Re: a form of affirmative action? (Re: oldest American skull found!

From: pwilson (pwilson78_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 10/15/04 

Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:09:41 -0400

Erik A. Mattila wrote
>pwilson wrote:
>> Erik A. Mattila emattila@oco.net wrote:
>>>pwilson wrote:
>>>>Tom McDonald tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>You're categorically incorrect, pwil.
>>
>> About what?
>
>Well, gosh, you only wrote one sentence. It was incorrect.

I was expressing my opinion, not stating a fact. You may disagree with
an opinion, but the opinion itself cannot be "incorrect".

>Tom is correct. It's nonesense.

In your opinion.

>>>Your argument is akin to saying
>>>"Because I have not murdered x amount of people, I have "granted" them
>>>the right to live." It doesn't wash.
>>
>>It washes nicely. If one party to the treaty has no means of
>>enforcing the treaty, then the stronger party complies only through its
>>benevolence (or social conscience, if it has any). There is no other
>>compelling reason for the stronger party to comply, as has been shown
>>by the US government time and again over the years.
>
>But you're simply laying out a foundation of bullyism.

You are the one doing all the laying, I am just reporting my observation.
I am not endorsing the concept.

>"You exist at my
>pleasure" is simplistic as well as paternalistic.

For some reason you love using that label "paternalistic". Would it help
the debate if I kept referring to you as a "condescending ***"? (you
are, you know)

>The United State is a Republic, meaning the law is sacrosanct.

It is *supposed* to be sacrosanct.

>It can't operate against it's
>own laws without destroying itself.

But it can ignore or change its laws (or treaties) if it perceives that
to be in its best interest. It has happened before and is guaranteed to
happen in the future. Again, I am not endorsing it, just acknowledging
the reality of it.

>You are citing that very destructive principle as reason that NDNs are
>beholding to their masters.

I don't know what you mean.

>That stinks, my friend.

Yeah, well, reality bites, pal.

>>>Tom has blown your paternalistic ship out of the water.
>>
>>Well, he tried, which is commendable. At least he had the balls to
>>face me like a man, instead of tagging onto the tail end of an ally's
>>post like some sniveling coward. Man, I hate cowards! I'll bet you had
>>your little sister fight your battles for you too.
>
>Woo woo. Aren't we the macho one. I hope it made your testosterone
>level rise a bit.

Yes .... a little outrage does do that. The image I had in mind when I
wrote that was of General Patton slapping around that cowardly soldier.
One of the greatest moments movies. I only wish he hadn't had to
apologize.

>Looks like you could use a lift.

?

>>Anyway, I am not arguing about the finer points of the legal status of
>>any treaties that might still apply. What I am saying is that
>>compliance is solely at the behest of the government. Those treaties
>>that are still in effect today were also in effect a hundred years ago,
>>as has been pointed out - but they weren't being respected by that same
>>government. The reason they are being respected now is that the
>>political climate has changed enough to allow the government to assume
>>a more benevolent posture.
>
>I understand what you are saying. You are incorrect.

Again, this is my opinion. You may disagree with it, but it cannot be
"incorrect".

>And you're
>additionally incorrect about you supporting points. For example, some
>treaty rights have been restored because NDNs have (finally) figured out
>ways to go to court and challenge the historical abuses of United States
>law. It wasn't a "benevolent government" that did this, it was the hard
>work and sacrifice of NDN activists who forced this wonderful "political
>climate" to change.

But they are doing all that within the framework of the US law, not by
applying some external force that compels the US to respect these
judicial challenges.

I am not denying that NDN activists have had an influence on the changes
in the political climate, but the willingness of the government to
respond to these initiatives does depend on its current state of
benevolence (or favorable attitude, if you prefer) toward Indian causes.

> I can't stress too strongly how transparently
>paternalistic you are being.

There is that word again.

>You ought to reflect on that a bit.

I am mostly reflecting on what a waste of my time this thread is. This is
not even my area of interest.

>>>Go nurse your wounds.
>>
>> My wounds? What is it with you, do you see this as some kind of a sick
>> game or something? To try to inflict "wounds" on others? My God, man,
>> you are not a debater, you are a social psychopath!
>
>Sorry,

You apology is graciously accepted.

>I thought you would have had the intelligence and humility to see
>how strong Tom's argument was next to yours.

The failure of Tom's (or anyone's) argument to persuade me is not the
fault of the level of my intelligence. It is the responsibility of the
debater to present his arguments clearly and convincingly to persuade his
audience. An effective debater will tailor his presentation to the
perceived level of the intelligence of his target audience - otherwise,
he is foolishly wasting his efforts and it is *his* intelligence that is
in question.

But I will admit that lately I am guilty of that myself. I seem to be
casting a lot of pearls before the swine.

Oh, and BTW, I have no humility.

>I was wrong. Silly me.

Stop saying that about yourself. It's best to let others say it for you.

Quantcast