That's fascinating. "While the enactment of the 2002 Land Law clarified some aspects of the legal framework governing land, it did not reach pastureland rights, which continue to be ambiguous and poorly implemented." And " Owners of private land who try to register title are shuffled between administrative agencies where there is no clear delineation of responsibility. Land administration offices lack staff capacity. Residential land privatization has resulted in multiple allocations of some land, and related disputes over rights." (Reminds me a bit of the airline seat example from "Mine!" Selling the same thing twice and letting the purchasers figure out who has the right to it.)
I poked around a bit on the site. Was interesting to read this bit: "Clear, secure, and negotiable rights to land and resources are fundamental to long-term economic growth and development. USAID promotes economic growth through land and resource governance interventions ..."
Would they think of applying that to North America pre-colonization?!
I’m in the middle of reading “The Heartbeat of Wounded Knee: Native America from 1890 to the present” by David Treuer, an Ojibwe historian who grew up on a reservation in Minnesota. I specifically just finished reading about how the disaster of allotment went down differently for different tribes. Excellent book! Seems up your alley. When I return my library copy I’m giving myself permission to buy one for my shelf. What was striking (though not exactly surprising) was the sheer hypocrisy on the part of the government when it came to tribes that DID start “governing” their land and resources in a European fashion— and beating the US govt to the punch of forcing them like in OK— the bureaucrats stayed mad, of course, because although Native “growth an development” was always the pretext, self-sufficiency, even in an assimilationist fashion, was always seen as a threat when it would happen. It was never about imposing white private property lifestyles and values, it was about theft, control and erasure. I have a feeling that same USAID value statement is just as dubiously motivated and double-edged as colonization continues worldwide!
I really need to read that book! I keep picking it up and setting it down again (small print) but I've heard so many good things about it and learned so much from his article last winter in The Atlantic about returning lands to Native nations.
The hypocrisy is just stunning once you dig into it. One thing that stuck with me from Blake Watson's "Buying America from the Indians" was the 1831 Supreme Court case of the Cherokee Nation against the state of Georgia. As you say, it was never about assimilating but about theft, control, and erasure. And it continues ...
I thought you would find that interesting, particularly from a post-Soviet bloc country with a climate and population density similar to Montana, and a (as far as I know) sovereign indigenous people who still live a predominately nomadic lifestyle. (I'm sure the reality in a big country with several tribes is more complicated than that summary.)
I'd like to do more study on the comparison between how land is used and thought of there versus here. It sounds like it is not a perfect or even fully developed system, but it is on a completely different track than ours. Even the way "ownership" is applied is much more like a lease with time horizons. Nearly all subsurface/mineral rights are owned by the state.
I think that would be so interesting. There are so many different systems all over the world, and especially in a place like that, comparing land use practices and laws to Montana would honestly be fascinating.
I think China has a lease system for land. Like 20 years? I might have read that in Linklater's book but am not sure.
I'm going going to leave this... right here.
https://www.land-links.org/country-profile/mongolia/#1529266960764-53016d03-31cc
That's fascinating. "While the enactment of the 2002 Land Law clarified some aspects of the legal framework governing land, it did not reach pastureland rights, which continue to be ambiguous and poorly implemented." And " Owners of private land who try to register title are shuffled between administrative agencies where there is no clear delineation of responsibility. Land administration offices lack staff capacity. Residential land privatization has resulted in multiple allocations of some land, and related disputes over rights." (Reminds me a bit of the airline seat example from "Mine!" Selling the same thing twice and letting the purchasers figure out who has the right to it.)
I poked around a bit on the site. Was interesting to read this bit: "Clear, secure, and negotiable rights to land and resources are fundamental to long-term economic growth and development. USAID promotes economic growth through land and resource governance interventions ..."
Would they think of applying that to North America pre-colonization?!
I’m in the middle of reading “The Heartbeat of Wounded Knee: Native America from 1890 to the present” by David Treuer, an Ojibwe historian who grew up on a reservation in Minnesota. I specifically just finished reading about how the disaster of allotment went down differently for different tribes. Excellent book! Seems up your alley. When I return my library copy I’m giving myself permission to buy one for my shelf. What was striking (though not exactly surprising) was the sheer hypocrisy on the part of the government when it came to tribes that DID start “governing” their land and resources in a European fashion— and beating the US govt to the punch of forcing them like in OK— the bureaucrats stayed mad, of course, because although Native “growth an development” was always the pretext, self-sufficiency, even in an assimilationist fashion, was always seen as a threat when it would happen. It was never about imposing white private property lifestyles and values, it was about theft, control and erasure. I have a feeling that same USAID value statement is just as dubiously motivated and double-edged as colonization continues worldwide!
I really need to read that book! I keep picking it up and setting it down again (small print) but I've heard so many good things about it and learned so much from his article last winter in The Atlantic about returning lands to Native nations.
The hypocrisy is just stunning once you dig into it. One thing that stuck with me from Blake Watson's "Buying America from the Indians" was the 1831 Supreme Court case of the Cherokee Nation against the state of Georgia. As you say, it was never about assimilating but about theft, control, and erasure. And it continues ...
I thought you would find that interesting, particularly from a post-Soviet bloc country with a climate and population density similar to Montana, and a (as far as I know) sovereign indigenous people who still live a predominately nomadic lifestyle. (I'm sure the reality in a big country with several tribes is more complicated than that summary.)
I'd like to do more study on the comparison between how land is used and thought of there versus here. It sounds like it is not a perfect or even fully developed system, but it is on a completely different track than ours. Even the way "ownership" is applied is much more like a lease with time horizons. Nearly all subsurface/mineral rights are owned by the state.
I think that would be so interesting. There are so many different systems all over the world, and especially in a place like that, comparing land use practices and laws to Montana would honestly be fascinating.
I think China has a lease system for land. Like 20 years? I might have read that in Linklater's book but am not sure.