Very nice.

Color of title is some form of partial claim.

Aloha,   Dave.          Think for Yourself.             Question Authority
~               Globalize Consciousness         Localize Economies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Computer Dave" Hartley   (808) 879-7997 email:  [log in to unmask]
Interests: Computer/Telephony Integration, Windows NT, Web Publishing,
~~  Alternative Medicine  ~~   www.Eckankar.org   ~~  www.healing-tao.com


-----Original Message-----
From:   Bill Bartlett [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:   Monday, August 11, 1997 3:01 AM
To:     [log in to unmask]
Subject:        racism

DDeBar, replying to MichaelP, wrote:

>> But remember that the title to stolen property doesn't get cleared by the
>> passage of time. The anglo-style judicial system does not recognize my
>> rights to stolen property - regardless of what I paid for me, and
>> regaredless of whether I knew it was stolen or not.
>>
>> Statute-of-limitations ideas are what prevents you from being tried
>> for the murders committed by ancestors, but they don't apply to grant
>> title to stolen property.
>
>FYI -
>
>Actually, there is a doctrine of adverse possession, where title is
>recognized if then moving party (usually the prospective title-holder) can
>prove possession that is open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, continuous
>for a statutory period, and based upon a color of title. (The last item may
>be a difficult hurdle, but, in American courts, it is not impossible.)
>
>Also, of course, the title derived from right of conquest has been
>recognized since prior to American history.

I have no idea what "color of title" means. Can you enlighten me?

The prior occupation of Australia by the Aborigines has recently been
recognised by the High Court of Australia, who have ruled that Aboriginals
who can demonstrate a continuous link with their traditional land hold
"Native Title" over that land unless it has been specifically alienated
from them since European settlement. In a later judgement, which caused an
even greater furore from pastoralists, the Court ruled that pastoral leases
granted since last century do not necessarily extinguish "Native Title",
and that the two forms of title can co-exist over the same land.

This arises because pastoral leases were often granted on the condition
that pastoralists permit Aborigines to continue traditional
hunter-gathering activities which do not interfere with farming.
Pastoralists last century often ignored this technicality, murdering or
driving off Aborigines on their leases, but those who have survived appear
to retain legal rights to their land. Patoralists were outraged by the
Court decision, they liked to consider their leases as good as freehold or
fee simple, and have demanded extinguishment of native title rights on
pastoral leases.

The Government has agreed, although this is difficult without either
contravening the federal Racial Discrimination Act (which could invalidate
any statute extinguishing Native Title) or requiring massive compensation.

But back to the point, MichaelP is right in a general sense, you cannot
escape guilt-free if you wish to retain the spoils of the crime. The only
ones who can be confident they are that innocent are those who are
property-less. Luckily for me I am one of those.

However it seems a bit rich to insinuate that all of a particular race in
any culture are equally guilty because they unknowingly benefit from the
privilege of belonging to the dominant race. It may be true that the
descendants of Europeans in North America or Australia DO enjoy the
privilege of being exploited and oppressed to a lesser degree than others,
but they are only accountable for that to the extent that they have any
control over this. I'm not sure we do have much control.

We have potential power to change this of course. As members of the
numerically superior class, the working class, we could potentially
overthrow our oppressors, but I think it a bit strong to blame the excesses
of the capitalist class on the working class simply because we have failed
to change the system.

What is being argued I think is that, as some degree of consent by the
exploited is necessary for the exploiters to continue to rule, our rulers
attempt to co-opt the consent of one section of the working class by
allowing them privileges which they deny to other sections. Sometimes these
different sections of the working class are distinguished by race, but
sometimes they are not.

To the extent that we allow ourselves to be co-opted in this way we can
justifiably be accused of racism (assuming the distinguishing features of
the second class subjects are race). But those of us falling into this trap
do not really "benefit" from it, we are still being exploited even if
others are more exploited.

I am suspicious of the direction this whole line takes us because those who
make these sort of arguments often seem to want nothing more than an equal
chance to become one of the exploiters or at least a highly privileged
lieutenant. In others words they object to racism not because it oppresses
"people of colour", but because it denies them equal opportunity to join
the exploiters club and exploit others, including of course those very same
"people of colour".

This does not redress the larger problem of exploitation. It makes
capitalism a little more efficient when status is based on objective
ability, but that is all. We can see that a more efficient capitalism does
not necessarily benefit the working class. Equality of exploitation is a
limited and morally bankrupt goal, there are better reasons to attack
racism, and better arguments to use against it, at least if you want to
appeal to the working class generally, rather than the exploiting class.

I contend it is in the enlightened self interest of all workers to end
racism, the argument above is that it is not. If you convince me that it is
not in my material interests you run an obvious risk.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas.