🚀 go-pugleaf

In ca.environment dlow@ppg01.sc.hp.com (Danny Low) said: 
 
 
>Since many Indian tribes never claimed the land, it was not a taking. For 

>tribes like the Navajos and Hopis who have land claims, the US signed
treaties.  
>Many Indian tribes have successfully sued in court for the return of lands
that  
>were taken contrary to treaty or gotten monetary compensation. So the case
of  
>the Indians support the concept of a taking.  
 
 
 
- 
 
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here. It seems that you believe
that it is ok to take something as long as the concept of being "took" is
not understood by those from whom you are taking. This would seem to imply
that taking the proverbial "candy from a baby" is morally acceptable. In my
ethical system the opposite is true. 
 
Secondly, the notion that the Indigenous peoples of North America were ever
"justly compensated" for what was taken from them is not true. For instance
the Black Hills, which were to remain the property of Native Americans as
written in the treaty of 1868, were forcebly taken away in 1876 (or there
abouts) when it was discoverd that they had rich deposits of gold. The U.S.
offered some $6 million for them and were turned down. The Native Americans
actually asked for $7 million and additonal supplies to support them for 3
generations. The talks broke down and the U.S.  just took the land. In the
20th century the U.S. federal courts decided that the land had been stolen
and the treaty had been illegally broken by the US. They awarded the Native
Americans $7 million plus interest. The settlement was turned down and the
land was asked to be returned instead, since the never agreed to give it ot
the US in the first place. Since the land is obviously worth more than $7
million plus interest the US believes that true justice always has a price
and have kept other peoples land. This land is now inhabited by people
demanding that the US goverment give them cash dollars any time they think
that the protection of the other indigenous inhabitants (i.e. habitat)
decreases the value. 
 
What we have is a sequence of events characterized by injustice, greed,
shortsightedness and absolute disregard for other humans and the planet.
The only time the notion of private property is important is when it is
your property. When the property belongs to others, especially those of
other cultures, or when the property belongs to all of us it is often of
little relevence. 
 
 
 
 
>Show me a wildlife that has express any interest in being represented in
court  
>by a human over the taking of their habitat. The Indians have shown such  
>interest and have found compensation and land back as a result. I am sure
that  
>if you find a squirrel who is willing to be represented by a human lawyer
in  
>court, that a similar case can be made. 
> 
 
 
Well my contribution to Citizens for a Better Envionment (CBE) will go to
fund a great deal of lawyers who will fight for the wellbeing of the
environment. I suggest that those of us who feel the same choose one
multinational (perhaps Mitsibishi or Exon) that they are currently doing
business with and stop spending that money. Take the money and use it to
support the environment. Fund a non profit or buy some land and protect it.