Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

inthedustofthisplanet wrote (edited )

notion of land property

The idea that the people of the Americas had no concept of property is a very colonialist view and not at all correct.

https://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/aztec-and-maya-law/aztec-property-law

The Aztecs had a complex and hierarchical land ownership system, and drew sophisticated boundary maps that were used to mark different types of land and settle disputes. The Emperor owned personal and royal property which was used as he saw fit. He additionally exercised dominion over newly conquered lands, and could give this land to nobles, warriors, and calpulli. Owners of conquered lands were not necessarily displaced and were usually allowed to continue living on and working their lands. However, they had to share the profits of the land with their new Aztec owners.

Nobles could own land on a restricted and unrestricted basis. Nobles obtained land by purchasing it from other nobles or as a gift from the emperor for service to the Aztec empire. Purchased land could be sold or willed. Land grants from the emperor sometimes had conditions that required them to be returned to the emperor upon the death of the owner. Warriors had similar rights to purchase land or receive it from the emperor. Institutions such as the army, temples, and certain public offices (judgeships) could also own land which was received from the Emperor. These entities owned the rights to the profits from the land and used them to support the office holder. However, the individual office holder did not own the land.

Commoners could not own land on an individual basis. However, they had access to land through their calpulli. Although the calpulli were run by nobles, members of the calpulli were permitted to elect a neighborhood leader (calpullec) to manage the distribution of communally-owned calpulli land. This land was given to individual families, and generally stayed with the family unless it went uncultivated for two years or the family moved away. If this occurred, the unused land would then be redistributed to other families. The barrios also had separate undistributed communal lands that families were expected to cultivate. The proceeds of this land were used to pay the barrio’s taxes to the nobles and the emperor. Although the calpulli was responsible for dividing and reassigning the land, individual plots of land were often inherited by subsequent generations of the same family.

4

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

You're taking just one instance here... of a highly-hierarchic empire, of which territory's represented actually a tiny fraction of the whole mesoamerican world regardless of their advancement. I'd like to see instead evidence of land property in the more primitive sedentary societies of mesoamerica. As for the nomadic tribes, it's fairly established they didn't possess any notion of property beyond perhaps personal possessions of daily use.

There's also something to be said about some anthropologists and historians casting their own ideological bias in their readings of history...

0

inthedustofthisplanet wrote (edited )

You're taking just one instance here

If you can make blanket statements why can't anyone else? Because, I'm pretty sure that is what happened -- just because something is or isn't 'hierarchical' doesn't allow you to pick and choose examples that fit your narrative.

3

AnarchoDoom wrote

Your fixation on the Aztecs -who aren't representative in any way the whole of mesoamerican native world- is the only blanket statement, here, as you are taking example for generalizing to the entirety of the precolombian native societies.

−1

inthedustofthisplanet wrote (edited )

But I suppose it's nothing like your blanket statement, because it's your statement. That sounds pretty, uh..

magical.

fixation

What fixation? I have one post countering your blanket statement. You claimed there was no notion of property ownership in the Americas, prior to European colonization. This is not true.

there was also the issue that natives didn't have the same notion of land property, if any at all.

4

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

A blanket statement is a generalization based on a specific instance. You took the Aztecs (only) as a generalization for saying how the precolombian natives purportedly had a notion of land property, where they (for the most part) had NOT. It's still a bad argument against my statement.

Land property is not a fact of "human nature", but the byproduct of specific hierarchic and sedentary systems. The Aztecs were a special type of social organization in mesoamerica for how they evolved into an empire ruled by a priest class, not unlike the ancient Egyptians. They stand out in comparison with most other native societies of mesoamerica.

The natives of what is now US and Canada got a whole history of being pushed back, to inhospitable regions by Euro settlers that just kept taking lands for themselves. That is basically the reason why the Inuk people have been living far up north in the polar circle, even tho they used to be living in more temperate regions.

−1

inthedustofthisplanet wrote (edited )

there was also the issue that natives didn't have the same notion of land property, if any at all.

Aztecs were a special type of social organization in mesoamerica for how they evolved into an empire ruled by a priest class, not unlike the ancient Egyptians. They stand out in comparison with most other native societies of mesoamerica.

if any at all.

3

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

The crux of the matter here is that socio-political organization ain't some sort of ethnic or genetic thing, just like the land property issue. It's some arrangements that people have supported, and are historically redundant.

US southwest native cultures were very much alike early neolithic societies of Mesopotamia and Africa, while it ranged from nomadic tribes -some that were monarchies- and sedentary "republic" like the Haudenosaunee. You had neutral regions where neither group asserted predominance, while some other regions were somewhat more territorialized. Yet even in the latter case, there was no trace of any sort of contractual property on land, or even national borders.

So the population of the precolombian American continent was pretty diverse culturally and politically, and were at different levels of "development". Aztecs had just taken a more imperial tangent, that is directly related to appropriation. How can you have an empire without it?

Fite me on that... But with relevant content, plz.

−1