Re: Amerind an offensive term (was: Early Amerind assimilation
Eric Brunner (brunner@mandrake.think.com)
11 Aug 1996 02:59:42 GMT
Bryant (mycol1@unm.edu) wrote:
: In article <4udbdo$fmt@bone.think.com>,
: Eric Brunner <brunner@mandrake.think.com> wrote:
: >: >> Bryant wrote:
: >: Who said I'm an anthropologist?! Can you guys perhaps attack the
: >: content of my posts instead of using all these straw-man characterizations?
: >
: >Your post had limited content, since you addressed no standing litigation
: >issues. Sorry I didn't get around to pointing that out to you a few days
: >ago, my system was being user-unfriendly.
: Limited or no, and despite it's being rather tongue-in-cheek in nature,
: my post did posit a question which can be easily answered: Responding to
: the characterization of Euro- and Afro- and Asian-Americans as
: "squatters" (presumably on native american lands), I asked if other late
: comers (like the Dine who dispossessed pueblo groups of their lands)
: should also be considered "squatters."
The ease of the answer (possibly the inverse of the utility of the answer)
depends on what your question really means. Is your question framed in your
mind as a question of ethics, or morals, or laws?
If posed as a legal question, is the framework that of the Contact Period
Papacy, the origin of "International Law", or Spanish Law of the Indies, or
Post-Colonial, Pre-American Republic of Mexico Law, or that of the US under
the usual FIL framework (dependent nation), or a modern Hague IL framework,
or the overlapping Laws of the parties in conflict, the Dineh and Hopi, for
which there may be far less conflict of interests than is popularly reported.
If posed as a moral or ethical question, do everyone the kindness of forming
a useful and reasonably complete frame for your interloqutors to engage in,
one as reasonably filled-out as the legal one you seem to be so unwilling to
accept as the clearest, and preferred by the parties at interest.
: >: What was "patently aggressive" about my post? The smilies?
: >
: >No. The posit that equity of land claims conflicts (US vs Native Nations)
: >and intra-Native Nation claims, based upon an absence of actual litigation
: >interests. In short, constructive fraud, or aggressive ignorance. Pick one.
: There was nothing aggressive or fraudulent in my post.
For the definition of constructive fraud, see Black's dictionary. For the
defintion of aggressive ignorance I don't know where to refer you. Stick
to cases, or argue abstractions. Pick one.
: Are you a lawyer?
If you need an attorney, there is no venue within USENET which I would
recommend for initiating a contract for representation. If you need an
attorney, contract your local bar association.
: Bryant
--
Kitakitamatsinohpowaw,
Eric Brunner
|