoy the show

 

[Minotaur]

I'm going skinny-dipping in your pool, Min.... Enjoy the show

Niagara Falls? Clean up afterward.

Don't leave a ring around the rim. lol

 

[Days]

Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Land of Entitlement
From Sea to Shining Sea

The funny thing about the game of Monopoly is that the game gives the impression that there is a physical certificate of title. (Which they call "Deeds" even though a deed is merely a transfer of title and does not certify ownership; the deeds are then recorded, which passes title but in and of itself is not proof of title) In the real world you need a chain of title to prove ownership. Title is really an opinion; the legal opinion of the state.

Since ownership of the new world began with the natives; the cloud on title is the missing link between the natives and the European settlers. This is more than just a legal question, the missing link in the European mindset is the idea of entitlement and it's application to the new world.

In the final analysis, Title is merely a claim of European aristocracy to everything they can lay their hands on. They come into contact with some thing and they kill to take it. Your right of ownership lies squarely on the ability of the state to kill to uphold whatever dictum it desires to enforce. You own your house as a fellow murderer in the ranks of those who exterminated the natives and stole their land. As I look forward to buying my first house I am fully aware that this is the blood agreement that I enter into when I close on the home.

What entitled the white man to come here and claim every acre he desired? The guns he brought with him, and the lawyers... and the money he brought also. So with this trinity of unholy force; Lawyers, guns, & money, the white man murdered and stole and settled. He then built courthouses in every county and in those courthouses he kept records of how he now is the rightful owner of this land according to his own declaration that he is entitled to it. After killing the natives and destroying the land itself, this is his just domain.

America; Land of Entitlement.

~Days

 

[Union_Jack_1972]

Just for you Minnie:

A DEA officer stopped at a ranch in Texas , and talked with an old rancher.
He told the rancher, "I need to inspect your ranch for illegally grown drugs."
The rancher said, "Okay , but don't go in that field over there.", as he pointed out the location.
The DEA officer verbally exploded saying, " Mister, I have the authority of the Federal Government with me !" Reaching into his rear pants pocket, he removed his badge and proudly displayed it to the rancher. "See this badge?! This badge means I am allowed to go wherever I wish.... On any land! No questions asked! Do you understand ?!!" The rancher nodded politely, apologized, and went about his chores. A short time later, the old rancher heard loud screams, looked up, and saw the DEA officer running for his life, being chased by the rancher's big Santa Gertrudis bull...... With every step the bull was gaining ground on the officer, and it seemed likely that he'd sure enough get gored before he reached safety. The officer was clearly terrified. The rancher threw down his tools, ran to the fence and yelled at the top of his lungs..... "Your badge, show him your BADGE!!"

http://kickasshumor.com/funny-joke/701/a-dea-officer-stopped-at-a-ranch-in-texas-and-ta

 

[UPNYA2]

Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Land of Entitlement
From Sea to Shining Sea

The funny thing about the game of Monopoly is that the game gives the impression that there is a physical certificate of title. (Which they call "Deeds" even though a deed is merely a transfer of title and does not certify ownership; the deeds are then recorded, which passes title but in and of itself is not proof of title) In the real world you need a chain of title to prove ownership. Title is really an opinion; the legal opinion of the state.

Since ownership of the new world began with the natives; the cloud on title is the missing link between the natives and the European settlers. This is more than just a legal question, the missing link in the European mindset is the idea of entitlement and it's application to the new world.

In the final analysis, Title is merely a claim of European aristocracy to everything they can lay their hands on. They come into contact with some thing and they kill to take it. Your right of ownership lies squarely on the ability of the state to kill to uphold whatever dictum it desires to enforce. You own your house as a fellow murderer in the ranks of those who exterminated the natives and stole their land. As I look forward to buying my first house I am fully aware that this is the blood agreement that I enter into when I close on the home.

What entitled the white man to come here and claim every acre he desired? The guns he brought with him, and the lawyers... and the money he brought also. So with this trinity of unholy force; Lawyers, guns, & money, the white man murdered and stole and settled. He then built courthouses in every county and in those courthouses he kept records of how he now is the rightful owner of this land according to his own declaration that he is entitled to it. After killing the natives and destroying the land itself, this is his just domain.

America; Land of Entitlement.

~Days

Interesting crop of babblin' bat shhit.

In the very first paragraph of this whine filled rant it clearly states, "In the real world you need a chain of title to prove ownership.".

This is then followed by the assertation, "Since ownership of the new world began with the natives;"..........

Did no one except myself happen to notice how the author just presents that assertation and continues on with his/her crying, completely ignoring his OWN requirement for a "chain of title to prove ownership"?

Did this author or ANYONE, at ANY time, EVER present anyone else with anything that might even remotely be confused with the afore mentioned, "chain of title to prove ownership", that, again, according to the very writer of this crap, would be necessary to prove, "ownership of the new world", belonged to the natives?

If so I missed it here.

How can the author and all of the rest of us, "be a fellow murderer in the ranks of those who exterminated the natives and stole their land.", when in fact there is NO, ""chain of title to prove ownership"?

Something that, least we forget, is said to be necessary according to the weaping writer of what you presented here......

And what of this, "Title is merely a claim of European aristocracy to everything they can lay their hands on. They come into contact with some thing and they kill to take it. Your right of ownership lies squarely on the ability of the state to kill to uphold whatever dictum it desires to enforce."?

Are we to believe that this was/is something unique to ONLY the "European aristocracy", as the writer implies here? Is anyone actually under the illusion that other peoples all over this planet, throughout history, have ALL gained and lost "possession" of land in such a manner?


"the white man murdered and stole and settled."

Really? As opposed to WHOM?

Why is it this land was "stolen" from the natives who were here when the Europeans arrived? How is it you feel they came to be in possession of it themselves? What about those who were here prior to THEM? How do you suppose the various tribes who were here treated one another when two or more wanted to live in a certain valley or sea shore to provide for themselves? Many native American tribes were well known for being very fierce warriors, how you reckon they got so good at such a thing anyway, hoss?

As for pointing out how it was those dreaded white men who dared build courthouses keep records of rightful ownership of land and what individuals were entitled to, what would YOU prefer? The way our holier-than-thou, noble natives?

Look, no one should ever deny the wrongs done by our forefathers, that is dishonest, but with that being said it is equally as dishonest to sit around acting as if prior to the arrival of Europeans in the Americas everyone everywhere on earth all magically co-existed, sitting around the camp fire singing kum-ba-ya, smoking peace pipes and sticking their tongues in one another's ears.

I suggest everyone put on their big girl panties and get over it.....

 

[freyasman]

Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Land of Entitlement
From Sea to Shining Sea

The funny thing about the game of Monopoly is that the game gives the impression that there is a physical certificate of title. (Which they call "Deeds" even though a deed is merely a transfer of title and does not certify ownership; the deeds are then recorded, which passes title but in and of itself is not proof of title) In the real world you need a chain of title to prove ownership. Title is really an opinion; the legal opinion of the state.

Since ownership of the new world began with the natives; the cloud on title is the missing link between the natives and the European settlers. This is more than just a legal question, the missing link in the European mindset is the idea of entitlement and it's application to the new world.

In the final analysis, Title is merely a claim of European aristocracy to everything they can lay their hands on. They come into contact with some thing and they kill to take it. Your right of ownership lies squarely on the ability of the state to kill to uphold whatever dictum it desires to enforce. You own your house as a fellow murderer in the ranks of those who exterminated the natives and stole their land. As I look forward to buying my first house I am fully aware that this is the blood agreement that I enter into when I close on the home.

What entitled the white man to come here and claim every acre he desired? The guns he brought with him, and the lawyers... and the money he brought also. So with this trinity of unholy force; Lawyers, guns, & money, the white man murdered and stole and settled. He then built courthouses in every county and in those courthouses he kept records of how he now is the rightful owner of this land according to his own declaration that he is entitled to it. After killing the natives and destroying the land itself, this is his just domain.

America; Land of Entitlement.

~Days

Ahh, bullshit....
(And "Lawyers, guns, & money" isn't an "unholy trinity", it's just a good Warren Zevon tune....)

 

[fairsheet]

Our first peoples didn't recognize the concept of "title to land". So, whitey didn't steal title to their land (in the strict sense of the word "title". For the most part what whitey did was grant title to the Indians, then do what it took to finagle those titles.

None of this excuses what actually went down, by any means. But it does point up a very significant misunderstanding between the new and old worlds. For if you don't really understand what title to, or ownership of land means, how can you understand what you're giving up by way of purchase or treaty?

For instance up in my region, back in the day, native people signed away their "title" to the land, but presumed to reserve their right to fish in their usual and accustomed places. My guess is that they didn't really give a shit who "owned" the land, as long as they could continue using it as they always had. They didn't understand that that's not how it works in old world-think.

 

[RickWA]

Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Land of Entitlement
From Sea to Shining Sea

The funny thing about the game of Monopoly is that the game gives the impression that there is a physical certificate of title. (Which they call "Deeds" even though a deed is merely a transfer of title and does not certify ownership; the deeds are then recorded, which passes title but in and of itself is not proof of title) In the real world you need a chain of title to prove ownership. Title is really an opinion; the legal opinion of the state.

Since ownership of the new world began with the natives; the cloud on title is the missing link between the natives and the European settlers. This is more than just a legal question, the missing link in the European mindset is the idea of entitlement and it's application to the new world.

In the final analysis, Title is merely a claim of European aristocracy to everything they can lay their hands on. They come into contact with some thing and they kill to take it. Your right of ownership lies squarely on the ability of the state to kill to uphold whatever dictum it desires to enforce. You own your house as a fellow murderer in the ranks of those who exterminated the natives and stole their land. As I look forward to buying my first house I am fully aware that this is the blood agreement that I enter into when I close on the home.

What entitled the white man to come here and claim every acre he desired? The guns he brought with him, and the lawyers... and the money he brought also. So with this trinity of unholy force; Lawyers, guns, & money, the white man murdered and stole and settled. He then built courthouses in every county and in those courthouses he kept records of how he now is the rightful owner of this land according to his own declaration that he is entitled to it. After killing the natives and destroying the land itself, this is his just domain.

America; Land of Entitlement.

~Days

Ok. So...what if I seek out a Native American and buy land from him - offering him fair, mutually agreed upon compensation for the property. THEN is the transaction legitimate?
I'm just curious how a proper transfer of ownership of anything anywhere at any time can be justified under these pretenses...

 

[Boca]

What the hell is this thread supposed to be about? Woody Guthrie?

What if I posted the lyrics of Tutti Fruiti by Little Richard?

Geezus ....people nowadays sure as hell got a lot of time on their hands. Probably cuz of Obama's economy.....which is probably why I thought of Tutti Fruiti and Little Richard in the first place.

 

[Days]

Interesting crop of babblin' bat shhit.

In the very first paragraph of this whine filled rant it clearly states, "In the real world you need a chain of title to prove ownership.".

This is then followed by the assertation, "Since ownership of the new world began with the natives;"..........

Did no one except myself happen to notice how the author just presents that assertation and continues on with his/her crying, completely ignoring his OWN requirement for a "chain of title to prove ownership"?

Did this author or ANYONE, at ANY time, EVER present anyone else with anything that might even remotely be confused with the afore mentioned, "chain of title to prove ownership", that, again, according to the very writer of this crap, would be necessary to prove, "ownership of the new world", belonged to the natives?

If so I missed it here.

How can the author and all of the rest of us, "be a fellow murderer in the ranks of those who exterminated the natives and stole their land.", when in fact there is NO, ""chain of title to prove ownership"?

Something that, least we forget, is said to be necessary according to the weaping writer of what you presented here......

And what of this, "Title is merely a claim of European aristocracy to everything they can lay their hands on. They come into contact with some thing and they kill to take it. Your right of ownership lies squarely on the ability of the state to kill to uphold whatever dictum it desires to enforce."?

Are we to believe that this was/is something unique to ONLY the "European aristocracy", as the writer implies here? Is anyone actually under the illusion that other peoples all over this planet, throughout history, have ALL gained and lost "possession" of land in such a manner?


"the white man murdered and stole and settled."

Really? As opposed to WHOM?

Why is it this land was "stolen" from the natives who were here when the Europeans arrived? How is it you feel they came to be in possession of it themselves? What about those who were here prior to THEM? How do you suppose the various tribes who were here treated one another when two or more wanted to live in a certain valley or sea shore to provide for themselves? Many native American tribes were well known for being very fierce warriors, how you reckon they got so good at such a thing anyway, hoss?

As for pointing out how it was those dreaded white men who dared build courthouses keep records of rightful ownership of land and what individuals were entitled to, what would YOU prefer? The way our holier-than-thou, noble natives?

Look, no one should ever deny the wrongs done by our forefathers, that is dishonest, but with that being said it is equally as dishonest to sit around acting as if prior to the arrival of Europeans in the Americas everyone everywhere on earth all magically co-existed, sitting around the camp fire singing kum-ba-ya, smoking peace pipes and sticking their tongues in one another's ears.

I suggest everyone put on their big girl panties and get over it.....

I wrote that assuming certain items of knowledge were already possessed by my reader. I assumed that my reader would know that land ownership is an old world concept, that land redemption has its roots in Babylonian culture, Abraham carried it with him from Ur, but the land was open to his herds, the idea of open land is almost forgotten to this generation, but we still have open lands; it is a matter of law, but to the natives in the land of corn (America) it was a natural understanding; man doesn't own the land, the land owns man.

Chain of Title is only valid if the original owner was the legal owner. Hence the court houses erected by settlers in the New world, claimed ownership, if the idea hasn't dawned on you yet, that's what making a stake is; it is the same as the conquistadors claiming all the land for Spain; it really did boil down to the European aristocracy mindset that everything they saw (first) belonged to them; I don't think it was a very big stretch to say that they stole the land from the natives; but if your legalese is offended; fine, they took the land from the natives and didn't pay them for it. In my book, that is stealing. But it can hardly be contested that chain of title had to begin in the New World by those claims; it was exactly how the land was divided and recorded.

Now if you dont know the history. Fine. But I do. Something like 75% of the continental United States was given to the natives in treaties that were broken by the United States. So, yes, your ownership is a blood contract that makes you complicit with those crimes. You really have no clue what the battles with Mexico were about and why Pancho Villa was a hero, if you don't understand this part of our history.

 

[Days]

Ok. So...what if I seek out a Native American and buy land from him - offering him fair, mutually agreed upon compensation for the property. THEN is the transaction legitimate?
I'm just curious how a proper transfer of ownership of anything anywhere at any time can be justified under these pretenses...

It can't, that was the whole point.

Going one step further, the natives did not believe in land ownership... the land owns you, not the other way around.

 

[Days]

What the hell is this thread supposed to be about? Woody Guthrie?

What if I posted the lyrics of Tutti Fruiti by Little Richard?

Geezus ....people nowadays sure as hell got a lot of time on their hands. Probably cuz of Obama's economy.....which is probably why I thought of Tutti Fruiti and Little Richard in the first place.

How did you like my artwork? America has two faces; one that faces west and one that faces east... I thought it captured the intl trade mentality rather nicely....

 

[Days]

Ahh, bullshit....
(And "Lawyers, guns, & money" isn't an "unholy trinity", it's just a good Warren Zevon tune....)

I did not take it from the song, I wrote it because it was the legal means of staking a claim to the land. I wrote "unholy trinity of force" because it was the strong arm method of enforcing land ownership, and yet the idea of land ownership stems from the old testament writings and culture. The guy that wrote the song, was commenting on our culture, but I was pointing at the early means of wrestling ownership from the natives.

 

[Days]

Our first peoples didn't recognize the concept of "title to land". So, whitey didn't steal title to their land (in the strict sense of the word "title". For the most part what whitey did was grant title to the Indians, then do what it took to finagle those titles.

None of this excuses what actually went down, by any means. But it does point up a very significant misunderstanding between the new and old worlds. For if you don't really understand what title to, or ownership of land means, how can you understand what you're giving up by way of purchase or treaty?

For instance up in my region, back in the day, native people signed away their "title" to the land, but presumed to reserve their right to fish in their usual and accustomed places. My guess is that they didn't really give a shit who "owned" the land, as long as they could continue using it as they always had. They didn't understand that that's not how it works in old world-think.

You nailed it fair.... you nailed it.

 

[Boca]

How did you like my artwork? America has two faces; one that faces west and one that faces east... I thought it captured the intl trade mentality rather nicely....

I didn't much care for the artwork...too abstracty for my taste. But I did like your original post as to the evolution of land ownership. History is something we should learn from, not try to rewrite, and you did a pretty good job.

Some questions though. Wouldn't you say the new world orderly process for exchanging property of any kind is preferable to the kill and a take it method of the old? You're not nostalgic I hope. And wouldn't you say that what almost went down in Nevada was more akin to the old?

You know...the elected American aristocracy assuming for themselves that the "right of ownership lies squarely on the ability of the state to kill to uphold whatever dictum it desires to enforce." ?

And while I'm at it, surely you must agree with me that what prevented that from happening was foresight on the part of those powder wigged old European white men who devised an orderly process of transfer who also providentially foresaw the necessity of the 2nd Amendment? Predictably, it's the American aristocracy trying to rid us of it?

Funny how history works isn't it? Always goes around and comes around. Makes me dizzy sometimes.

 

[RickWA]

It can't, that was the whole point.

Going one step further, the natives did not believe in land ownership... the land owns you, not the other way around.

I know lots of native Americans who own land. Lots of it, in fact. I wasn't referencing natives of antiquity. I understand the general culture of those days. I'm asking about how anyone has any legitimate claim of anything when we slide down the gooey relativist road of historic injustice.
At some point, one must stick a flag in the ground and reject the hamstringing of history. I was just curious how far you were taking this.

 

[Days]

W

I didn't much care for the artwork...too abstracty for my taste. But I did like your original post as to the evolution of land ownership. History is something we should learn from, not try to rewrite, and you did a pretty good job.

Some questions though. Wouldn't you say the new world orderly process for exchanging property of any kind is preferable to the kill and a take it method of the old? You're not nostalgic I hope. And wouldn't you say that what almost went down in Nevada was more akin to the old?

You know...the elected American aristocracy assuming for themselves that the "right of ownership lies squarely on the ability of the state to kill to uphold whatever dictum it desires to enforce." ?

And while I'm at it, surely you must agree with me that what prevented that from happening was foresight on the part of those powder wigged old European white men who devised an orderly process of transfer who also providentially foresaw the necessity of the 2nd Amendment? Predictably, it's the American aristocracy trying to rid us of it?

Funny how history works isn't it? Always goes around and comes around. Makes me dizzy sometimes.

Well, I drew the artwork with a pencil in paint, so for me, it was pretty good. For my wife, it would have been a disgrace. But she does that, every day, while I hardly ever did it... ever.

I think the original natives would push each other around, not to take each other's land, but just to push each other around... the focus was on the tribe itself, the cause was justice served, it wasn't about taking the land, the land goes on forever, no one tried to possess it until the Europeans came along and the natives had no clue what they were doing.

I'm not trying to say who was right, it isn't a case of one type of thinking was right or wrong, it is just that the two mindsets were totally different.

 

[Wahbooz]

I know lots of native Americans who own land. Lots of it, in fact. I wasn't referencing natives of antiquity. I understand the general culture of those days. I'm asking about how anyone has any legitimate claim of anything when we slide down the gooey relativist road of historic injustice.
At some point, one must stick a flag in the ground and reject the hamstringing of history. I was just curious how far you were taking this.

Rick, you do what you have to do. In this culture there is no other way to hang onto what you walk upon without 'owning' it. But how long can you 'own' something that is eternal? One can claim to 'own' something that will be here long after he or she turns to the very dust they walk upon, but do they truly own it? All you have is history, you can't possibly own the future.

 

[Days]

I know lots of native Americans who own land. Lots of it, in fact. I wasn't referencing natives of antiquity. I understand the general culture of those days. I'm asking about how anyone has any legitimate claim of anything when we slide down the gooey relativist road of historic injustice.
At some point, one must stick a flag in the ground and reject the hamstringing of history. I was just curious how far you were taking this.

I'm taking a legal view. I was in the profession for nine years. The native mindset of antiquity was that the land was eternal, we are temporal, the land owns us. The European mindset stems from the bible, involves land ownership, nobility, the power of the king, English common law, English land surveying, and the idea of inheritance; which preserves chain of Title. If there is no inheritance, the land is supposed to return to the state; those are the laws of escheat, at the same time, chain of title has to have an origin. In the New World, that origin was by claim; whether that was homesteading, or a stake in mining, or the federal laws set up for open lands; the chain of title had to start some how. My point in the nine year old post was that the claim on land that began title in the New world was a claim on native land and it involved pushing the natives off it. So much so, that Andrew Jackson felt it was his presidential duty to perform the trail of tears.

You know, I live in blackhawk nation. They covered this whole region that is now the southwest suburbs of Chicago. Try to find someone with blackhawk blood in their veins.... it is impossible. I asked for years from people who settled here, what happened to the natives? The answer seems to be, they were just pushed aside or forced to adapt to a way of life they could not adapt to. There was no genocide or disease. Suburban sprawl did 'em in. Took about 100 years.