Just found out the origin of “grandfathered in”.
What else has a problematic history you didn’t realize until later?
The fact that there were some Native American slave owners. That shit shook me.
All due respect, but I think that explanation is a cop out (whatever that means). It was a miniscule percentage that owned slaves. The same type as the 0.1% in most third world kleptocracies. Soulless, despicable opportunists. To say that they were doing it to protect themselves is misguided apologetics. They were doing it to enrich themselves.
Unrelated to this thread, but not only were there American First Nations slave owners, but some Canadian First Nations would actually actively slave themselves even before colonisation. The Haida Gwaii, to this day, are hated among First Nations people in British Columbia. In the 19th century, some of the FN folks actually preferred to ally with the British against the Haida because the Haidi were so ruthless.
how much time do you have?
Learning about IMF and how they enslave developing countries made me a socialist lol
we watched life and debt in my anthro class and it sealed the deal
Fun fact about holdovers of racism: many property deeds in the south still have terms forbidding the sale of the property to black people. It’s not enforceable, but it’s still passed down as a condition with each sale.
I found one of those in northeast Ohio. Well, I found a couple, mostly from the 1940s.
But one in particular fucked me up because this deed was from the 80s and they copy-pasted the “no blacks allowed” clause from an older deed into this 1980s document. Like, why the fuck would you do that?? Especially considering—I hope to god you’re right—that it’s unenforceable
Edit: I remember bringing it up on reddit during the early primaries and the general response was “uh sweaty, why would something that happened 30 years ago having anything to do with systemic racism today?”
Racial discrimination is illegal, so if you abide by these policies, you’d actually be breaking the law. These conditions (easements, I think is the term) are very hard to remove.
They originate in British law and mainly delt with land access. They protected the right of non-owners during land sales. For example, if you’re a farmer and someone else’s land is between your farm and the river, you could negotiate access through their land then get that codified as an easement. If they sell the land, it comes with the obligation to uphold your right and to pass those terms on to the next owner.
Landowners can’t strike them out because they’re the ones bound by these terms. The people who put them in place are all dead, so they can’t do it. A judge could get it removed from the deed if they think it effectively nullifys the owner’s property rights. However, they have no effect, so this almost never gets done.
I hadn’t thought about it that way. That makes sense that, as hereditary conditions imposed on future landowners, the conditions can’t be removed by those landowners to whom they apply.
I guess I just figured lawyers or whoever writes the deeds would have the ability (even the order) to remove clearly illegal clauses from legal documents. But I guess that’s just too much to ask, fucking weird country
