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

From: Erik A. Mattila (emattila_at_oco.net)
Date: 10/15/04 

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:06:59 -0700

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. Tom is
correct. It's nonesense.

>>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 exist at my
pleasure" is simplistic as well as paternalistic. The United State is a
Republic, meaning the law is sacrosanct. It can't operate against it's
own laws without destroying itself. You are citing that very
destructive principle as reason that NDNs are beholding to their
masters. That stinks, my friend.

>>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. 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. 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. I can't stress too strongly how transparently
paternalistic you are being. You ought to reflect on that a bit.

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

>

Relevant Pages