Re: [A-List] New Economy Bull

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 12/15/02 11:34:39 AM Pacific Standard Time, Annewilliamson@xxxxxxx writes:

> Since you are concerned about "the conquest and plunder" of the NA
> indigenous population by colonizing Europeans, don't you then consider NA
> to have been the property of the indigenous peoples?  What's ahistorical
> about that?



You are of course replying to an ideologist - an extremely political and astute person, but an ideologist nevertheless. 

In the context of North American or rather the United States of North America and the Indigenousness population, property rights as capitalist property rights did not exist. What is ahistorical about your assertion is that its theoretical underpinning is riveted to abstractions concerning biology, immigration, migration, conquest and tool evolution in the form of implements of warfare (that makes conquest possible) without a framework in the mode of production and why history evolved as it did. 

The demand for reparations is merely one side of the class struggle and still wears the clothes of antiquity. All of us wear clothes. 

The indigenousness Peoples in the main have always represented the antithesis to property rights, and this antithesis cannot be understood as "I own this as opposed to you." 

Guardianship replaces property rights. This conclusion came to me on the crest of a summer breeze, many moons ago. 

Melvin P.