The British Royal family and the Catholic Church... those lands were stolen and should be returned to the people.
Given that most of that list is meat farms, that would be a lot of forests, a lot of carbon storage, and a lot of biodiversity.
The American version of British History is that Henry broke with the church so he could marry more people and have an heir. I think he knew damn well that the Church was consuming England whole and he may be one of the last monarchs that still had the power to stop it.
History is complicated and events rarely have a singular explanation.
It would be impossible to determine the original owners. Every nation and tribe took land from others who took land from others who took land from others, etc. We shouldn't just give land back to the previous owners when they stole it from others.
False.
There are, in fact, actual OG land owners who are first people:
Aboriginal mitogenomes reveal 50,000 years of regionalism in Australia
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21416
Note that this is sound genetic evidence that post dates Quadrant literary opinions that waffle on about circulating patterns and waves of takeover.
When the Sahul paleocontinent was first settled by humans they arrived, spread out, and more or less stayed where they stopped moving.
There are a few problems though.
One, we don't know for sure that the aboriginals were the first in Australia. It is possible a tribe made it to Australia and were attacked by the present day aboriginals who came later. Your paper presumably doesn't disprove that?
Second, it seems like you are suggesting that no aboriginal tribe ever attacked another tribe and took their land. That seems like a ridiculous assertion and I need definitive proof, because that has never happened anywhere else in the world.
Even if you posted is accurate, which there is no proof of, it would be an exception that proves the rule.
Weird - anyone that routinely reads actual science papers knows how to access them:
https://sci-hub.ru/10.1038/nature21416
> Your paper presumably doesn't disprove that?
There's an entire body of work on human diaspora from first origins, it's been making great strides in recent decades with DNA comparisons dating movements by degree of change over time - that'd be a good place to start your study.
> because that has never happened anywhere else in the world.
That seems like a ridiculous assertion and I need definitive proof, can you back that up?
Good luck in furthering your education and best wishes to you MrShoelaces.
I skimmed your paper and don't think it disproved anything I said.
Let's take this simple scenario. There is some uninhabited land. Nobody has ever lived on the land before. A tribe ends up moving to the area. Something happens and the tribe decides to split into two. The land is also split. A short time later (prior to any DNA changes) one tribe attacks the other and takes the other tribe's land.
The idea that DNA can prove that never happened of that is utterly ridiculous. I skimmed through the paper and it didn't suggest that it could. Please point to the page where it says DNA can prove a tribe never attacked another tribe.
No, most of those farms are in Australia, and they're so big because it's so arid. They're not taking the place of forests.
"There’s a myth that Europeans arrived in the Americas and divided the land up, mystifying Native Americans who had no concept of property rights. In reality, historian Allen Greer writes, various American societies had highly-developed systems of property ownership and use. Meanwhile, European colonists sometimes viewed land as a common resource, not just as individual property."
-- https://daily.jstor.org/yes-americans-owned-land-before-colu...
"Many Indigenous societies practiced communal ownership of land and natural resources. Land was often viewed as a shared and sacred entity that belonged to the entire community or tribe. It was not seen as something that could be privately owned or bought and sold as in Western concepts of land ownership.
While the concept of private ownership was rare, Indigenous groups often had rights to use certain areas for specific purposes, such as hunting, fishing, farming, or gathering. These rights were often based on traditional customs and were respected within the community.
Indigenous peoples generally held deep reverence for the land and nature. They saw themselves as stewards of the environment, with a responsibility to care for the earth and its resources for future generations."
The idea is just that everyone gets to own or lease or whatever you want to call it some land and does not have to buy it from others who have accumulated it over the generations and keept it for themselves. If you want more land than your share, you can get it from someone who doesn't want their entire share, but only until their death when they lose control over that land and therefore can also no longer lease it to you. At which point you have to return it or find someone else who will lease the same amount of land to you.
I guess you could say that my idea is that you get control over a certain area of land during your lifetime but it does not have to be a specific piece of land and you can freely exchange and transfer this control as you like, but not past your lifetime.
I hope lab-grown meat will lead to our next Renaissance
> The British Royal family and the Catholic Church... those lands were stolen and should be returned to the people.
If something is owned by nobody, how can it be "stolen?" If lands were "returned," how can someone who disclaims ownership receive it?
In your hypothetical "nazi gold," the stolen goods were owned by specific people who did not voluntarily repudiate ownership.
Imagine that someone disclaimed ownership of a dollar bill. Another person picked it up and bought a tasty dollar menu item. Would the first person have any claim to the resulting soft-serve ice cream cone? (Postulating a working soft serve machine.)
https://www.eater.com/2020/10/23/21530265/mcdonalds-soft-ser...
How is this even possible? Even in communism the state owns all the land. Native American tribes also went to war with each other to control different areas. Legally recognized by many or not, some person who group is going to control the land.
Every individual in nature has to find it's own space and protect it, agreed.
But their young don't inherit their claims, as humans do.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-REB-35714
The Wealthy in Florence Today Are the Same Families as 600 Years Ago
Researchers compared data on Florentine taxpayers in 1427 against tax data in 2011 and found about 900 surnames still present in Florence