undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdcrazy1y ago0 comments

It’s not splitting hairs. There’s a recognizable difference between a tribe collectively defending exclusive access to certain land, and the concept of transferable, heritable private land interest.

0 comments

ethbr11y ago

Yes and no.

Even in the US, commons-deeded land between multiple people is still a thing. Albeit one that lawyers hate to mess with because it's more work for them.

For purposes of this thread, exclusive control of an area, absent other claims, would certainly entitle indigenous American peoples to ownership of that land.

throwway1203851y ago

We even form corporations to try to deed land as a group. That's the entire purpose of an HOA -- to confer private ownership of community-owned land and equipment among the members of the community as their private land changes hands.

PaulDavisThe1st1y ago

HOAs do not confer private ownership of land among members of a group.

They impose a mutually agreed upon set of rules on everyone who owns land that is covered by the HOA (with one of the rules preventing severance of the property from the HOA).

1 more reply

dcrazyOP1y ago

You don’t need a corporation to deed land to a group. Any group of persons can hold title to a property. My wife and I had to choose whether to buy our condo as joint tenants or as tenants in common.

hn_throwaway_991y ago

Fine, but recall what started this discussion, this issue of land acknowledgements (which I agree are absolute peak stupidity which literally managed to piss off everyone on all sides - the right thought it was useless virtue signalling, and lots of actual indigenous people pretty much agreed, considering it a vacuous gesture). For all intents and purposes, native tribes owned that land before settlers kicked them off and said you couldn't live there anymore.

philipwhiuk1y ago

> transferable, heritable private

None of this is guaranteed by 'ownership'.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse