Carol Rose's Seeing Property: Gentrification
In Carol Rose's "Seeing Property", she explains how property rights/laws are essentially in the eye of the beholder. She goes into detail about how the lay of the land and what people can actively see in person as well as in photos plays a large role in how the property is used and what justifies a person to use it.
Rose contrasts the seizure of land between Hawai'i and the North American mainland by settlers. In North America, much of the land was seized because, to the standards of the settlers, the Native Americans were not making use of "their" land, therefore leading to the classification that the land was free and open to anyone who pleases. What the settlers did not recognize was the farming and nursing of the land by Native American women that, to the settlers standards, constitutes as land ownership. However, visually to them the land was barren and up for grabs. This differs greatly from the narrative of Hawai'i when Captain James Cook and co. arrived on the island. He was witness to, " a place with huts, temples, irrigations works, cultivation, aquaculture fishponds-all arrayed within more or less natural topographically bounded areas running from the mountains to the sea. In short, they saw great numbers of visible features and improvements that would suggest "dominion" under the English common law of property." This was enough visual confirmation that the native Hawai'ian people had clear rights to this land and the only means of seizure was to persuade and purchase.
Carol Rose's interpretation of property rights/laws as relying heavily on vision reminds me of gentrification in low-income neighborhoods. More often than not a large entity seizes up land and homes in less affluent neighborhoods in order to make "better" use out of it than the current residents. To them, the area is not being used to its capacity, nor is it generating income into the city/state. The generational and cultural qualities and authenticities that lie within every resident's memory are not seen by outsiders and therefore interpreted as run-down. This gives entities the jurisdiction and backing to seize homes and strip residents of their property rights that, in many cases, they've had for generations upon generations. This is much like the seizure of Native American lands.
On the other hand, lands where it is much more visually appealing such as manicured lawns, colorful mailboxes, and blooming flowers almost never run into issues with property rights against a larger entity. These lands are clearly visible as inhabited and maintained to the standards of the grandeur of society, such as in the case of Hawai'i.
Th visibility of property rights/law is a very valid point that I believe is at the basis of all land matters. Seeing a land as sprawling and active is enough right/grounds to deter invasion. Seeing a land as debilitated and idle is enough right/ground to seize and manipulate it as one would like. This has been the case of the early 17th century and continues to be the case today.
Rose contrasts the seizure of land between Hawai'i and the North American mainland by settlers. In North America, much of the land was seized because, to the standards of the settlers, the Native Americans were not making use of "their" land, therefore leading to the classification that the land was free and open to anyone who pleases. What the settlers did not recognize was the farming and nursing of the land by Native American women that, to the settlers standards, constitutes as land ownership. However, visually to them the land was barren and up for grabs. This differs greatly from the narrative of Hawai'i when Captain James Cook and co. arrived on the island. He was witness to, " a place with huts, temples, irrigations works, cultivation, aquaculture fishponds-all arrayed within more or less natural topographically bounded areas running from the mountains to the sea. In short, they saw great numbers of visible features and improvements that would suggest "dominion" under the English common law of property." This was enough visual confirmation that the native Hawai'ian people had clear rights to this land and the only means of seizure was to persuade and purchase.
Carol Rose's interpretation of property rights/laws as relying heavily on vision reminds me of gentrification in low-income neighborhoods. More often than not a large entity seizes up land and homes in less affluent neighborhoods in order to make "better" use out of it than the current residents. To them, the area is not being used to its capacity, nor is it generating income into the city/state. The generational and cultural qualities and authenticities that lie within every resident's memory are not seen by outsiders and therefore interpreted as run-down. This gives entities the jurisdiction and backing to seize homes and strip residents of their property rights that, in many cases, they've had for generations upon generations. This is much like the seizure of Native American lands.
On the other hand, lands where it is much more visually appealing such as manicured lawns, colorful mailboxes, and blooming flowers almost never run into issues with property rights against a larger entity. These lands are clearly visible as inhabited and maintained to the standards of the grandeur of society, such as in the case of Hawai'i.
Th visibility of property rights/law is a very valid point that I believe is at the basis of all land matters. Seeing a land as sprawling and active is enough right/grounds to deter invasion. Seeing a land as debilitated and idle is enough right/ground to seize and manipulate it as one would like. This has been the case of the early 17th century and continues to be the case today.
Comments
Post a Comment