Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Legally And Ethically....

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by M.W.Pearson on November 1, 2002 22:25:19 UTC

Hi
You wrote:
"The point of my post was to say that it shouldn't matter what the Native Americans did to another group of people, we are responsibile for our actions either way."

Legally, it is important to establish which rights and agreements were actually violated and by whom. I don't wish to use only the language used long ago, or the standardds of long ago.
But proportionality of misbehavior and actual liability are matters that deserve specific
high-quality work.


Btw...
There are many rivers that stop flowing some winters...especially the creeks that feed them.
Should those territories have ceased being under treaty? Grass stops growing every winter.
Should those treaties terminate then?
I don't want that, but we should not accept every
cliche' argument at face value either.


You wrote:
"Thus, my opinion was in no way based on whispers..."

I was referring to the idea that you had "heard" something similar. Without citation and passing
strong review, there is no reason to admit little facts into evidence, even if they seem to fit a pattern.



There are points of agreement and disagreement in our conversation, and I do appreciate that positive side very much . I am selecting the parts where dispute may enable better agreement to be forged.
When you say,"Native Americans believed land should not be owned," the BS alarm hits the top.
I don't blame you for originating the idea.
Lacking any written language preceding arrival
of Europeans, we have only their statements
which were made under duress as they looked for
a way to preserve their accustomed free range.
It is very understandable...as you say, they were just being human beings...my own close cousins, I would add.
1) Some tribes did have "turf" over which they apparently had no fixed boundaries but did fight
battles.
2) Surely any stationary family group felt its own
home was personal property.
3) Year 1600 AD population density estimates (from our time) in the territory now called The United States of America range from
about one person per 3-5 square miles
TO one person per 10 square miles. There was no
way to own that much land.

If you dispute any of these, it would be interesting to have your reply.

Or anything you choose to say.
thanks.
Mike

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins