Tweet
capture land chronixx
-
-
America's first urban myth?
One famous story in American history involves the sale of Manhattan. In this legend, Manhattan Island was sold by Indians in exchange for trinkets and beads. If it were true, it would arguably be one of the greatest real estate deals in history. To date, no deed of land transfer, formal title or bill of sale has ever surfaced to serve as proof of this purchase by the Dutch from the Indians. So is this transaction legal?
Housed in the Rijksarchief (the Dutch National Archives) in The Hague, Netherlands, is a letter that references the sale of the Manhattes (Manhattan) written by the Dutch merchant Pieter Schagen, dated November 5, 1626. (A copy of the letter and translation in both Dutch and English can be accessed here.) In this letter Schagen wrote, “They have purchased the Island of Manhattes from the savages for the value of 60 guilders.” Schagen’s letter does not verify either the date of sale or who sold Manhattan on behalf of which tribe of Indians. Further, historians and scholars cannot agree on which tribe actually received payment in exchange for Manhattan. Included in historical references associated with the sale of Manhattan are the Lenape, Manahatin, Canarsie, Shinnecock, and Munsee Indians. The Manahatin, Lenape, and Munsee Indians were all indigenous to lower Manhattan according to their respective histories.
Absent from the letter is the mention of trinkets and beads. Also absent is the name of the individual who actually made the purchase. Many pieces to this historical assumption are missing. Is Schagen’s letter, without a bill of sale, sufficient legal evidence to establish title for the transfer of Manhattan from its original inhabitants to the Dutch?
In one 1626 account, Peter Minuit, appointed director-general of New Netherland by the Geoctroyeerde Westindische Compagnie (the Dutch West India Company), purchased Manhattan from the Lenape, or Delaware Indians, for $24-worth of trade goods. Other accounts state that Minuit made the deal with the Canarsie, who were actually based in Long Island yet accepted gifts in exchange for land that was not theirs. The Canarsie allegedly accepted the gifts and continued on their journey home. Another account contends that it was the Munsee Indians who received the trinkets, and claimed Manhattan as their ancestral homelands at the time.
In 1613, the Dutch established a fur-trading outpost in what is now lower Manhattan. Construction was started in 1625 on Fort Amsterdam, also in southern Manhattan. Ironically, the site of Fort Amsterdam is now occupied by the old U.S. Custom House building, which houses the NMAI’s George Gustav Heye Center. A deed for Manhattan later surfaced, signed in Fort Amsterdam on July 14, 1649. However, the Dutch had formally been occupying Manhattan since 1613, a period of 36 years. In the 1649 deed Petrus Stuyvesant, Director General of New Netherland, declared three Indians—Megtegichkama, Oteyochque, and Wegtakockken—to be “the right owners of the land.” These three Indians put their mark on this agreement. This deed provokes the questions, If Manhattan was already sold to Peter Minuit on behalf of the Dutch East India Company in 1626, wouldn’t Minuit be the owner? Or did the Indians somehow still hold title?
Complicating this legend is the ideological difference between two contrasting cultures regarding the sale of land. To American Indians of this period, it was proper protocol for gifts to be exchanged for safe passage through their lands or for temporary occupation by visitors. Foreign to Native thinking was the sale of land through written documentation, or the sale of land and other natural resources in perpetuity. In contrast, written title was primary to land ownership in European thinking. Once title was established, landowners built fences, walls and other barriers to bar trespassing by others. Were the terms of contractual land sale mutually understood by both cultures at the time?
Another consideration to explore is that more than one tribe was living on Manhattan Island during this time period. If the Manhattan land transaction was made by one tribe, did this sale include another tribe’s land? The Reckgawanc people, whose territory was in the upper half of Manhattan, deny the sale of their homelands through the lower Manhattan transaction. Is this a legitimate claim?
The word Manhattan originates from the Lenape description manna-hata, which means “hilly island.” Without written evidence of its sale, would it stand up in a court of law, or is it America’s first urban legend?
-
'tap de noise and come talk to me dung soh bout casting couch.Comment
-
allow me to be ignorant for a moment.....
but all dese ppl who keep preaching africa y dem no go ahead an go home? y dem remain on this side a di world a mek up noise.
ok moment of ignorance over. carry on...i do love this song. really like cronix.Comment
-
Yeah, Blue...what's with dat?Originally posted by missus_vegas View Postallow me to be ignorant for a moment.....
but all dese ppl who keep preaching africa y dem no go ahead an go home? y dem remain on this side a di world a mek up noise.
ok moment of ignorance over. carry on...i do love this song. really like cronix.Comment
-
Finally a singer acknowledge dat Jamaica is Taino...unno fi repatriate guh wet unno come from....leave Jamaica to us Taino!Originally posted by blugiant View Postcapture land chronixx
Comment
-
African Americans are now strangers in their ancestral homelands. Language, culture, land etc... all taken from them, not to mention their very own names and family history, and they were forced to plant their roots and make a life for themselves in other parts of the world. A few have returned "home" but for the vast majority what exactly are they to go home to?
Reperations are a more realistic answer. The ancestors of African slaves sould be given the right to sue the governments that allowed slavery. Yes, the actual slaves are long dead but the end of slavery did not end the despicable way blacks were treated (Jim Crow etc....) and for the discrimination that continues to this day when black folks can't buy a house, rent an appartment, get a job, shop in a store withoout being followed, drive without being pulled over by police etc... .
The Jews got Israel for their displacement, should the African ancestors of slaves not get the same kind of consideration?Comment
-
Originally posted by Wahalla View Post
Good point. Maybe those folks in North America of European ancestry should "go home" and leave the land to the first peoples including the Taino, the Navajo, the Mohawk etc.. .Comment
-
cah oyinbo mekk trips too afrikka soo xxpensiveOriginally posted by missus_vegas View Postallow me to be ignorant for a moment.....
but all dese ppl who keep preaching africa y dem no go ahead an go home? y dem remain on this side a di world a mek up noise.
ok moment of ignorance over. carry on...i do love this song. really like cronix.
Last edited by blugiant; 11-29-2014, 12:41 PM.Comment
-
-
Comment