Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:44:06 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:27:51 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, it's shrinking, but I don't know how rapdily, particularly here
>>> in the intermountain west.  But to solve the "problem" of past conquest
>>> today isn't an easy one to answer, because you can't make things like
>>> they were in the 1400's - and I don't think current tribe members would
>>> think that was a solution.
>>>
>>> I think there's a fine line between acknowledging the past and
>>> exploiting the sins of the past.  Is it appropriate to continue to pay
>>> reparations to the Native Americans today for something that started
>>> 700 years ago?
>> 700?
> 
> OK, 600, I can't do math. 
indeed, see below. ;)
>  I'm counting from the time Columbus 
> "discovered" the new world trying to find a trade route to India.  
That'll be 516 then.
> "Conquest" didn't really start until a bit later, though, you're right.
indeed, so let us settle for approximately 500.

Post a reply to this message