Andie:
> In the real world, sorry, yes, the sell-by date is
> passed. That doesn't mean that the Indians don't have
> legitimate claims, but it does mean that it's not on
> the table to discuss restoring the prairies (etc.) and
> having the whote (and Black! and Hispanic! and Asian!)
> people move "back" where they came from. Me, I "came
> from" Columbus, Ohio.
> Going back to andie's statement, I do not think that the sell-by date has
passed, either for the Palestinian refugees or the Native Americans. Their
legitimate claim (not exclusive claim) must be recognized and taken into
consideration in any practical political solution, while at the same time,
recognizing the changing/changed situation that exists in the present.
As I said. I did not say that we can now disregard tye moral claims of the Indians or the Palestineans.I said:
That doesn't mean that the Indians don't have
> legitimate claims
>(Bryan) We
cannot go back to the praries and remove the existing population, but we
also cannot say that BECAUSE of the changed circumstances, your claim is
null and void.
Which is just what I said.
> (Bryan). Any long-term solution
obviously needs to take into consideration present changed circumstances,
but they must also take into consideration the legitimate claims of these
really existing people...
I agree. My point was that we do have to take into accoint the changed circumstances. What was possible, feasible, and right ex ante is not necessarily so afterwards. We cannot expect the Nebraskans or the Israeli Jews to "go back where they came from" and leave the land to the descendants of the people whom their ancestors, or people of their ancestors generation, disposessed. That is all I meant by saying that the sell-by date had passed.
jks
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030223/04d7de56/attachment.htm>