Locke... corny, lame, booooo tomato tomato tomato

This is following the thoughts introduced last class on whether Indigenous people really sold Manhattan to colonialist...

Connection to the land sits at the core of indigenous culture and sets their belief on property. To Indigenous folk, the land carries their ancestors, language, practices, and identity. When the two are so closely bonded, I think it not a stretch to say that the land and the people are one. If we take this perspective, we can apply Locke’s freedom of nature which states that “for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent… put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases.” Just as Locke contends that one has not power over their life, Indigenous folk contend that they have no power of the land and through that same logic cannot transfer this power over to another to do as they please with it. Additionally, Locke’s account of property only accounts for private property. If we were to concede that land is property, to Indigenous people, it would be considered public or collective as that was the general practice. In that case, it follows that one cannot take ownership of it merely by laboring on it. So, the cultivation of the land “sold” by the Indigenous people didn’t give colonialists ownership of that land but merely an agreement to be able to participate in its use. 

 

Overall, I do not find Locke’s argument surrounding how ownership is derived, through labor, convincing. For one, he demands that for one to maintain ownership of land one must cultivate it and not “spoil” it. By cultivation, I presume he means for one to produce from the land either crops or animal products. Further he claims that it is from this labor that the land receives its value. This leads to the question of “says who?” As a proved before, in many indigenous communities, the land holds intrinsic value and so the lack of production from it would be described as “spoiling it.” Many of Aristotle’s thought seem to stem from his belief in Christianity and God and he often quotes from the Bible as proof. I find this insufficient to back up his claims. Second, I think an obvious question to his claim of ownership through “mixing” one’s labor is “what is the extent of this?” If I plant a single tomato on your potato farm without making a compact with you, can I claim your land and all your potatoes? How much do I need to labor for me to claim it as my property?