One of Harris' primary arguments for the emergence of whiteness as property is rooted in the conquest of Native American land; in her view, our Nation's colonial legacy "embedded the fact of white privilege into the very definition of property" (Harris, 1721). By Harris' account, possession "was defined to include only the cultural practices of whites" (Harris, 1721). Essentially, Harris argues that colonists brought with them their understanding of property rights (one which she argues is thoroughly Lockean) and determined that it was the only definition which could codify possession within the New World. To make this concrete, she explains the Native Americans' approach: A more "fluid and communal" view of land where property inhered in the tribe rather than the individual.
As Harris explains, because the Native Americans did not enclose their land or allot it to individuals, their claim could safely be ignored (Harris, footnote 46). As was reflected both by the colonialist mindset, as well as the laws governing the New World, "the possession maintained by the Indians was not 'true' possession and could safely be ignored...Indian forms of possession were perceived to be too ambiguous and unclear" (Harris, 1722). Harris points out that this "right of conquest" was reified in Johnson and Graham's Lessee v. M'Intosh; by only upholding a Lockean conception of property, "courts established whiteness as a prerequisite to the exercise of enforceable property rights" (Harris, 1724).
While I absolutely agree that this happened, and believe the results to be morally reprehensible, I wonder how one might have gotten around this difficulty. It seems that in order to form consistent property rights -- or laws of any sort, for that matter -- one has to be informed by a certain understanding or "custom." From the beginning, should (or, perhaps more significantly, could) colonists have incorporated the Native American approach to property into their laws? Or is this too idealistic? In other words, did the colonists have a choice to do something other than 1) Conquer and stick to your own understanding of property, or 2) Don't conquer?
Mo, this is a great analysis of both colonialist visions and property laws-- and how the two are necessarily connected. Right now, I'm in a class about the Ottoman Empire and learning about their modes of colonization. For the Ottomans, nothing was more important than financial gain. In order to achieve their vision of empire, they looked to the people within the cities they conquered as resources, not subjects. Albeit extremely violent, the Ottoman Empire was in many ways built by the people who lived in Cairo, Vienna, Baghdad, etc. and what belonged to them before the cities were besieged. The Ottomans uniquely understood that in order to build an immensely wealthy empire on such a large scale, they would need to rely on the property and skills of those they conquered. I want to make extremely clear that they also persecuted and killed non-Muslim peoples throughout, yet again, looked at the people as resources, instead of savages. To answer your last question, I think the Ottomans might have conquered and actually expanded their understanding of property. But again, I'm only in my first week of the class!
ReplyDeleteI think the racial and cultural otherness of the indigenous people the first Americans encountered made it historically and contextually impossible for anything but conquest to occur. Obviously, if we are analyzing decision making from a postmodern, current context, then the right thing to do become much more ambiguous - most would likely agree that the idea of conquest is outdated, but the idea of power is still growing. For this reason, I think any interaction with 'others', those we deem to be a threat to our way of life, will be met with hostility. I don't think this is fair or 'good' necessarily, but just a natural human instinct to things that look different. Our modern context might allow for more discussion, but I think in the end, when one group encounters another, a power struggle will inevitably ensue.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteMo, I’m so glad you brought this up! I was also interested in how the Lockean conception of labor theory justifies the rationale of conquest. Like Becca pointed out in the case of the Ottomans, the ultimate goal for colonizers was financial gain. Unfortunately, only through the exploitation of resources, could colonizers acquire the maximum benefit. However, I also think that in addition to the Lockean conception of labor theory, the colonist’s justification for seizing the Native American’s land rationale of conquest is enhanced by the conception of “otherness.”
Like Devon, I agree that the conception of “otherness” naturally results in antagonism between the two parties. The characterization of the Native Americans as “other” not only assembled to colonizers to eradicate something characterized as different, but also provided them with the rationale to treat the Native Americans in a degrading manner. In my Freshman Humanities Seminar Religion and Modernity, we discussed that once something is stipulated as the “other,” a sense of humanity towards the person is lost. When this happens, we begin to treat humans as objects. This objectifying treatment of humans acts as a justification for the colonizer’s horrible acts of violence because by deeming the Native Americans as “other,” they inevitably valued them as objects rather than humans.
Another interesting point to try an consider is the view point of the native americans. To them these people disembarking from boats offering them goods and money in exchange for "land" may have seemed crazy. Their conception of property gave them an entirely different view of the world so it is hard to imagine that when the tribe that sold modern manhattan for a totally inconsequential sum. Too me it almost seems more likely that they thought they were scamming these incoming europeans.
ReplyDeleteOn an unrelated note, I think Mo and Tierra's points raise an interesting question: what are they rights of the victor/conqueror?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete