Re: Land and Tainos

[tgf]

Re: Land and Tainos

Arcoiris,
The first link goes to a web page that anyone could create. It doesn't prove anything. The second doesn't work. The argument was about Tainos in the DR. There is some evidence that populations with a high percentage of Taino biological heritage still exist in Cuba. Puerto Rico was being invaded by Caribs at the time Columbus landed in Quisqueya(DR) and many Tainos were already fleeing from the island. There is no mythical reason why recognition of Tainos in the DR would be avoided by the governments - Spanish or Dominican. Irving Rouse, Professor Emeritus, at Yale did some wonderful early ground breaking work in the Caribbean. I don't believe he ever stated that Tainos still exist in the DR. Again, provide facts. Encomienda and repartimiento systems accounted for the Taino population. Those that escaped were hunted down ruthlessly in the mountains. Thousands were imported into the Dominican Republic from surrounding islands because those on the island were dying so quickly. It was a horrible case of genocide. Bartolome de las Casas used Santo Domingo as an example of the worst that could befall the Native Americans.

The only internationally recognized surviving populations of Native Americans in the Caribbean are the Caribs of Dominica and the Black Caribs of Belize. Don't get me wrong, I would love it if Tainos still existed as a definable population. I just don't see the evidence and you have yet to provide it. By the way, there are very strong social and historical reasons for Dominicans to salute their mythical Taino reason and negate their African heritage. There is a lot of literature on the subject.

Terrenos comunes were recognized legally by Spanish colonial law. It was the 1916 US government occupation of the Dominican Republic that did not recognize these terrenos comunes. Why, because they wanted to get their hands of the land to sell to rich individuals and companies to raise sugar for export.

Arcoiris, I know I can't change your mind, but I write this to all the other readers who might mistake your writings and web links as fact.

 

[Natasha]

Re: Land and Tainos

Excellent post Tgf. Some of what you are saying is what I almost said to Arcoiris a couple of weeks when she replied to the Jamaica vs. Dominican Republic thread. I decided not to debate the issue though.

Regards,
Natasha

 

[sean]

Re: Land and Tainos

I agree with your post, but need to make one major historical correction. The terrenos communeros were, according to Moya Pons, first broken up by the Haitians who occupied the DR in the early nineteenth century. They saw it as backwards and as an impediment to the foundation of a major cash crop export economy -- they failed at reinstating the cash crop plantations anyway. But really the number one reason for the Trinitarian revolt was that in the process of land redistribution many merchants in the capital and the Catholic Church lost their land holdings. Some squatters rights have remained, but the Americans were not the first to begin breaking up this system.

 

[tgf]

Re: Land and Tainos

Thank you for your correction. At the time I wrote the above, I was citing from memory not the sources at hand. You are correct. However, when the Haitians were kicked out there was still lots of land available to a small Dominican population and squatting in the mountains remained a viable alternative to buying land with clear titles. It was only later in the early 20th century that the US military occupation government began the large scale evictions of poor peasants in the areas around San Pedro de Macoris, La Romana, and other potentially rich sugar lands. This was one of the direct causes of the guerrilla warfare in the eastern part of the country that lasted for years during the occupation.

This all goes back to the original question about getting money for appropriated land. Land titles in the DR can be hopelessly entangled with multiple owners, liens, court actions among parties. I have known several people who have lost significant amounts of money because they failed to have a title search done prior to buying land. Signing over land in front of two witnesses might have been done in the past, but unless the title was filed with regional and national authorities it was not considered legal - in colonial or modern times. I just wanted to warn individuals to save themselves a lot of frustration and pay to have a title search done. I'm sure Lic. Guzman, our contributing lawyer, will agree with this statement.

 

[Keith]

Re: Land Titles in the DR

From the FAQ of the Dominican law firm RVHB:

>Q: What should I know about getting a title?
>
>A: The Land Registration Law (No. 1542 of 7 November 1947) establishes a system for registration of real estate, whereby the offices of the Registry of Titles issue a Title Certificate in favor of each legally registered landowner. According to the law, the Title Certificate is a document justifying the right of ownership, and is irrevocable, perpetual, absolute, firm and unassailable and enjoys the full guaranty of the State.
>
> The purchase of rural or urban real estate must be registered with the Registry of Titles corresponding to that
jurisdiction. It is important that the purchaser, before effecting the operation, requests a copy of the property
title and takes all necessary measures in order to guarantee that the ownership rights are intact and that obtaining a new title certificate at the close of the sale is possible.
>

 

[NewT]

Re: Land Titles in the DR

Those clauses are in line with property law in many countries. Unfortunately, insuring titles is much less clear cut, and therefore risky.