So without fences, Natives had no property rights, or didn't "need" them, Doogy? You do realize the Natives fought over land and resources long before the white man appeared on N. America, don't you?
When each lack the others' conceptual framework about the nature of property "ownership," you get treaties and deals with no actual meetings of the mind, and sow the seeds for eventual conflict. When "giving" means "sharing" to one party, but means "giving away" to the other, you get what we got, Doogy.
Damn those Natives for not establishing Tribal Courts replicating the English Common law Courts. If they had, we could've had mass-incarceration of instead of genocide, and really gruesome death sentences.
When each lack the others' conceptual framework about the nature of property "ownership," you get treaties and deals with no actual meetings of the mind, and sow the seeds for eventual conflict. When "giving" means "sharing" to one party, but means "giving away" to the other, you get what we got, Doogy.
Damn those Natives for not establishing Tribal Courts replicating the English Common law Courts. If they had, we could've had mass-incarceration of instead of genocide, and really gruesome death sentences.
So you were for Indian-giving before you were against it? Or the other way around?
I'm new here but I'm guessing this dogsofparadise dope is into free shit and a big Bernie fan? Just what I'm hearing feeling, not that there is anything wrong with that.
Comments
Damn those Natives for not establishing Tribal Courts replicating the English Common law Courts. If they had, we could've had mass-incarceration of instead of genocide, and really gruesome death sentences.
Just what I am hearing