Re: Amerind an offensive term (was: Early Amerind assimilation

Patricia Jean Easley (pje0001@nfs-jove.acs.unt.edu)
7 Aug 1996 13:45:59 GMT

m.com> <31FCDF95.13BA@megafauna.com> <4tjk4h$on2@bone.think.com> <31FDCDA0.5ABA@megafauna.com> <4tkrcc$r7j@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> <4tqlbq$o2m@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> <4tus7u$7d4@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> <Pine.SOL.3.91.960803154153.25053B-10

0000@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu>:

Distribution:

.......Mr. Russell -- Bravo!

Stephen W. Russell (srussell@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu) wrote:
> Last time I looked, Bubba, Euro-America still claimed to have a
> representative form of government. Indians were not dealt in until 1924,
> after all the deals we are complaining about were cut.

> You are right that the U.S. is responsible for other bloodbaths, just as
> we (when we talk contemporary, I have to eat it too) remain the world's
> largest weapons dealer. I wasn't unaware or hiding it. It just didn't
> seem germane. Was what the Nazis did to homosexuals ok because they did
> more of it to Jews?