Brad De Long wrote:
> >>
> There is a sense in which I benefit from it--surplus extraction
>
> As Charles Maier put it--I think wisely--in a different context:
>
> ...difficult to pin down any notions of collective responsibility.
>
Periodizing abstract responsibility often has its difficulties. The folks at the Native American Rights Fund thought there was a particular paper trail here. Rubin and Babbit were held in contempt, Treasury and Interior early on. I sat with a group in solidarity with the plaintiffs in the US district court in district of columbia. Thought there would have been a decision by now. 2.5 billion in the balance. What is interesting is how to read the complete admission of guilt and complicity. on the one hand there is an arrogance that simply admits historical responsibility and says so what for there is no consequence; or in watching, one gets the sense that there is simply no *understanding* of what is at stake. The gov't lawyers were pathetic. the judge, at minimum, recognized that it wasn't as if they weren't prepared, but rather they simply didn't conceptualize the 'historical responsibility.'
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-06/16/156l-061699-idx.html http://www.doi.gov/bia/factsh.htm http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/a/AP-Indian-Funds.html
mc