Lesson #6: I don't know, and sometimes that's ok

My Civil Procedure professor started today's class by reading us a poem:

There is something I don't know

That I am supposed to know.

I don't know what it is I don't know,

And yet am supposed to know,

And I feel I look stupid

If I seem both not to know

And not to know what it is I don't know.

Therefore, I pretend I know it.

This is nerve-wracking

Since I don't know what I must pretend

To know.

Therefore, I pretend to know everything.

I feel you know what I am supposed to know

But you can't tell me what it is

Because you don't know what I don't know

What it is.

You may know what I don't know, but not

That I don't know it.

And I can't tell you. So you will have

To tell me everything.

- R. D. Lang in Knots

Apparently, its OK to not know Civil Procedure. Of course, until the exam. 

I'm holding up pretty well, except for that whole "I pretend to know everything but actually I know nothing" thing. Details, details. I'm not far behind. I'm not too far ahead. And sometimes, when I get cold-called in class, I magically have the right answer. 

Today, in Property, not so much. Definitely didn't have the right answer. In fact, I didn't even really read the paragraph in the dissent where she pulled the question from. 

Professor: Amy, do you think that Livingston, who wrote the decent, had respect for Justinian's authority?
Amy: Uh... well... hm... I mean, I'm not sure. He said it was... vague?
Professor: Well, Livingston writes that his authority is not relevant and should be disregarded.
Amy: Well, when you put it like that, I suppose he has 0 respect for Justinian.

I thought I was done. But then...

Professor: Oh, and Amy, what did he think about the other authorities the majority opinion cite?
Amy: Well, Professor, he definitely wasn't sold on them. He found the other authorities to be inconsistent and therefore, incorrect. Which is odd because they are, in fact, very consistent. He ends up citing Barbeyrac because he finds him the most rational least likely to be objected, which is totally backwards. 

That's right. Redemption.

I knew she was going to call on me today. I had that feeling. It probably had something to do with the article I emailed her last week: In Honduras, Land Struggles Highlight Post-Coup Polarization. It was a really interesting article which touched upon the property issues fought everyday between natives and big corporations. There are undeniable parallels between what the US did to Native Americans under the Doctrines of Discovery and Conqueror.

As you can imagine, the land in Honduras is fertile and therefore very valuable to both parties: the natives, who use the land to source their food and livelihood and to the corporations, who farm palm oil and make enormous profits. (Do I sound biased?) And as the article states, the 1400 families who have "squatted" and claimed use of the land since last year have been frozen out of the latest pact to distribute ownership. Without ownership title, they fear they could be evicted at any time. Can you imagine a corporation, with backing from the government, telling you that you need to "peace out" in 48 hours or else... (they kill you).

The conflict here goes back to the early 1990s, when wealthy landowners bought up plantations from farmer cooperatives. Farmworker groups argue that these purchases were illegal because members of the cooperatives were tricked by their leaders or signed deals they did not understand.

Ugh. Ugh.

We take for granted in the US the land that we own and the property rights (nay, all rights) that we have. And for Hondurans and many many other populations all over the world, the fight for land that you've lived on for generations continues. And what's even more disheartening is that now, we're covering "the right to water."