Re: Amerind an offensive term (was: Early Amerind assimilation
Bryant (mycol1@unm.edu)
3 Aug 1996 14:54:41 -0600
Eric Brunner <brunner@mandrake.think.com> wrote:
>Chris Cracknell (ad329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca) wrote:
>...
>: ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
>: >Just live up to your written agreements
>: ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
>: I wasn't aware that I had written any agreements. What agreements have I
>: written and how am I failing to live up to them.
Actually, if you're canadian, you have far fewer written agreements to
live up to with regard to first peoples than U.S. citizens do. Because
your government rarely granted a treaty. They simply took land as "crown's
land" and moved on, eh. For all the brutality and broken promises, the
U.S. stands quite nearly alone in its observation of the human rights of
native peoples. (Surely not because it has been our government's instinct
to do so!) Brazil, mexico, el salvador, nicaragua (Sandanistas
included), guatamala, panama, bolivia, and canada, to name a few other
western hemisphere nations, have done a far more shameful and bloody job.
The most recent abuse of native peoples' rights listed in this thread
was the incident in South Dakota in 1972. Why has nobody brought up the
Oka incident in Canada? When was that? 1988? '89? Or what the Mexicans
are contending with right now? Or that the Salvadoran governemnt denies
that El Salvador *has* native populations?
And why is nobody bringing up the Las Vegas mob's attempt to shut down
Indian casinos in New Mexico and California? ;)
Bryant
|