 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
> I honestly can't say I know the answer to that question. My instinct is
> to say "you have the same opportunities today as everyone else here",
That only applies if they want to live the same rat race as non native
americans (if that is the negation of native americans).
If they want to live more or less like they did a millenium ago you
might argue that the non natives should not make that impossible.
> but
> at the same time, it doesn't feel right to not acknowledge the past and
> to do *something* that isn't pure tokenism but at the same time isn't an
> ongoing thing through the rest of time. Is it enough just to ensure that
> the traditions and history doesn't die? I don't know.
>
> Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:10:59 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>> When he came back to the US, his opinion had changed; even coming from
>> Cuba, he had no idea conditions were that bad in the rural parts of
>> Mexico and he completely understood the motivation people had to cross
>> the border, even illegally, to escape from that extreme poverty.
>
> This presents a moral problem which easily makes multiculturalists
> kind
> of hypocrite.
>
> Usually multiculturalists heavily oppose the deporting of illegal
> immigrants because they would usually be deported to an environment of
> extreme poverty, as you mention.
>
> However, this presents a moral dilemma: Why are those who have
> successfully
> crossed be border considered to have "more right" to be protected than
> those who haven't? Is being able to cross the border some kind of test
> you have to pass in order to get the protection of multiculturalists and
> human right activists? What about those who didn't succeed in crossing
> the border, and those who haven't even attempted, but who live in such
> poor conditions? Don't they deserve such protection as well?
I think you're only looking at part of the picture. Sure, some people
who are "multiculturalists" take this attitude, but far more of them that
I know *do* work to try to correct the problems in the place where the
immigrants are coming from. I have some very good friends in Oregon, for
example, who recognize that the problem isn't just the people coming into
the US, but also the conditions in their home country that drive them to
look for an alternative - and sometimes things are so dire that the view
is "a jail cell in the US has to be better than continuing here". So
what my friends do is they travel to countries in Latin America where
these problems exist and they work with people there to help them build
homes, learn how to grow crops, and how to make things better. They do
this outside of any government organization (or non-profit - they do it
on their own). They own their own business, and they do struggle a bit
with the business, but they realize that no matter how bad things are for
them, they've got it pretty good compared to the families they've helped,
for example, in El Salvador.
Similarly, my manager at work (and one of my coworkers, independently)
have worked with African villages to improve living conditions - having
taken trips and made a personal investment to make the world a better
place through their service projects.
I've mentioned I live in Utah before - and while there is a lot about the
LDS church I dislike, the concept of service missions (as opposed to
'recruiting missions' which many members do) is a very good one as well -
similar concept, out of high school, kids who are members of the church
spend a couple of years someplace away from home (could be Brazil, could
be Washington state) helping people in need. For all the problems I have
with the LDS church (my wife is an ex-Mormon, and my father-in-law is an
LDS bishop in PA), this is something I *really* admire about the
organization.
So I think it is somewhat disingenuous to paint "multiculturalists" with
the broad brush of "they solve the problem here, but not where people are
coming from because it's easier to ignore from a distance".
That doesn't mean that everyone who should do it does do it. I can't
honestly say that I've done it. I can honestly say that I feel somewhat
conflicted that I haven't, but that I do feel it's important to do.
Personally, I'm not sure what job skills I can bring to something like
that - I don't know anything about building, farming, or anything like
that. I could learn, sure. I just haven't made the time. Maybe I
should.
> Or are they simply comfortably "far away" enough so that they can be
> ignored?
>
> Of course the problem is that of resources: No matter how rich the
> rich countries are, it's a physical impossibility to open the borders to
> everyone to come in who so wishes. If all western countries did that,
> probably 2-3 billion of people would move in, creating a complete
> economical catastrophe. The economy and society of the rich countries
> would simply collapse.
>
> Multiculturalists and human right activists understand that, so nobody
> seriously is demanding complete opening of borders (except perhaps a few
> wackos).
>
> And here's where the hypocrisy steps in: They defend to death the
> right
> of illegal immigrants, those who have somehow succeeded in entering the
> country, to stay in the country, because if they were deported they
> would be returned to the poverty, but they don't demand bringing *all*
> people from those poor countries.
>
> Thus being able to get inside the borders of the rich country is, in
> practice, some kind of test: If you pass it, you get protection, if you
> don't pass it, then you don't get the same protection. People are
> treated differently depending on whether they had this luck or not.
That's an interesting point of view, and I see where you're coming from.
In some ways, I even agree - but I don't think the solution is to deport
everyone who illegally entered the country, which some extremists on the
other side of the debate advocate. There is the fact that those who did
enter *did* make an effort and *are* contributing to society here. Some
do it by doing jobs nobody here wants to do (and that is a common
statement as well, not sure 100% that I agree with the sentiment there,
either).
It's not a black and white situation.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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. I'm counting from the time Columbus
"discovered" the new world trying to find a trade route to India.
"Conquest" didn't really start until a bit later, though, you're right.
>> I honestly can't say I know the answer to that question. My instinct
>> is to say "you have the same opportunities today as everyone else
>> here",
> That only applies if they want to live the same rat race as non native
> americans (if that is the negation of native americans). If they want to
> live more or less like they did a millenium ago you might argue that the
> non natives should not make that impossible.
Well, sure, but there are parts of the US where that is possible - like
rural Montana (which is most of Montana) or other of the western states,
even here in Utah we have native tribes who do live more according to
tradition than not, at least that's what I've heard.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:45:14 +0200, andrel wrote:
>> 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.
Alright, fine - I was working in round numbers - 1400's to 2000's = 600.
I wasn't trying for a highly precise answer because the actual math
doesn't change my point at all. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Heh, well, don't get me started on the casino BS. I think that's a
> travesty myself - a bastardization of the heritage that's just nothing
> more than crass commercialism/consumerism.
I think it's because of jurisdiction stuff. The reservations really
legally aren't 100% part of the state they're in, so they don't always
need to follow the same state laws.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Heh, well, don't get me started on the casino BS. I think that's a
>> travesty myself - a bastardization of the heritage that's just nothing
>> more than crass commercialism/consumerism.
>
> I think it's because of jurisdiction stuff. The reservations really
> legally aren't 100% part of the state they're in, so they don't always
> need to follow the same state laws.
>
They aren't actually part of the *country* they're in, which is why we
have to have all kinds of treaties & such with them.
Of course, personally I think if they want to have their own separate
nation, they ought to have green cards & visas as well. You can't be
both a separate nation, *and* citizens.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> You claim that a person's history consists of his ancestors' history
> besides his own life. I disagree. Why should it have any effect on your
> actions what your ancestors did or didn't do? Why should your own
> ancestors' actions have more effect on yours than the actions of someone
> else's ancestors?
Excellent question, Warp. Personally, I think we should learn from
*everyone's* ancestors, not just our own, so it still pays to pay
attention to the past.
Should we make decisions based solely on what conditions were like in
the past? No, of course not.
Should we ignore past conditions when setting current policy? Again, of
course not.
That's all Jim is saying. Don't let the past be the only guiding
principle you have, but pay attention to it at least.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 11:57:18 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> Excellent question, Warp. Personally, I think we should learn from
> *everyone's* ancestors, not just our own, so it still pays to pay
> attention to the past.
>
> Should we make decisions based solely on what conditions were like in
> the past? No, of course not.
>
> Should we ignore past conditions when setting current policy? Again, of
> course not.
>
> That's all Jim is saying. Don't let the past be the only guiding
> principle you have, but pay attention to it at least.
Thanks - this is exactly what I was trying to say. I wish I could've
been as eloquent and succinct. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 11:01:44 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Heh, well, don't get me started on the casino BS. I think that's a
>> travesty myself - a bastardization of the heritage that's just nothing
>> more than crass commercialism/consumerism.
>
> I think it's because of jurisdiction stuff. The reservations really
> legally aren't 100% part of the state they're in, so they don't always
> need to follow the same state laws.
Well, yes - but that's not the thing about it. I grew up in Minnesota
while the tribes there were getting their casinos established - as well
as when there were "discussions" about allowing Native Americans rights
for spear fishing. We seemed really eager to have them start opening
themed casinos, but not so eager on letting them practice their
traditions as regards hunting. I worked with a guy who was really
involved in the spear fishing thing. He was understandibly quite upset
that his cultural heritage had been reduced to this: http://
www.mysticlake.com/ .
Because surely, that's what being a Native American is all about.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
