In article <480fedbc$1@news.povray.org>, nos### [at] nospamcom says...
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:04:19 -0600, somebody wrote:
> 
> > And had native Americans were willing and able to protect their land an
d
> > prevent conquest and immigration, maybe the world would be a better
> > place now. It's pointless to argue what ifs, but it should help convinc
e
> > you that whatever happened in the past (immigration included) need not
> > have been the "right" thing.
> 
> Are you saying the native Americans weren't willing to fight to protect
 
> their land, or didn't try?  Because if you are, perhaps you should read
 
> some early American history.
> 
> >> What you seem to be saying is that since we can't do anything about th
e
> >> past, we should just forget that it happened and not learn from it.
> > 
> > No. I'm saying we should base today's decisions on present
> > circumstances, not past circumstances. Just because people immigrated i
n
> > the past in large numbers to their present locations, we cannot assume
> > immigration is always desirable. There's no hypocricy in realising what
> > worked in the past may not work now (or vice versa).
> 
> I don't disagree with that, but at the same time, people need to realise
 
> that they're not *native* Americans, everyone came from somewhere. Unless
 
> you're descended from actual Native American tribes, you really have no
 
> more claim on this land than anyone else.
> 
> >> I don't have that luxury - and remember that those who fail to learn
> >> from history are doomed to repeat it.
> > 
> > Learning is one thing. Making present decisions based on historical dat
a
> > or pretext is something entirely different.
> 
> No, making decisions based on historical *and* current data is the wise
 
> thing to do.  You can't make a good decision based solely on historical
 
> data, and I would argue that you also can't make a good decision based on
 
> a total lack of historical understanding.
> 
> Jim
> 
Dude, by most estimations less than 5% of the "Native American" tribes 
are still 100% Native American, and frankly, the one that has the most 
casinos, etc. right now, only has *1* Indian member, everyone else in 
the family being 50% or more white. So, logically, by any rational 
standard, we should let the 50 people in the US that are still more than 
50% Indian keep their reservations and just label everyone else as, 
"They all came from some place else.", right? lol

OK, my numbers are off. I just guessed at them, but the fact remains 
that the number of "pure bloods" is shrinking rapidly, the first ones to 
build casinos (and who now own 80% of Indian gaming) barely qualify as 
Indians are all, and our continued claim that its relevant is reaching 
the point of being close to irrelevant for anyone. And that is without 
even pointing out the fact that most are not "pure blood" between 
individual tribes any more, or "native" to the Americas, in the long 
sense, any more than anyone else.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message