Religions > Atheism > a form of affirmative action? (Re: oldest American skull found!
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yuri Kuchinsky" |
| Date: |
12 Oct 2004 03:48:55 PM |
| Object: |
a form of affirmative action? (Re: oldest American skull found! |
In sci.archaeology pwilson <pwilson78@hotmail.com> wrote
in article <%gzad.308041$%n4.63336@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:
: ... I appreciate the need to protect
: graves of the recently deceased, but I don't see a rational basis for not
: allowing scientific research on ancient graves.
That's for sure, pwilson.
: If the NAs are granted a special right to extend the concept of normal
: (temporal) grave protection as a means of correcting past transgressions
: on the part of society, that's fine. I understand that and perceive it
: as a form of political affirmative action - sort of getting even, in a
: way. But I don't agree with it and will speak against it.
Well, if this is really a form of affirmative action, then surely this is
the most bizarre form of affirmative action that has emerged so far.
Normally, affirmative action is when the young generation is getting some
tangible benefits, such as access to higher education, or preference in
hiring to compensate for past wrongs. Seems OK to me.
But in this case, all the NDNs get is a bunch of old bones of someone who
probably has no connection with them, in any case, except that 10,000
years ago they happened to find themselves in the same vicinity. The real
descendants of this ancient person may be somewhere in South America by
now, thousands of miles away...
So what the NDNs get is basically nothing in exchange for some headaches,
such as having to pay lawyers in any possible court cases. Plus they get a
whole bunch of scientists really peed off.
I wonder who was the big brain behind this whole hullabaloo -- who started
this whole ridiculous confrontation between the NDNs and the scientists...
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
I doubt, therefore I might be.
.
|
|
| User: "Lee Olsen" |
|
| Title: Re: a form of affirmative action? (Re: oldest American skull found! |
13 Oct 2004 11:10:56 PM |
|
|
Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message news:<416c4337@news.nnrp.ca>...
In sci.archaeology pwilson <pwilson78@hotmail.com> wrote
in article <%gzad.308041$%n4.63336@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:
: ... I appreciate the need to protect
: graves of the recently deceased, but I don't see a rational basis for not
: allowing scientific research on ancient graves.
That's for sure, pwilson.
That's not for sure at all. Curiosity research is not scientific
research. Scientific tools applied to Paleo evidence tries to answer
prehistory problems; that's history, not science. Knowing what
Kennewick Man had for lunch isn't going to cure cancer.
snip
But in this case, all the NDNs get is a bunch of old bones
But in this case, all the scientists get is a bunch of old bones
of someone who
probably has no connection with them, in any case,
of someone who absolutely has no connection with them, in any case,
except that 10,000
years ago they happened to find themselves in the same vicinity.
except that 10,000 years ago they didn't happen to find themselves in
the same vicinity.
The real
descendants of this ancient person may be somewhere in South America by
now, thousands of miles away...
Well if that's the case, they forgot to take their culture with them
to South America and the hostiles who took over their territory in
their absence left all their previous culture behind also, from
wherever they came from. Yet at the same time, these new people
managed to slip undetected into the archaeological record right smack
into the pervious culture, lock, stock, and barrel and continued with
those traditions until the present. Just think, they accomplished all
this without the benefits of modern archaeological techniques.
So what the NDNs get is basically nothing in exchange for some headaches,
such as having to pay lawyers in any possible court cases.
So what the scientists get is basically nothing in exchange for some
headaches, such as having to pay for a mountain of extraneous costs
associated with working pro bono.
(PS, the first round was paid for by the govt. taxpayers, since it was
govt. who was actually sued). NA expenses were relatively minor.
Plus they get a
whole bunch of scientists really peed off.
Plus they get a whole bunch of Indians really peed off.
Reality check. Who is more important these days, curiosity-driven
scientists who are looking for a govt. handout (read grant), that are
worried about what someone had for lunch thousands of years ago or
Indians who have environmental rights today granted to them by the
U.S. govt? Name just one of the eight plaintiff-scientists who attends
the top-level environmental meetings where decisions of national
interest are concerned.
Now imagine a poor-single mother in New York City who is worried about
what she is going to feed her 7 kids for lunch TODAY. When her
electricity goes off and she can't cook her meals because of a
blackout, do you really think she cares what Kennewick Man had for
lunch thousands of years ago?
Now what does all this have to do with peed-off Indians who want
their ancestors back?
They are sitting next to Grand Coulee Dam, Wanapum Dam, and McNary Dam
that are on the national power grid, yep, you guessed it, the woman in
New York City is directly influenced by what those peed-off Indians
with their govt. granted rights are doing, like it or not. As Roger
Downey so eloquently said: "Rob, you don't own the past anymore."
I wonder who was the big brain behind this whole hullabaloo -- who started
this whole ridiculous confrontation between the NDNs and the scientists...
As a juvenile-delinquent-pot hunter by today's standards, plaintiff
Bonnichsen looted (Slack Farm style) a modern Indian burial mound
in c1960. Why? because it was there and a rancher said he could.
Thirty years later, pot-hunter-turned-scientist Bonnichsen had the
audacity to whine because the Indians wouldn't let him do destructive
testing on a human hair he had found at an archaeological site. Gee, I
wonder why?
Today, Bonnichsen and the rancher would be doing 3 to 5 in a state
penitentiary for that 1960 stunt. Times change, and the eight
plaintiffs are still living in 1960.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
I doubt, therefore I might be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "lisa dillon" |
|
| Title: Re: a form of affirmative action? (Re: oldest American skull found! |
14 Oct 2004 07:27:35 AM |
|
|
(Lee Olsen) wrote in message news:<40a73547.0410132010.7bda5188@posting.google.com>...
Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message news:<416c4337@news.nnrp.ca>...
In sci.archaeology pwilson <pwilson78@hotmail.com> wrote
in article <%gzad.308041$%n4.63336@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:
: ... I appreciate the need to protect
: graves of the recently deceased, but I don't see a rational basis for not
: allowing scientific research on ancient graves.
That's for sure, pwilson.
That's not for sure at all. Curiosity research is not scientific
research. Scientific tools applied to Paleo evidence tries to answer
prehistory problems; that's history, not science. Knowing what
Kennewick Man had for lunch isn't going to cure cancer.
snip
But in this case, all the NDNs get is a bunch of old bones
But in this case, all the scientists get is a bunch of old bones
of someone who
probably has no connection with them, in any case,
of someone who absolutely has no connection with them, in any case,
except that 10,000
years ago they happened to find themselves in the same vicinity.
except that 10,000 years ago they didn't happen to find themselves in
the same vicinity.
The real
descendants of this ancient person may be somewhere in South America by
now, thousands of miles away...
Well if that's the case, they forgot to take their culture with them
to South America and the hostiles who took over their territory in
their absence left all their previous culture behind also, from
wherever they came from. Yet at the same time, these new people
managed to slip undetected into the archaeological record right smack
into the pervious culture, lock, stock, and barrel and continued with
those traditions until the present. Just think, they accomplished all
this without the benefits of modern archaeological techniques.
So what the NDNs get is basically nothing in exchange for some headaches,
such as having to pay lawyers in any possible court cases.
So what the scientists get is basically nothing in exchange for some
headaches, such as having to pay for a mountain of extraneous costs
associated with working pro bono.
(PS, the first round was paid for by the govt. taxpayers, since it was
govt. who was actually sued). NA expenses were relatively minor.
Plus they get a
whole bunch of scientists really peed off.
Plus they get a whole bunch of Indians really peed off.
Reality check. Who is more important these days, curiosity-driven
scientists who are looking for a govt. handout (read grant), that are
worried about what someone had for lunch thousands of years ago or
Indians who have environmental rights today granted to them by the
U.S. govt? Name just one of the eight plaintiff-scientists who attends
the top-level environmental meetings where decisions of national
interest are concerned.
Now imagine a poor-single mother in New York City who is worried about
what she is going to feed her 7 kids for lunch TODAY. When her
electricity goes off and she can't cook her meals because of a
blackout, do you really think she cares what Kennewick Man had for
lunch thousands of years ago?
Now what does all this have to do with peed-off Indians who want
their ancestors back?
They are sitting next to Grand Coulee Dam, Wanapum Dam, and McNary Dam
that are on the national power grid, yep, you guessed it, the woman in
New York City is directly influenced by what those peed-off Indians
with their govt. granted rights are doing, like it or not. As Roger
Downey so eloquently said: "Rob, you don't own the past anymore."
I wonder who was the big brain behind this whole hullabaloo -- who started
this whole ridiculous confrontation between the NDNs and the scientists...
As a juvenile-delinquent-pot hunter by today's standards, plaintiff
Bonnichsen looted (Slack Farm style) a modern Indian burial mound
in c1960. Why? because it was there and a rancher said he could.
Thirty years later, pot-hunter-turned-scientist Bonnichsen had the
audacity to whine because the Indians wouldn't let him do destructive
testing on a human hair he had found at an archaeological site. Gee, I
wonder why?
Today, Bonnichsen and the rancher would be doing 3 to 5 in a state
penitentiary for that 1960 stunt. Times change, and the eight
plaintiffs are still living in 1960.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
I doubt, therefore I might be.
What kinds of Disesses are being un earthed in all the grave robbing
that goes on? It's no joke! I worry about the Graves being opened in
Iraq! If Sadam buried the weaposn of mass distruction at all, at the
very least the posability of his buiring poison's with the dead!is not
far fetched.
earn a liveing unearthing bones, spirit's are not the only things
disturbed and disturbing....Lisa D....
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Erik A. Mattila" |
|
| Title: Re: a form of affirmative action? (Re: oldest American skull found! |
12 Oct 2004 04:20:29 PM |
|
|
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
In sci.archaeology pwilson <pwilson78@hotmail.com> wrote
in article <%gzad.308041$%n4.63336@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:
: ... I appreciate the need to protect
: graves of the recently deceased, but I don't see a rational basis for not
: allowing scientific research on ancient graves.
That's for sure, pwilson.
: If the NAs are granted a special right to extend the concept of normal
: (temporal) grave protection as a means of correcting past transgressions
: on the part of society, that's fine. I understand that and perceive it
: as a form of political affirmative action - sort of getting even, in a
: way. But I don't agree with it and will speak against it.
Well, if this is really a form of affirmative action, then surely this is
the most bizarre form of affirmative action that has emerged so far.
Normally, affirmative action is when the young generation is getting some
tangible benefits, such as access to higher education, or preference in
hiring to compensate for past wrongs. Seems OK to me.
But you should set aside your paternalism for a moment to consider that
pwil is blowing hot air out of his *****, Yuri. It's not "affirmative
action" by any stretch simply because Indian nations are soverign
entities. While it is strictly defined as a "limited sovereignty," part
of that sovereignty sustained is the power to marshall the graves of the
ancestors. It's not a benevolent handout by the US or Canadian
government, it is a soverign power.
But you resist seeing this issue as political, and instead cast it as a
simplistic "science v. religious fundamentalism" issue. I'm not
surprised you do this, because it is an easy argument to make, albeit
one that will get you or anyone else nowhere insofar as compromise and
resolution is concerned. Do you see what I am saying? You, amongst
others who hold this silly view, are in fact obstructing any solution.
If you love science, why shoot yourself in the foot?
But in this case, all the NDNs get is a bunch of old bones of someone who
probably has no connection with them, in any case, except that 10,000
years ago they happened to find themselves in the same vicinity. The real
descendants of this ancient person may be somewhere in South America by
now, thousands of miles away...
So what the NDNs get is basically nothing in exchange for some headaches,
such as having to pay lawyers in any possible court cases. Plus they get a
whole bunch of scientists really peed off.
I wonder who was the big brain behind this whole hullabaloo -- who started
this whole ridiculous confrontation between the NDNs and the scientists...
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
I doubt, therefore I might be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yuri Kuchinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: a form of affirmative action? (Re: oldest American skull found! |
15 Oct 2004 03:07:11 PM |
|
|
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
In sci.archaeology pwilson <pwilson78@hotmail.com> wrote
in article <%gzad.308041$%n4.63336@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:
: ... I appreciate the need to protect
: graves of the recently deceased, but I don't see a rational basis for not
: allowing scientific research on ancient graves.
That's for sure, pwilson.
: If the NAs are granted a special right to extend the concept of normal
: (temporal) grave protection as a means of correcting past transgressions
: on the part of society, that's fine. I understand that and perceive it
: as a form of political affirmative action - sort of getting even, in a
: way. But I don't agree with it and will speak against it.
Well, if this is really a form of affirmative action, then surely this is
the most bizarre form of affirmative action that has emerged so far.
Normally, affirmative action is when the young generation is getting some
tangible benefits, such as access to higher education, or preference in
hiring to compensate for past wrongs. Seems OK to me.
But you should set aside your paternalism for a moment to consider that
pwil is blowing hot air out of his *****, Yuri. It's not "affirmative
action" by any stretch simply because Indian nations are soverign
entities. While it is strictly defined as a "limited sovereignty," part
of that sovereignty sustained is the power to marshall the graves of the
ancestors. It's not a benevolent handout by the US or Canadian
government, it is a soverign power.
Eric,
I'm talking about NAGPRA, the law that is flawed.
But you resist seeing this issue as political, and instead cast it as a
simplistic "science v. religious fundamentalism" issue. I'm not
surprised you do this, because it is an easy argument to make, albeit
one that will get you or anyone else nowhere insofar as compromise and
resolution is concerned. Do you see what I am saying? You, amongst
others who hold this silly view, are in fact obstructing any solution.
If you love science, why shoot yourself in the foot?
I see a problem in so far as science is being attacked. You
suggest that mediation might help. Fine, you can go ahead
and try it.
But I'm saying that the best thing to do is to abolish this
stupid law. This seems more realistic.
NAGPRA represents an attack on science, and therefore it
should be abolished.
Best wishes,
Yuri.
But in this case, all the NDNs get is a bunch of old bones of someone who
probably has no connection with them, in any case, except that 10,000
years ago they happened to find themselves in the same vicinity. The real
descendants of this ancient person may be somewhere in South America by
now, thousands of miles away...
So what the NDNs get is basically nothing in exchange for some headaches,
such as having to pay lawyers in any possible court cases. Plus they get a
whole bunch of scientists really peed off.
I wonder who was the big brain behind this whole hullabaloo -- who started
this whole ridiculous confrontation between the NDNs and the scientists...
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
I doubt, therefore I might be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lee Olsen" |
|
| Title: Re: a form of affirmative action? (Re: oldest American skull found! |
16 Oct 2004 10:42:07 AM |
|
|
Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message news:<41702DEE.EC6C0E04@trends.ca>...
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
In sci.archaeology pwilson <pwilson78@hotmail.com> wrote
in article <%gzad.308041$%n4.63336@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:
: ... I appreciate the need to protect
: graves of the recently deceased, but I don't see a rational basis for not
: allowing scientific research on ancient graves.
That's for sure, pwilson.
: If the NAs are granted a special right to extend the concept of normal
: (temporal) grave protection as a means of correcting past transgressions
: on the part of society, that's fine. I understand that and perceive it
: as a form of political affirmative action - sort of getting even, in a
: way. But I don't agree with it and will speak against it.
Well, if this is really a form of affirmative action, then surely this is
the most bizarre form of affirmative action that has emerged so far.
Normally, affirmative action is when the young generation is getting some
tangible benefits, such as access to higher education, or preference in
hiring to compensate for past wrongs. Seems OK to me.
But you should set aside your paternalism for a moment to consider that
pwil is blowing hot air out of his *****, Yuri. It's not "affirmative
action" by any stretch simply because Indian nations are soverign
entities. While it is strictly defined as a "limited sovereignty," part
of that sovereignty sustained is the power to marshall the graves of the
ancestors. It's not a benevolent handout by the US or Canadian
government, it is a soverign power.
Eric,
I'm talking about NAGPRA, the law that is flawed.
Troll
But you resist seeing this issue as political, and instead cast it as a
simplistic "science v. religious fundamentalism" issue. I'm not
surprised you do this, because it is an easy argument to make, albeit
one that will get you or anyone else nowhere insofar as compromise and
resolution is concerned. Do you see what I am saying? You, amongst
others who hold this silly view, are in fact obstructing any solution.
If you love science, why shoot yourself in the foot?
I see a problem in so far as science is being attacked.
Troll
You
suggest that mediation might help. Fine, you can go ahead
and try it.
You are ignorant of the facts. It has already been tried, and progress
was being made---that progress was set back by the Kennewick Man
lawsuit.
But I'm saying that the best thing to do is to abolish this
stupid law.
The only thing stupid is you.
This seems more realistic.
Only to the completely ignorant in society.
NAGPRA represents an attack on science,
An attack on curiosity is not an attack on science.
and therefore it
should be abolished.
And therefore your reasoning is flawed.
Best wishes,
Yuri.
But in this case, all the NDNs get is a bunch of old bones of someone who
probably has no connection with them, in any case, except that 10,000
years ago they happened to find themselves in the same vicinity. The real
descendants of this ancient person may be somewhere in South America by
now, thousands of miles away...
So what the NDNs get is basically nothing in exchange for some headaches,
such as having to pay lawyers in any possible court cases. Plus they get a
whole bunch of scientists really peed off.
I wonder who was the big brain behind this whole hullabaloo -- who started
this whole ridiculous confrontation between the NDNs and the scientists...
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
I doubt, therefore I might be.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Erik A. Mattila" |
|
| Title: Re: a form of affirmative action? (Re: oldest American skull found! |
15 Oct 2004 03:35:05 PM |
|
|
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
In sci.archaeology pwilson <pwilson78@hotmail.com> wrote
in article <%gzad.308041$%n4.63336@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:
: ... I appreciate the need to protect
: graves of the recently deceased, but I don't see a rational basis for not
: allowing scientific research on ancient graves.
That's for sure, pwilson.
: If the NAs are granted a special right to extend the concept of normal
: (temporal) grave protection as a means of correcting past transgressions
: on the part of society, that's fine. I understand that and perceive it
: as a form of political affirmative action - sort of getting even, in a
: way. But I don't agree with it and will speak against it.
Well, if this is really a form of affirmative action, then surely this is
the most bizarre form of affirmative action that has emerged so far.
Normally, affirmative action is when the young generation is getting some
tangible benefits, such as access to higher education, or preference in
hiring to compensate for past wrongs. Seems OK to me.
But you should set aside your paternalism for a moment to consider that
pwil is blowing hot air out of his *****, Yuri. It's not "affirmative
action" by any stretch simply because Indian nations are soverign
entities. While it is strictly defined as a "limited sovereignty," part
of that sovereignty sustained is the power to marshall the graves of the
ancestors. It's not a benevolent handout by the US or Canadian
government, it is a soverign power.
Eric,
I'm talking about NAGPRA, the law that is flawed.
But you resist seeing this issue as political, and instead cast it as a
simplistic "science v. religious fundamentalism" issue. I'm not
surprised you do this, because it is an easy argument to make, albeit
one that will get you or anyone else nowhere insofar as compromise and
resolution is concerned. Do you see what I am saying? You, amongst
others who hold this silly view, are in fact obstructing any solution.
If you love science, why shoot yourself in the foot?
I see a problem in so far as science is being attacked. You
suggest that mediation might help. Fine, you can go ahead
and try it.
But I'm saying that the best thing to do is to abolish this
stupid law. This seems more realistic.
NAGPRA represents an attack on science, and therefore it
should be abolished.
Best wishes,
Yuri.
But in this case, all the NDNs get is a bunch of old bones of someone who
probably has no connection with them, in any case, except that 10,000
years ago they happened to find themselves in the same vicinity. The real
descendants of this ancient person may be somewhere in South America by
now, thousands of miles away...
So what the NDNs get is basically nothing in exchange for some headaches,
such as having to pay lawyers in any possible court cases. Plus they get a
whole bunch of scientists really peed off.
I wonder who was the big brain behind this whole hullabaloo -- who started
this whole ridiculous confrontation between the NDNs and the scientists...
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
I doubt, therefore I might be.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Erik A. Mattila" |
|
| Title: Re: a form of affirmative action? (Re: oldest American skull found! |
15 Oct 2004 03:48:44 PM |
|
|
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
In sci.archaeology pwilson <pwilson78@hotmail.com> wrote
in article <%gzad.308041$%n4.63336@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:
: ... I appreciate the need to protect
: graves of the recently deceased, but I don't see a rational basis for not
: allowing scientific research on ancient graves.
That's for sure, pwilson.
: If the NAs are granted a special right to extend the concept of normal
: (temporal) grave protection as a means of correcting past transgressions
: on the part of society, that's fine. I understand that and perceive it
: as a form of political affirmative action - sort of getting even, in a
: way. But I don't agree with it and will speak against it.
Well, if this is really a form of affirmative action, then surely this is
the most bizarre form of affirmative action that has emerged so far.
Normally, affirmative action is when the young generation is getting some
tangible benefits, such as access to higher education, or preference in
hiring to compensate for past wrongs. Seems OK to me.
But you should set aside your paternalism for a moment to consider that
pwil is blowing hot air out of his *****, Yuri. It's not "affirmative
action" by any stretch simply because Indian nations are soverign
entities. While it is strictly defined as a "limited sovereignty," part
of that sovereignty sustained is the power to marshall the graves of the
ancestors. It's not a benevolent handout by the US or Canadian
government, it is a soverign power.
Eric,
I'm talking about NAGPRA, the law that is flawed.
But you resist seeing this issue as political, and instead cast it as a
simplistic "science v. religious fundamentalism" issue. I'm not
surprised you do this, because it is an easy argument to make, albeit
one that will get you or anyone else nowhere insofar as compromise and
resolution is concerned. Do you see what I am saying? You, amongst
others who hold this silly view, are in fact obstructing any solution.
If you love science, why shoot yourself in the foot?
I see a problem in so far as science is being attacked. You
suggest that mediation might help. Fine, you can go ahead
and try it.
I'm hardly the one to do that, Yuri. I really have no stake in this
matter. I'm on the fence because I generally like science and I've also
spent a big part of my life fighting for NDN rights.
But I'm saying that the best thing to do is to abolish this
stupid law. This seems more realistic.
It would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, in my opinion.
NAGPRA represents an attack on science, and therefore it
should be abolished.
Best wishes,
Yuri.
Ah, shucks. Science is such the victim. But you really haven't said
anything here that would cause you not to accept my previous argument
that this is a political contest, and has little to do with any sort of
religious fundamentalism. Just for clarity, I am well aware that
religious concepts are involved in the discourse, but I honestly see a
much better venue for compromise, even a "win/win" situation, if the
issue is perceived as political.
And I don't quite understand the resistance to regarding this as
political - from either side, for that matter (if a solution is really
valuable to either party). Obviously it would be contentious,
politically, but it would be workable too. I don't think arguments
based on racism and/or religion have that quality. They are
intrinsically resistant to any sort of agreement.
It's kind of a classic diplomatic standoff - the initial problem the
mediator faces in convincing the parties that they should go to the table.
Regards,
Erik
But in this case, all the NDNs get is a bunch of old bones of someone who
probably has no connection with them, in any case, except that 10,000
years ago they happened to find themselves in the same vicinity. The real
descendants of this ancient person may be somewhere in South America by
now, thousands of miles away...
So what the NDNs get is basically nothing in exchange for some headaches,
such as having to pay lawyers in any possible court cases. Plus they get a
whole bunch of scientists really peed off.
I wonder who was the big brain behind this whole hullabaloo -- who started
this whole ridiculous confrontation between the NDNs and the scientists...
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
I doubt, therefore I might be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Philip Deitiker" |
|
| Title: Re: a form of affirmative action? (Re: oldest American skull found! |
15 Oct 2004 09:35:11 PM |
|
|
"Erik A. Mattila" <emattila@oco.net> says in
news:417037AC.6050901@oco.net:
We don't need for you to do battle with Yuri is s.a.p.
We have already concluded he is an idiot. Take this political
battle elsewhere. Everytime you reply to 'Yuri the spammer' you
are replying to 5 groups, this is rather impolite, even if Yuri
instigates this, you don't need to be duped by him into
polluting the UseNet.
What you are doing is engaging Yuri in the type of Propoganda
he likes, and it gets his message out to people who are like
minded with him.
--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mol. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom.
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Pal. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Sci. Arch. Aux
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "pwilson" |
|
| Title: Re: a form of affirmative action? (Re: oldest American skull found! |
13 Oct 2004 09:06:30 PM |
|
|
Erik A. Mattila wrote
But you should set aside your paternalism for a moment to consider that
pwil is blowing hot air out of his *****,
You vulgar clod ...
It's not "affirmative
action" by any stretch simply because Indian nations are soverign
entities. While it is strictly defined as a "limited sovereignty," part
of that sovereignty sustained is the power to marshall the graves of the
ancestors. It's not a benevolent handout by the US or Canadian
government, it is a soverign power.
You live in a fantasy world, sport. Any extraordinary rights the Indians
have today are the result of the benevolence of the US (or Canadian)
government. The Indians have no appreciable political constituency, and
therefore no real power. The only practical influence they exert is
through an appeal to the guilty conscience of the country's populace for
past transgressions.
That's why they have been granted extra rights such as exemptions from
gambling restrictions and hunting and fishing regulations. The only
reason they have these special rights is that no one begrudges them
enough to have them taken away. But I guarantee you that if the Indians'
hunting practices threatened the extinction of an important species,
their hunting regulations exemption would suddenly evaporate.
The right to "marshal" the ancestral bones falls into the same category.
There is no economic benefit to the Indians, but it gives them an
opportunity to display that right as a symbol of defiance over the power
of the establishment - thus enhancing the illusion of 'sovereignty'. And
the establishment is willing to tolerate it because rather than having to
deal with more serious issues such as territorial claims, or monetary
compensations, it's much easier to throw them a few bones.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: a form of affirmative action? (Re: oldest American skull found! |
13 Oct 2004 09:50:20 PM |
|
|
pwilson wrote:
Erik A. Mattila wrote
But you should set aside your paternalism for a moment to consider that
pwil is blowing hot air out of his *****,
You vulgar clod ...
It's not "affirmative
action" by any stretch simply because Indian nations are soverign
entities. While it is strictly defined as a "limited sovereignty," part
of that sovereignty sustained is the power to marshall the graves of the
ancestors. It's not a benevolent handout by the US or Canadian
government, it is a soverign power.
You live in a fantasy world, sport. Any extraordinary rights the Indians
have today are the result of the benevolence of the US (or Canadian)
government. The Indians have no appreciable political constituency, and
therefore no real power. The only practical influence they exert is
through an appeal to the guilty conscience of the country's populace for
past transgressions.
That's why they have been granted extra rights such as exemptions from
gambling restrictions and hunting and fishing regulations. The only
reason they have these special rights is that no one begrudges them
enough to have them taken away. But I guarantee you that if the Indians'
hunting practices threatened the extinction of an important species,
their hunting regulations exemption would suddenly evaporate.
The right to "marshal" the ancestral bones falls into the same category.
There is no economic benefit to the Indians, but it gives them an
opportunity to display that right as a symbol of defiance over the power
of the establishment - thus enhancing the illusion of 'sovereignty'. And
the establishment is willing to tolerate it because rather than having to
deal with more serious issues such as territorial claims, or monetary
compensations, it's much easier to throw them a few bones.
I've not paid much attention to your posts, mostly because they
tended to be in threads or subthreads I wasn't following
closely. But this post needs a reply.
Treaties that the US makes are the highest law of the land.
They are not generous, optional handouts to others; they are
negotiated contracts with the full faith and credit of the
American government behind them. Treaties with Indian people
are of this nature.
When they were made, each side made promises to the other.
Indians, for the most part, kept their promises. I live where I
live without paying taxes to an Indian tribal government because
the Anishnabe, Sioux and Ho Chunk peoples ceded much of
Wisconsin to the US. On the other hand, the US too often did not
keep their promises.
Few of the treaties were completely and legally abrogated; thus
they are still in effect. The theory under which these treaties
were negotiated, that the tribes were sovereign nations, still
holds today. To say that Indians 'have been granted extra
rights such as exemptions from gambling restrictions and hunting
and fishing regulations' because 'no one begrudges them enough
to have them taken away' is legally nonsense, and historically
foolish.
It is interesting to watch the actual interactions between
tribal governments and the state and federal agencies that deal
with gambling and natural resource management. It's a pretty
far cry from pwilson's fantasy.
--
Tom McDonald
http://webpages.charter.net/tsmac/tmcdonald2672/
.
|
|
|
| User: "pwilson" |
|
| Title: Re: a form of affirmative action? (Re: oldest American skull found! |
13 Oct 2004 09:54:39 PM |
|
|
Tom McDonald wrote:
pwilson wrote:
Erik A. Mattila wrote
But you should set aside your paternalism for a moment to consider
that
pwil is blowing hot air out of his *****,
You vulgar clod ...
It's not "affirmative
action" by any stretch simply because Indian nations are soverign
entities. While it is strictly defined as a "limited sovereignty,"
part
of that sovereignty sustained is the power to marshall the graves of
the
ancestors. It's not a benevolent handout by the US or Canadian
government, it is a soverign power.
You live in a fantasy world, sport. Any extraordinary rights the
Indians
have today are the result of the benevolence of the US (or Canadian)
government. The Indians have no appreciable political constituency,
and
therefore no real power. The only practical influence they exert is
through an appeal to the guilty conscience of the country's populace
for
past transgressions.
That's why they have been granted extra rights such as exemptions from
gambling restrictions and hunting and fishing regulations. The only
reason they have these special rights is that no one begrudges them
enough to have them taken away. But I guarantee you that if the
Indians'
hunting practices threatened the extinction of an important species,
their hunting regulations exemption would suddenly evaporate.
The right to "marshal" the ancestral bones falls into the same
category.
There is no economic benefit to the Indians, but it gives them an
opportunity to display that right as a symbol of defiance over the
power
of the establishment - thus enhancing the illusion of 'sovereignty'.
And
the establishment is willing to tolerate it because rather than having
to
deal with more serious issues such as territorial claims, or monetary
compensations, it's much easier to throw them a few bones.
I've not paid much attention to your posts, mostly because they
tended to be in threads or subthreads I wasn't following
closely. But this post needs a reply.
Treaties that the US makes are the highest law of the land.
They are not generous, optional handouts to others; they are
negotiated contracts with the full faith and credit of the
American government behind them. Treaties with Indian people
are of this nature.
When they were made, each side made promises to the other.
Indians, for the most part, kept their promises. I live where I
live without paying taxes to an Indian tribal government because
the Anishnabe, Sioux and Ho Chunk peoples ceded much of
Wisconsin to the US. On the other hand, the US too often did not
keep their promises.
Few of the treaties were completely and legally abrogated; thus
they are still in effect. The theory under which these treaties
were negotiated, that the tribes were sovereign nations, still
holds today. To say that Indians 'have been granted extra
rights such as exemptions from gambling restrictions and hunting
and fishing regulations' because 'no one begrudges them enough
to have them taken away' is legally nonsense, and historically
foolish.
But it is reality, whether you like it or not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: a form of affirmative action? (Re: oldest American skull found! |
13 Oct 2004 10:05:17 PM |
|
|
pwilson wrote:
Tom McDonald wrote:
pwilson wrote:
Erik A. Mattila wrote
But you should set aside your paternalism for a moment to consider
that
pwil is blowing hot air out of his *****,
You vulgar clod ...
It's not "affirmative
action" by any stretch simply because Indian nations are soverign
entities. While it is strictly defined as a "limited sovereignty,"
part
of that sovereignty sustained is the power to marshall the graves of
the
ancestors. It's not a benevolent handout by the US or Canadian
government, it is a soverign power.
You live in a fantasy world, sport. Any extraordinary rights the
Indians
have today are the result of the benevolence of the US (or Canadian)
government. The Indians have no appreciable political constituency,
and
therefore no real power. The only practical influence they exert is
through an appeal to the guilty conscience of the country's populace
for
past transgressions.
That's why they have been granted extra rights such as exemptions from
gambling restrictions and hunting and fishing regulations. The only
reason they have these special rights is that no one begrudges them
enough to have them taken away. But I guarantee you that if the
Indians'
hunting practices threatened the extinction of an important species,
their hunting regulations exemption would suddenly evaporate.
The right to "marshal" the ancestral bones falls into the same
category.
There is no economic benefit to the Indians, but it gives them an
opportunity to display that right as a symbol of defiance over the
power
of the establishment - thus enhancing the illusion of 'sovereignty'.
And
the establishment is willing to tolerate it because rather than having
to
deal with more serious issues such as territorial claims, or monetary
compensations, it's much easier to throw them a few bones.
I've not paid much attention to your posts, mostly because they
tended to be in threads or subthreads I wasn't following
closely. But this post needs a reply.
Treaties that the US makes are the highest law of the land.
They are not generous, optional handouts to others; they are
negotiated contracts with the full faith and credit of the
American government behind them. Treaties with Indian people
are of this nature.
When they were made, each side made promises to the other.
Indians, for the most part, kept their promises. I live where I
live without paying taxes to an Indian tribal government because
the Anishnabe, Sioux and Ho Chunk peoples ceded much of
Wisconsin to the US. On the other hand, the US too often did not
keep their promises.
Few of the treaties were completely and legally abrogated; thus
they are still in effect. The theory under which these treaties
were negotiated, that the tribes were sovereign nations, still
holds today. To say that Indians 'have been granted extra
rights such as exemptions from gambling restrictions and hunting
and fishing regulations' because 'no one begrudges them enough
to have them taken away' is legally nonsense, and historically
foolish.
But it is reality, whether you like it or not.
For one who spends as much time as you do chiding people on
their uncouth behavior, it surprises me a little that you didn't
mark your cut. This is what you left out:
"It is interesting to watch the actual interactions between
tribal governments and the state and federal agencies that deal
with gambling and natural resource management. It's a pretty
far cry from pwilson's fantasy."
I was referring to the reality of the way the US, State and
Indian Tribal governments work together.
It may be that you are referring to the reality that the US
government could, if it chose, impose economic and/or political
sanctions on tribal governments to achieve some goal; and of
course, if the US chose to use military force, few tribes could
put up more than a token resistance. These have been done in
the past; but that is not the _current_ reality.
Try again.
--
Tom McDonald
http://webpages.charter.net/tsmac/tmcdonald2672/
.
|
|
|
| User: "pwilson" |
|
| Title: Re: a form of affirmative action? (Re: oldest American skull found! |
13 Oct 2004 10:23:40 PM |
|
|
Tom McDonald wrote:
For one who spends as much time as you do chiding people on
their uncouth behavior,
Oh, so you do read my posts. :-)
it surprises me a little that you didn't mark your cut.
Leading and trailing cuts are seldom marked, although I typically prefer
to mark leading cuts.
This is what you left out:
"It is interesting to watch the actual interactions between
tribal governments and the state and federal agencies that deal
with gambling and natural resource management. It's a pretty
far cry from pwilson's fantasy."
But there is no fantasy involved. Only harsh reality. You may not want
to accept it, but that makes it no less real.
I was referring to the reality of the way the US, State and
Indian Tribal governments work together.
It may be that you are referring to the reality that the US
government could, if it chose, impose economic and/or political
sanctions on tribal governments to achieve some goal;
Or simply stop any preferential treatment.
and of
course, if the US chose to use military force, few tribes could
put up more than a token resistance. These have been done in
the past; but that is not the _current_ reality.
Right, but what I said was that if in the future the interests of nation
happen to conflict with the special interests of Indians, who do you
think will prevail?
Try again.
Try what?
Look, I am all for special Indian rights. One of my business partners is
a one quarter Cherokee Indian and a full card-carrying member of the
Cherokee Nation. We exploit his status mercilessly in getting
preferential treatment in Government contracts. It has worked out very
well so far and we all hope it continues. It's the real affirmative
action.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Erik A. Mattila" |
|
| Title: Re: a form of affirmative action? (Re: oldest American skull found! |
14 Oct 2004 11:39:26 AM |
|
|
Tom McDonald wrote:
pwilson wrote:
Tom McDonald wrote:
pwilson wrote:
Erik A. Mattila wrote
But you should set aside your paternalism for a moment to consider
that
pwil is blowing hot air out of his *****,
You vulgar clod ...
It's not "affirmative action" by any stretch simply because Indian
nations are soverign entities. While it is strictly defined as a
"limited sovereignty,"
part
of that sovereignty sustained is the power to marshall the graves of
the
ancestors. It's not a benevolent handout by the US or Canadian
government, it is a soverign power.
You live in a fantasy world, sport. Any extraordinary rights the
Indians
have today are the result of the benevolence of the US (or Canadian)
government. The Indians have no appreciable political constituency,
and
therefore no real power. The only practical influence they exert is
through an appeal to the guilty conscience of the country's populace
for
past transgressions.
That's why they have been granted extra rights such as exemptions
from gambling restrictions and hunting and fishing regulations. The
only reason they have these special rights is that no one begrudges
them enough to have them taken away. But I guarantee you that if the
Indians'
hunting practices threatened the extinction of an important species,
their hunting regulations exemption would suddenly evaporate.
The right to "marshal" the ancestral bones falls into the same
category.
There is no economic benefit to the Indians, but it gives them an
opportunity to display that right as a symbol of defiance over the
power
of the establishment - thus enhancing the illusion of 'sovereignty'.
And
the establishment is willing to tolerate it because rather than having
to
deal with more serious issues such as territorial claims, or
monetary compensations, it's much easier to throw them a few bones.
I've not paid much attention to your posts, mostly because they
tended to be in threads or subthreads I wasn't following closely.
But this post needs a reply.
Treaties that the US makes are the highest law of the land.
They are not generous, optional handouts to others; they are
negotiated contracts with the full faith and credit of the American
government behind them. Treaties with Indian people are of this nature.
When they were made, each side made promises to the other.
Indians, for the most part, kept their promises. I live where I live
without paying taxes to an Indian tribal government because the
Anishnabe, Sioux and Ho Chunk peoples ceded much of Wisconsin to the
US. On the other hand, the US too often did not keep their promises.
Few of the treaties were completely and legally abrogated; thus
they are still in effect. The theory under which these treaties were
negotiated, that the tribes were sovereign nations, still holds
today. To say that Indians 'have been granted extra rights such as
exemptions from gambling restrictions and hunting and fishing
regulations' because 'no one begrudges them enough to have them taken
away' is legally nonsense, and historically foolish.
But it is reality, whether you like it or not.
For one who spends as much time as you do chiding people on their
uncouth behavior, it surprises me a little that you didn't mark your
cut. This is what you left out:
"It is interesting to watch the actual interactions between tribal
governments and the state and federal agencies that deal with gambling
and natural resource management. It's a pretty far cry from pwilson's
fantasy."
I was referring to the reality of the way the US, State and Indian
Tribal governments work together.
It may be that you are referring to the reality that the US
government could, if it chose, impose economic and/or political
sanctions on tribal governments to achieve some goal; and of course, if
the US chose to use military force, few tribes could put up more than a
token resistance. These have been done in the past; but that is not the
_current_ reality.
Try again.
Well, you know, Tom, there is that quirk in US law - I think it's called
"lex talionis" (anything is legal that you have the power to enforce).
So when John Marshall told Andy Jackson that Indian Removal was illegal,
Jackson told him "then you raise your own army to enforce your own laws,
I'm removing the Indians." (or words to that effect.) But Jackson's
removal is described as a "political" act, not a "legal" act. I think
what pwil is not grasping is that any treaty, agreement or contract can
be violated by parties of the contract, so all parties concerned can be
said to be 'granting' the other rights by virtue of honoring the
agreement. It's what you call a "specious argument".
.
|
|
|
| User: "pwilson" |
|
| Title: Re: a form of affirmative action? (Re: oldest American skull found! |
14 Oct 2004 09:15:19 PM |
|
|
Erik A. Mattila wrote:
Well, you know, Tom, there is that quirk in US law - I think it's called
"lex talionis" (anything is legal that you have the power to enforce).
So when John Marshall told Andy Jackson that Indian Removal was illegal,
Jackson told him "then you raise your own army to enforce your own laws,
I'm removing the Indians." (or words to that effect.) But Jackson's
removal is described as a "political" act, not a "legal" act. I think
what pwil is not grasping is that any treaty, agreement or contract can
be violated by parties of the contract, so all parties concerned can be
said to be 'granting' the other rights by virtue of honoring the
agreement. It's what you call a "specious argument".
I don't care what you call it, it still represents the reality of the
world. Jackson's act may have been 'political' instead of 'legal', but
the reality is that he had the Indians removed despite a valid treaty.
Now, did the finer points of the definition of Jackson's act really
matter to the Indians back then? Did it keep them from being removed?
And does it even matter now? Have there been any consequences because
what Jackson did was 'political' rather than 'legal'? What you are
failing to acknowledge, for some grotesque reason, is that there is a
difference between armchair meditation on the legality of Indian treaties
and the actual results reflected in the lives of the Indians.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Erik A. Mattila" |
|
| Title: Re: a form of affirmative action? (Re: oldest American skull found! |
15 Oct 2004 12:28:33 AM |
|
|
pwilson wrote:
Erik A. Mattila wrote:
Well, you know, Tom, there is that quirk in US law - I think it's called
"lex talionis" (anything is legal that you have the power to enforce).
So when John Marshall told Andy Jackson that Indian Removal was illegal,
Jackson told him "then you raise your own army to enforce your own laws,
I'm removing the Indians." (or words to that effect.) But Jackson's
removal is described as a "political" act, not a "legal" act. I think
what pwil is not grasping is that any treaty, agreement or contract can
be violated by parties of the contract, so all parties concerned can be
said to be 'granting' the other rights by virtue of honoring the
agreement. It's what you call a "specious argument".
I don't care what you call it, it still represents the reality of the
world.
And you call me a "social pyschopath." What you are acknowledging is
simply that anyone can break the law and exercise power over others -
but does this "represent the reality of the world?" Hmmm...I think
you've overstated your case, to be polite about it.
Jackson's act may have been 'political' instead of 'legal', but
the reality is that he had the Indians removed despite a valid treaty.
No treaty. Marshall's decision primarily addressed his interpretation
of the "rights of discovery" and secondarily addressed the seething
contest of "states rights v. federal rights" which eventually culminated
in the Civil War.
Now, did the finer points of the definition of Jackson's act really
matter to the Indians back then?
Of course it mattered. I can't believe you would ask that.
Did it keep them from being removed?
That's really stupid. The whole issue is that Marshall failed because
Jackson acted illegally.
And does it even matter now?
Of course it does.
Have there been any consequences because
what Jackson did was 'political' rather than 'legal'?
Yes, Indian removal. Was that a rhetorical question?
What you are
failing to acknowledge, for some grotesque reason, is that there is a
difference between armchair meditation on the legality of Indian treaties
and the actual results reflected in the lives of the Indians.
You knew from the beginning of this example that Jackson broke the law,
so it could not be a matter of the legality of a treaty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "pwilson" |
|
| Title: Re: a form of affirmative action? (Re: oldest American skull found! |
15 Oct 2004 11:55:10 AM |
|
|
Erik A. Mattila wrote
pwilson wrote:
Erik A. Mattila wrote:
Well, you know, Tom, there is that quirk in US law - I think it's
called
"lex talionis" (anything is legal that you have the power to enforce).
So when John Marshall told Andy Jackson that Indian Removal was
illegal,
Jackson told him "then you raise your own army to enforce your own
laws,
I'm removing the Indians." (or words to that effect.) But Jackson's
removal is described as a "political" act, not a "legal" act. I think
what pwil is not grasping is that any treaty, agreement or contract
can
be violated by parties of the contract, so all parties concerned can
be
said to be 'granting' the other rights by virtue of honoring the
agreement. It's what you call a "specious argument".
I don't care what you call it, it still represents the reality of the
world.
And you call me a "social pyschopath."
Burns, doesn't it?
What you are acknowledging is
simply that anyone can break the law and exercise power over others -
Yes, I am absolutely acknowledging that as a reality. Please note that I
am not endorsing it, just observing it and reporting my observation.
When I acknowledge that someone can pull out a gun a shoot others, I am
acknowledging that as reality as well, without any attempt at
endorsement. To refuse to acknowledge that as reality is the equivalent
of lunacy.
What part of that do you find difficult to understand or accept.
but does this "represent the reality of the world?"
Yes, it does. I don't know what ideal world you live in, but in the
world I observe, bad things do tend to happen from time to time, whether
some are willing to acknowledge that or not.
Hmmm...I think
you've overstated your case, to be polite about it.
Jackson's act may have been 'political' instead of 'legal', but
the reality is that he had the Indians removed despite a valid treaty.
No treaty.
OK, if you say so. But then why did you bring it up? This was a
discussion about treaties.
Marshall's decision primarily addressed his interpretation
of the "rights of discovery" and secondarily addressed the seething
contest of "states rights v. federal rights" which eventually culminated
in the Civil War.
Now, did the finer points of the definition of Jackson's act really
matter to the Indians back then?
Of course it mattered.
How?
I can't believe you would ask that.
Did it keep them from being removed?
That's really stupid. The whole issue is that Marshall failed because
Jackson acted illegally.
So did Marshall's failure keep them from being removed? Quit
evading, answer the question.
And does it even matter now?
Of course it does.
How?
Have there been any consequences because
what Jackson did was 'political' rather than 'legal'?
Yes, Indian removal. Was that a rhetorical question?
No, it was literal. I was wondering if you were aware of any
consequences Jackson may have suffered because he broke the law and
kicked out the Indians. And did any of those potential consequences help
the Indians enforce their rights (at the time).
What you are
failing to acknowledge, for some grotesque reason, is that there is a
difference between armchair meditation on the legality of Indian
treaties
and the actual results reflected in the lives of the Indians.
You knew from the beginning of this example that Jackson broke the law,
so it could not be a matter of the legality of a treaty.
But none of that matters to the Indians. The point is that they are
still at the mercy of the government, whether it concerns the law or a
treaty. They suffer equally if the government breaks a law or violates a
treaty.
This is all pretty obvious stuff. At this point, I don't even know what
the hell we are arguing about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Erik A. Mattila" |
|
| Title: Re: a form of affirmative action? (Re: oldest American skull found! |
15 Oct 2004 03:13:20 PM |
|
|
pwilson wrote:
Erik A. Mattila wrote
pwilson wrote:
Erik A. Mattila wrote:
Well, you know, Tom, there is that quirk in US law - I think it's
called
"lex talionis" (anything is legal that you have the power to enforce).
So when John Marshall told Andy Jackson that Indian Removal was
illegal,
Jackson told him "then you raise your own army to enforce your own
laws,
I'm removing the Indians." (or words to that effect.) But Jackson's
removal is described as a "political" act, not a "legal" act. I think
what pwil is not grasping is that any treaty, agreement or contract
can
be violated by parties of the contract, so all parties concerned can
be
said to be 'granting' the other rights by virtue of honoring the
agreement. It's what you call a "specious argument".
I don't care what you call it, it still represents the reality of the
world.
And you call me a "social pyschopath."
Burns, doesn't it?
What you are acknowledging is
simply that anyone can break the law and exercise power over others -
Yes, I am absolutely acknowledging that as a reality. Please note that I
am not endorsing it, just observing it and reporting my observation.
When I acknowledge that someone can pull out a gun a shoot others, I am
acknowledging that as reality as well, without any attempt at
endorsement. To refuse to acknowledge that as reality is the equivalent
of lunacy.
What part of that do you find difficult to understand or accept.
Precisely this, pwil: you are arguing that this defines the federal/NDN
relationship. By your logic, you could therefore argue any number of
absurdities. For example, you could argue: "Erik, you can only post at
my pleasure, because I have not tracked you down and forced you not to
post here."
but does this "represent the reality of the world?"
Yes, it does. I don't know what ideal world you live in, but in the
world I observe, bad things do tend to happen from time to time, whether
some are willing to acknowledge that or not.
Again, this is how you are defining the federal/NDN relationship. Just
so you don't wander too far off this thread into your generic universe.
Hmmm...I think
you've overstated your case, to be polite about it.
Jackson's act may have been 'political' instead of 'legal', but
the reality is that he had the Indians removed despite a valid treaty.
No treaty.
OK, if you say so. But then why did you bring it up? This was a
discussion about treaties.
No, it is not about treaties at all, it is about whether or not Indian
rights are a form of affirmative action. At least that was Yuri's
intent in creating this thread out of the fossil thread.
Obviously, one tactic to argue against the concept of "affirmative
action" is to debunk the idea that NDNs exist at the pleasure of the
invaders (which is your argument, not Yuri's). Honoring or dishonoring
treaty rights do not support your paternalistic view. I cited Jackson's
"political act" in response to Tom McDonalds excellent
post...specifically to add one more example to the points Tom was making
about possible scenarios where pure force could be applied to NDNs. It
was an appropriate post, and broadened our collective understanding on
the issue. Sorry you missed that.
Marshall's decision primarily addressed his interpretation
of the "rights of discovery" and secondarily addressed the seething
contest of "states rights v. federal rights" which eventually culminated
in the Civil War.
Now, did the finer points of the definition of Jackson's act really
matter to the Indians back then?
Of course it mattered.
How?
OK, you're talking about "definition" i.e. "how would the definition
matter." Following Indian Removal was a long series of compensatory
acts by the Federal government, including payment for lands lost.
Essentially, this was the attempt by the feds to "make-right" Jackson's
transgressions. By "make-right" I mean "make legal." Had Jackson's
removal been deemed legal by the USSC, it's quite possible no
reparations or compensatory acts would have occured. Additionally,
Jackson's crime also led to the reestablishment of Indian lands in the
areas affected by the removal.
And this stands in direct conflict with your idea that "might makes
right" and that NDNs only exist at the pleasure of the "Master Race."
I can't believe you would ask that.
Did it keep them from being removed?
That's really stupid. The whole issue is that Marshall failed because
Jackson acted illegally.
So did Marshall's failure keep them from being removed? Quit
evading, answer the question.
But you already know the answer, my friend.
And does it even matter now?
Of course it does.
How?
Many ways - but importantly the events surrounding Indian Removal are
today a cornerstone of Federal Indian law.
Have there been any consequences because
what Jackson did was 'political' rather than 'legal'?
Yes, Indian removal. Was that a rhetorical question?
No, it was literal. I was wondering if you were aware of any
consequences Jackson may have suffered because he broke the law and
kicked out the Indians. And did any of those potential consequences help
the Indians enforce their rights (at the time).
Hmmm...a "potential consequence" is something that did not happen, so
how could that have had any effect of NDNs at the time?
I don't think Jackson suffered at all. He was a populist, and caved in
to pressure from the states and at least helped lay the foundation for
the Civil War. And I think it is unfair of you to restrict your last
question "at the time." My opinion is that Indian Removal was
responsible for a general reconsideration of federal Indian policy and
at least encouraged checks and powers against executive abuse.
What you are
failing to acknowledge, for some grotesque reason, is that there is a
difference between armchair meditation on the legality of Indian
treaties
and the actual results reflected in the lives of the Indians.
You knew from the beginning of this example that Jackson broke the law,
so it could not be a matter of the legality of a treaty.
But none of that matters to the Indians. The point is that they are
still at the mercy of the government, whether it concerns the law or a
treaty. They suffer equally if the government breaks a law or violates a
treaty.
How can you speak for "the Indians?" And you haven't established at all
that NDNs are "at the mercy of the government."
I mean, just for example, can you imagine a preident today telling the
Chief Justice "raise your army and enforce your laws, I'm going to...."
In other words, in a government that is established and regulated by
law, everything and anything is not possible. And that's been proven on
several levels with regard to Federal Indian law. Since the
Constitution is clear that "Only Congress" has the power to write
treaties, all non-congressional treaties that have ever been brought-up
in court have been nullified.
This is all pretty obvious stuff. At this point, I don't even know what
the hell we are arguing about.
Well, let me refresh your memory. You are arguing that NDNs exist at
the pleasure of the Master Race in some sort of paternailitic
arrangement. I am opposing that, and arguing that NDNs exist on their
own rights, and their relationship with the United States is not
arbitrarily a "might makes right" relationship. To put it another way,
if the US did not adhere to its own laws, it would not be the US, but
rather a pirate state.
.
|
|
|
| User: "pwilson" |
|
| Title: Re: a form of affirmative action? (Re: oldest American skull found! |
16 Oct 2004 09:56:36 AM |
|
|
Erik A. Mattila wrote:
pwilson wrote:
Erik A. Mattila wrote
pwilson wrote:
Erik A. Mattila wrote:
Well, you know, Tom, there is that quirk in US law - I think it's
called
"lex talionis" (anything is legal that you have the power to
enforce).
So when John Marshall told Andy Jackson that Indian Removal was
illegal,
Jackson told him "then you raise your own army to enforce your own
aws, I'm removing the Indians." (or words to that effect.) But
Jackson's removal is described as a "political" act, not a "legal"
act. I
think what pwil is not grasping is that any treaty, agreement or
contract can be violated by parties of the contract, so all parties
concerned can be
said to be 'granting' the other rights by virtue of honoring the
agreement. It's what you call a "specious argument".
I don't care what you call it, it still represents the reality of the
world.
And you call me a "social pyschopath."
Burns, doesn't it?
What you are acknowledging is
simply that anyone can break the law and exercise power over others -
Yes, I am absolutely acknowledging that as a reality. Please note
that I
am not endorsing it, just observing it and reporting my observation.
When I acknowledge that someone can pull out a gun a shoot others, I
am
acknowledging that as reality as well, without any attempt at
endorsement. To refuse to acknowledge that as reality is the
equivalent
of lunacy.
What part of that do you find difficult to understand or accept.
Precisely this, pwil: you are arguing that this defines the federal/NDN
relationship.
I am? And what is "this"?
By your logic, you could therefore argue any number of absurdities.
I could, but I don't. But you do, and repeatedly. Seems to be a habit
with you.
For example, you could argue: "Erik, you can only post at
my pleasure, because I have not tracked you down and forced you not to
post here."
Aaaaaand? Are you saying I couldn't argue that?
but does this "represent the reality of the world?"
Yes, it does. I don't know what ideal world you live in, but in the
world I observe, bad things do tend to happen from time to time,
whether
some are willing to acknowledge that or not.
Again, this is how you are defining the federal/NDN relationship.
There is that undefined "this" again. Have you ever considered learning
the basic rules of clear communication?
Just
so you don't wander too far off this thread into your generic universe.
Is there any other kind?
Hmmm...I think
you've overstated your case, to be polite about it.
Jackson's act may have been 'political' instead of 'legal', but
the reality is that he had the Indians removed despite a valid
treaty.
No treaty.
OK, if you say so. But then why did you bring it up? This was a
discussion about treaties.
No, it is not about treaties at all, it is about whether or not Indian
rights are a form of affirmative action. At least that was Yuri's
intent in creating this thread out of the fossil thread.
I don't give a rat's ***** what the original intent was. Threads evolve
and change (often into absurdity, thanks to you), and the last discussion
before you belly-flopped in here was about treaties.
But OK, you wanna go back to affirmative action, that's fine. Let's see
what you got.
Obviously, one tactic to argue against the concept of "affirmative
action" is to debunk the idea that NDNs exist at the pleasure of the
invaders
And whose idea is this again?
(which is your argument, not Yuri's).
It ain't mine, sport. Please be so kind and refrain from misrepresenting
my position.
Honoring or dishonoring
treaty rights do not support your paternalistic view.
Which 'paternalistic' view?
I cited Jackson's
"political act" in response to Tom McDonalds excellent
post...specifically to add one more example to the points Tom was making
about possible scenarios where pure force could be applied to NDNs.
And what again were the points Tom was making? It seems so long ago ...
so far away ....
It was an appropriate post, and broadened our collective understanding
on the issue.
Your puffery is not an attractive trait. And are you the spokesman for
this entire group?
Sorry you missed that.
Marshall's decision primarily addressed his interpretation
of the "rights of discovery" and secondarily addressed the seething
contest of "states rights v. federal rights" which eventually
culminated
in the Civil War.
Now, did the finer points of the definition of Jackson's act really
matter to the Indians back then?
Of course it mattered.
How?
OK, you're talking about "definition" i.e. "how would the definition
matter."
Well, yes, but that's not what I wrote. Please do not misquote me. When
you quote, you must repeat my text verbatim.
Following Indian Removal was a long series of compensatory
acts by the Federal government, including payment for lands lost.
Essentially, this was the attempt by the feds to "make-right" Jackson's
transgressions. By "make-right" I mean "make legal." Had Jackson's
removal been deemed legal by the USSC, it's quite possible no
reparations or compensatory acts would have occured. Additionally,
Jackson's crime also led to the reestablishment of Indian lands in the
areas affected by the removal.
And this stands in direct conflict with your idea that "might makes
right" and that NDNs only exist at the pleasure of the "Master Race."
You see, now this is getting more serious. Now you are quoting me as
saying "might makes right". And even more damnably, you somehow have me
referring to something called a "Master Race". That constitutes a gross
misrepresentations of my postings and my views. I never used those words
in any of my posts on this thread. Please be very careful when you do
that.
I can't believe you would ask that.
Did it keep them from being removed?
That's really stupid. The whole issue is that Marshall failed because
Jackson acted illegally.
So did Marshall's failure keep them from being removed? Quit
evading, answer the question.
But you already know the answer, my friend.
Of course I do. But I also see that you lack the intellectual honesty to
answer that question.
And does it even matter now?
Of course it does.
How?
Many ways - but importantly the events surrounding Indian Removal are
today a cornerstone of Federal Indian law.
Have there been any consequences because
what Jackson did was 'political' rather than 'legal'?
Yes, Indian removal. Was that a rhetorical question?
No, it was literal. I was wondering if you were aware of any
consequences Jackson may have suffered because he broke the law and
kicked out the Indians. And did any of those potential consequences
help the Indians enforce their rights (at the time).
Hmmm...a "potential consequence" is something that did not happen, so
how could that have had any effect of NDNs at the time?
Like this (and please try to stay with me) - I asked if you were aware of
any consequences Jackson may have suffered because he broke the law and
kicked out the Indians. Anticipating you might quote some of these
consequences, but not being certain you would, I could only describe them
as "potential" consequences. I suppose I could have omitted the word
"potential", but it would have been logically less accurate. But maybe
less confusing to you.
I don't think Jackson suffered at all. He was a populist, and caved in
to pressure from the states and at least helped lay the foundation for
the Civil War. And I think it is unfair of you to restrict your last
question "at the time."
Unfair? That restriction was very deliberate, to force you to stay within
the context of my question.
My opinion is that Indian Removal was
responsible for a general reconsideration of federal Indian policy and
at least encouraged checks and powers against executive abuse.
OK, so you are saying some 'good' ultimately came out of this tragedy.
But you have also admitted that Jackson the lawbreaker suffered no
consequences. And neither did the republic. Your admission above
illustrates my original point that there was no real 'penalty' for
lawless behavior toward the Indians.
What you are
failing to acknowledge, for some grotesque reason, is that there is a
difference between armchair meditation on the legality of Indian
treaties
and the actual results reflected in the lives of the Indians.
You knew from the beginning of this example that Jackson broke the
law,
so it could not be a matter of the legality of a treaty.
But none of that matters to the Indians. The point is that they are
still at the mercy of the government, whether it concerns the law or a
treaty. They suffer equally if the government breaks a law or
violates a treaty.
How can you speak for "the Indians?"
Aaaaaah, the *utter* stupidity of that question! So when I observe that
Italians suffer by being associated with organized crime, or that blacks
suffer because they are disadvantaged in the job market, I am somehow
being a 'spokesman' for those groups? Can you get any more absurd?
And you haven't established at all
that NDNs are "at the mercy of the government."
I don't have to establish it - it's your burden to convince me otherwise.
I mean, just for example, can you imagine a preident today telling the
Chief Justice "raise your army and enforce your laws, I'm going to...."
No, I cannot imagine that - today. What's your point?
In other words, in a government that is established and regulated by
law, everything and anything is not possible.
When did I say that 'everything and anything IS possible'?
And that's been proven on
several levels with regard to Federal Indian law. Since the
Constitution is clear that "Only Congress" has the power to write
treaties, all non-congressional treaties that have ever been brought-up
in court have been nullified.
And, so, point being?
This is all pretty obvious stuff. At this point, I don't even know
what the hell we are arguing about.
Well, let me refresh your memory.
Good. Let's see how well you remembered.
You are arguing that NDNs exist at
the pleasure of the Master Race in some sort of paternailitic
arrangement.
No, I am not! It appears that instead 'refreshing my memory', you are
simply grossly restating and misrepresenting my position. Ordinarily, I
would call this approach a straw man, but here it's a lot more serious
than that.
I think this exchange has revealed you with a type of personality
disorder that is sometimes encountered on newsgroups but is rarely
identified with a specific public issue. If the dogmatic ideology
expressed in your postings is in any way representative of the Indian
movement, or Indian aspirations, then any prospects of arriving at a fair
and equitable solution to a set of extremely complex social issues are at
serious risk.
I am astonished that someone who claims to support the cause of Indian
rights comes across sounding like the reincarnation of Julius Streicher.
Your extremist ideology radiates an eerie, almost inhuman quality. It
seethes with an obsessive need to propagandize an extremely narrow point
of view while bludgeoning all others. You demonstrate an absolute
unwillingness to respect other people's fundamental right to an
independent opinion.
Instead of seeking and embracing compromise solutions, you seem to prefer
to highlight the differences among Americans. Your goal appears not to be
to engender public support for the NA cause, your goal instead seems to
be to use a public forum to antagonize anyone who fails to subscribe to
your blind rhetoric of fascizoid extremism.
You revel in the practice of ritualistically pinning the epithet
"paternalistic" on anyone who dares to express a differing point of view.
What's the next move in your repertoire - to pin yellow stars on the
lapels of your opponents? Disgusting.
Extremism is abhorrent, regardless of the thin cloak of respectability it
seeks to wear. I hope that Native Americans find it in themselves to rid
their movement of 'advocates' like you. They, as well the rest of us,
deserve a better fate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Ashby" |
|
| Title: Re: a form of affirmative action? (Re: oldest American skull found! |
16 Oct 2004 05:40:39 PM |
|
|
pwilson <pwilson78@hotmail.com> wrote:
But none of that matters to the Indians. The point is that they are
still at the mercy of the government, whether it concerns the law or a
treaty. They suffer equally if the government breaks a law or
violates a treaty.
How can you speak for "the Indians?"
Aaaaaah, the *utter* stupidity of that question! So when I observe that
Italians suffer by being associated with organized crime, or that blacks
suffer because they are disadvantaged in the job market, I am somehow
being a 'spokesman' for those groups? Can you get any more ab | | | | | | | | | | | | |
