After reading John Locke's views on property and also the views of Ward Churchill, I feel that the distribution of property in America is not legitimate.
According to Locke, something becomes one's property when it is taken from nature and mixed with 'labour' of the body and 'work' of the hands. In speaking in terms of land as property, you are only supposed to take what you need while leaving enough for others, and you are also not to let any of the land spoil so you must use it wisely. "As much as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property" (Locke). God has given the world to all mankind, and as long as man works the land and makes good use of it, it is his property, which another had no title to, nor could without injury take from him".
The reason why there is a controversy over who the US really 'belongs' to is because "…in situations in which the dominant-or dominating- population comprises either the representatives of a foreign power or immigrants (settlers) who can offer no such assertion of 'aboriginal' lineage to justify their presences or ownership of property in the usual sense" (Churchill). This is representative of how the land that came to be the United States was taken away from the early Native American settlers many years ago by a dominating population of people.
While the United States has tried to make things better by 'resolving things internally' through new doctrines and laws, nothing can make up for the fact that this land is not our land. In the words of Churchill, 'the United States does not now possess, nor has it ever possessed, a legitimate right to occupancy in at least half the territory it claims as its own on the continent.
The term sovereignty is a broad topic that has many different definitions. The most common definition is a nation or groups ability or right to govern themselves. Sovereignty is a term and idea that goes hand in hand with Native Americans throughout history. Native American tribes were once considered sovereign nation until shortly after the arrival of European settlers. Native Americans lost their sovereignty due to the forceful assimilation into white culture by European settlers. The problem with this is that Native Americans have been in North American, acting as self-governing groups, since the beginning days. What sets Native Americans apart from other “minority groups” is that they have existed as self-governing peoples and are more than a group
...s his argument by emphasizing the absolute reason on why property is solely for the use to produce goods and provide services by farming one’s land or building infrastructures; nevertheless the overuse of one’s land exhibits what Locke calls waste, whereas the consumption of goods for the use of trade can result in bartering and wealth. The introduction of wealth creates the motivation for people feel compelled to protect their wealth which leads us back to the concept of entering into a civil or political society for security. Locke believes that civil and political society can ensure the stability, security, and social structure of any given society; but he points out that if the government becomes a tyranny or corrupt only than shall the populace exercise their right to question the authority and overthrow if needed.
According to John Locke, men were "promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature and the use of the same faculties; they should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection." (Second Treatise of Government, p8). The basic principle teaching is that God has given the earth to humankind in common, to the posterity of men so that they will have enough to subsist and flourish. Everything in its natural state is provided to commonwealth for "the support and comfort of their being." (John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, p 18). So no one originally can have the right to posses that public property. However, history has proven that every man still has the right to own, to enrich and protect his property; how can that "private dominion" come into being?
Americans throughout history have always felt that they were superior. The concept of “Manifest Destiny” has been the fuel to the fire of superiority. Manifest Destiny is the belief that it is American’s are the chosen ones and have the obvious right to conquer and own land between the eastern and western seaboards and that such expansion was inevitable. Manifest Destiny along with Christianity were two reasons that drove and encouraged both expansion within North Amer...
The United States began as a group of 13 colonies controlled by Great Britain. These colonies won their independence in the American Revolution and became a unified country. Since that moment, the United States has been continuously expanding its borders. The Northwest Territory was gained as a result of the American Revolution, the Louisiana Territory was purchased from France, and the lands of California, New Mexico, and Texas were gained after the Mexican-American War. All of these gained lands helped expand the borders of the United States and develop the country into a global force. Expansion into the western lands of the United States became a growing trend in the early 19th century and continued to gain popularity amongst Americans. These lands promised a new start for some people, and for others, an opportunity for great wealth. Western expansion also created conflict between Americans. Competition for the best land, debates over slavery, and conflicts with Indians began to emerge with the increased expansion. The benefits and conflicts associated with western expansion defined the area and its role in America.
One of those many whom roamed the land before Americans decided that they owned were the Native Americans. Many tribes had reigning governments and tribal counsels also a way of life. With westward expansion brought changes. Many Americans were killing their live stock, the food which they ate, also Americans were settling more and more on the Indians lands. In time Indians began to fight back and take what had been theirs. Once this happened the Americans decided to make the Indians like Americans, so we took their land and tried to make them Americans. But this was only one group that we affected, another was the Mexicans.
In his treatise, Locke addresses the equality of all men. In order to correctly understand political philosophy, one must first understand the State of Nature man is born into, which is a state of perfect freedom. In the State of Nature, man has perfect freedom and is equal to all other men. Man’s freedom allows him to act as he pleases and to use or dispose of his possessions as he sees fit (Locke II.4). The freedom man enjoys is coupled with a state of equality, in which it is understood that all men entitled to the advantages of nature and the use of its resources. In the state of nature, no man has more “power or jurisdiction” (Locke II.4) than any other man. Although natural man is in a state of liberty, Locke takes great care to stress that man is not in a “state of license” (Locke II.6), for man is only free to act within the bounds of the law of nature (Locke II.4). The law of nature, which is reason, claims that because all men are “equal and independent,” and therefore, no man ought to cause harm to another man’s “life, health, liberty, or posses...
Throughout history, the United States had come off as a stubborn nation that would take what they wanted at any cost. This was prevalent in both cases of expansion as the Americans risked war and national safety for the sake of gaining land, or even merely for proving a point. During the early years of expansion, the Americans had pushed aside the Native Americans and whoever else inhabited the land they wanted. They believed that the land was rightfully theirs and that everyone else was merely squatting on their territory. This idea continued into the early twentieth century as the Americans looked to the oceans for new territories to their kingdom.
First, Locke believes that everyone has the opportunity to cultivate the land that they own, which ideally is a proportionate share of the surrounding environment, and nothing more (Locke, Sec. 36). Locke’s theory of property is not just relative to physical entities, it can be an intellectual entity as well. An individual may have certain experiences and knowledge, develop theories and come to their own conclusions. Publishing said works are seen as property in the eyes of Locke as well. Another strength would be the logic of Locke’s argument, if you input your labour, that commodity becomes your own. Truth of this can be seen in section 33 of Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government, when Locke suggests that labour increases the value of land exponentially because when people own land themselves, they are more likely to increase the productivity of that land. According to Locke, the true value of land does not stem from the land, rather the labour invested in it. Locke’s theory however, does not take into account the processes in which someone becomes an owner. One of the main stances Locke outlines in his theory of property is that he equates property to being a natural right. Locke deems the right to private property to be equally important as life and liberty, however they cannot be
At the core of their theories, both Locke and Rousseau seek to explain the origin of civil society, and from there to critique it, and similarly both theorists begin with conceptions of a state of nature: a human existence predating civil society in which the individual does not find institutions or laws to guide or control one’s behaviour. Although both theorists begin with a state of nature, they do not both begin with the same one. The Lockean state of nature is populated by individuals with fully developed capacities for reason. Further, these individuals possess perfect freedom and equality, which Locke intends as granted by God. They go about their business rationally, acquiring possessions and appropriating property, but they soon realize the vulnerability of their person and property without any codified means to ensure their security...
Long before the Europeans set foot on American soil, the American Indians, or rather the Native Americans, had been living on this land. Ever since the first Europeans inhabited America, there has been a fascination with its land. It’s beautiful scenery and its rich soil made, for the settlers, an attractive place to settle. In the distance, the Native Americans (dubbed Indians by the settlers) watched as more and more Europeans came into their homeland. Unfortunately the American government took advantage of the Indians by tricking them into selling their land and forcing them off if they refused; this started to aggravate the Indians because they were constantly being forced off their own land.
John Locke's, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), was first criticized by the philosopher and theologian, John Norris of Bemerton, in his "Cursory Reflections upon a Book Call'd, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding," and appended to his Christian Blessedness or Discourses upon the Beatitudes (1690). Norris's criticisms of Locke prompted three replies, which were only posthumously published. Locke has been viewed, historically, as the winner of this debate; however, new evidence has emerged which suggests that Norris's argument against the foundation of knowledge in sense-perception that the Essay advocated was a valid and worthy critique, which Locke did, in fact, take rather seriously. Charlotte Johnston's "Locke's Examination of Malebranche and John Norris" (1958), has been widely accepted as conclusively showing that Locke's replies were not philosophical, but rather personal in origin; her essay, however, overlooks critical facts that undermine her subjective analysis of Locke's stance in relation to Norris's criticisms of the Essay. This paper provides those facts, revealing the philosophical—not personal—impetus for Locke's replies.
John Locke is a seventeenth century philosopher who believed that government should be based around the people rather than the power of one person. Equality and property were two factors that Locke considered to be the key to a great society. Locke begins his writings with a discussion on individual property and how each man body is his own property. This leads Locke into the argument that man can obtain property only by using his own labor. an example Locke gives is the picking of an apple. The apple is the property of the man who used his labor to pick it. He goes on to say “A person may only acquire as many things in this way as he or she can reasonably use to their advantage”. With the discussion of property Locke leads into the discussion of trade and monetary value stating that it is natural of man to w...
Locke theorizeds extensively on property, privatization, and the means an individual can use for increasing his property. Initially, in the state of nature, man did not own property in the form of resources or land. All fruits of the earth were for the use of all men,“and nobody has originally a private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state” (Locke 353). In this state, people could appropriate only what they could make use of. It was unfair for one person to take more than he could use because some of that natural commodity would go to waste unless another man might have made use of it for his own benefit (360). Locke felt that God gave the bounties of nature to the people of earth and they, by default, should treat these bounties rationally. This rationalistic theory discourages waste.
The Treaty of Paris in 1783 recognized the Thirteen Colonies as the United States of America. Although, the American Revolution was over by 1783 in the “Indian Country” it open a new conflict of indigenous independence against the Americans. Consequently in the Treaty of Paris the United States would acquire massive expansion of land in which the British gave up generously without consulting f the nations from east of the Mississippi river, reaching south to Florida and from the northern border of the Great Lakes region. This particular chapter shows how there is no room for indigenous people in the “new America” (Calloway,