Ownership. Hmmm. I've never given much thought to it, until this essay. It makes me think of slavery, posted wilderness, multimillion dollar estates and a number of other, sad things. You ask good questions in this essay, and I wonder/hope we can find answers regarding indigenous people's rights and such.
I might be a little obsessed with ownership ;) All kinds and varieties, but keep coming back to land, like those multimillion dollar estates, landed nobility in Europe, justifications for land theft or eminent domain ...
"Scarcity plays into all of it. Airlines might sell the same space twice, but a culture that worships private property sells a scarcity of dreams that most of us will never realize."
Related, MT AG Knudsen's vote against the FWP Willow Creek acquisition to the Mt. Haggin WMA near Anaconda, because he "doesn't see subdivision as a bad thing" and "people from CA, from OR, from WA, aren't moving to MT to live in a high rise" and that he deems they "want a piece of MT" and "when is the FWP empire big enough?"
I read that about the Willow Creek acquisition. It's so frustrating to me, because the whole point of public land is that we can ALL enjoy it, instead of just a few wealthy people being the only ones with access to open space. It can be a hard perspective for some people to grasp (though I don't think Knudsen even wants to). But encouraging more outlying subdivisions means that eventually only those with immense means will have access to open spaces, quiet, dark skies, etc.; and it also encourages car dependence, which has all sorts of knock-on damaging effects. (Getting off my soapbox!)
Oof, that WP article. Painful to read: "The West, a lodestar in the nation’s story, holds an enduring allure for modern land barons. It’s where the notion of American exceptionalism and pioneer masculinity are burnished in myth, movies, television, land acquisition, country music laments and so much truck advertising. A dazzling ranch has become a weekend oasis for rich men — and they’re mostly men — to realize their cowboy dreams."
"Modern land barons."
I'm almost done with the book -- really good! I just read the chapter on self-ownership, and it was all about surrogates, kidneys, and selling eggs (women's eggs, for people doing IVF treatments who need viable eggs, for example). Really fascinating and easily readable.
I was moved by this idea, which had not occurred to me: The more I read about these histories and issues, and the more time I spend in the lands around my home, lands I love and feel attached to in ways I can’t fully express, the more I think about what it means not just for people to be torn from their land, but for the land to lose its people.
Ownership. Hmmm. I've never given much thought to it, until this essay. It makes me think of slavery, posted wilderness, multimillion dollar estates and a number of other, sad things. You ask good questions in this essay, and I wonder/hope we can find answers regarding indigenous people's rights and such.
I might be a little obsessed with ownership ;) All kinds and varieties, but keep coming back to land, like those multimillion dollar estates, landed nobility in Europe, justifications for land theft or eminent domain ...
"Scarcity plays into all of it. Airlines might sell the same space twice, but a culture that worships private property sells a scarcity of dreams that most of us will never realize."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/08/16/ranch-land-west-billionaires/
Related, MT AG Knudsen's vote against the FWP Willow Creek acquisition to the Mt. Haggin WMA near Anaconda, because he "doesn't see subdivision as a bad thing" and "people from CA, from OR, from WA, aren't moving to MT to live in a high rise" and that he deems they "want a piece of MT" and "when is the FWP empire big enough?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I53xAPEUPkI
Thanks for the shout-out!
I read that about the Willow Creek acquisition. It's so frustrating to me, because the whole point of public land is that we can ALL enjoy it, instead of just a few wealthy people being the only ones with access to open space. It can be a hard perspective for some people to grasp (though I don't think Knudsen even wants to). But encouraging more outlying subdivisions means that eventually only those with immense means will have access to open spaces, quiet, dark skies, etc.; and it also encourages car dependence, which has all sorts of knock-on damaging effects. (Getting off my soapbox!)
Oof, that WP article. Painful to read: "The West, a lodestar in the nation’s story, holds an enduring allure for modern land barons. It’s where the notion of American exceptionalism and pioneer masculinity are burnished in myth, movies, television, land acquisition, country music laments and so much truck advertising. A dazzling ranch has become a weekend oasis for rich men — and they’re mostly men — to realize their cowboy dreams."
"Modern land barons."
I'm almost done with the book -- really good! I just read the chapter on self-ownership, and it was all about surrogates, kidneys, and selling eggs (women's eggs, for people doing IVF treatments who need viable eggs, for example). Really fascinating and easily readable.
Loved this summation: a culture that worships private property sells a scarcity of dreams that most of us will never realize.
I think I might have to think about that even more, what it is and what it means ...
I was moved by this idea, which had not occurred to me: The more I read about these histories and issues, and the more time I spend in the lands around my home, lands I love and feel attached to in ways I can’t fully express, the more I think about what it means not just for people to be torn from their land, but for the land to lose its people.
🧡🧡🧡
It's something that's been haunting my steps recently. I might be spending a bit too much time talking with trees!