Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (85137)	8/9/2000 12:01:52 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

Does that mean we should continue down that same path? Or that the victims of it should stop their bellyachin', since that is the inevitable "way of the world"? Okay, here it is, simply. Freeze territories where they are. It's usually too impractical to "go back" to some previous position. If there is an active conflict, the aggressor must return from whence they came. Period. Questionable cases, well there should be a statute of limitations of sort. 20-50 years maybe. We can discuss those case-by-case. Despite what many people think, at first blush, it would seem that Native Americans have it far better than other vanquished peoples. They have semi-autonomy, for pity sake, inside the territory of their conquerors. But, at the same time in many, many ways Native Americans are worse off than blacks by the measures of birth weight, education, suicide, alcoholism, drug abuse and a host of others social measures. We don't need to expand this separatism, if anything we need to work to mainstream Native Americans. Keeping them stored out of the way on reservations abrogates our responsibility as people to improve their conditions. In 300 years should we STILL have reservations where Navajos can tend sheep in 3rd world conditions, a practice that they started after the Spaniards arrived. Or have any of the "Horse Culture" indians hunting from horseback (another practice started after they captured runaway Spanish horses). I don't know, that just seems dumb. Countries where former aggressors and former vanquished mixed seem to be the most stable. Keeping and actively maintaining separate identity only serves to continue the hostility between both sides.

To: jbe who wrote (85137)	8/9/2000 2:30:32 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

That's exactly what the commonly held perceptions of race are - based upon historical, 19th century imperialism. I'm not talking about sophisticated academic understandings that we have now, I'm talking about "race" as most people use it - the primary "usage-based" definition of race. I've already published that these terms are not even in scientific use anymore. It is 19th century and archaic. Ethnicity is closer to what I'm describing (place of origin) and, of course, is more fact based. Coloration is too obvious to ever go away completely. Though interracial crossing and international travel is blurring that line, too. If someone was tending oxen in a field and lives in a hut, then you have a pretty good of how that person is living. Race is almost irrelevant. Now if I say an "American plastic surgeon, who makes $800k a year and lives in Palo Alto, CA", skin color is still almost irrelevant if you want to assess the general values, character and condition of that person. If I add "black" or "Asian", sure there is some additional information, but I think you have a pretty good idea of where either of the people in my examples are coming from and how they live without a racial or skin color reference.