[PEN-L:1000] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: sell-out Indians and western arrogance

[boddhisatva <kbevans@xxxxxxxxx>]

		To whom...,


	I largely abandoned the debate about indigenous political economy
because the participants who take the opposing position simply ignored the
main issue. Instead we have gotten a lot of stuff about the native
political struggles which, while interesting, does nothing to answer the
main question. It isn't intended to, of course, so I have simply read it
and left it at that.  When I noticed that C. Duquesne was getting
side-tracked, I thought I would interject to try and get the debate back
on track.  It's essential to remember that the debate did *not* start with
anyone implying that indigenous people were themselves primitive or
undemocratic or that they were incapable of managing their own affairs, as
has been implied.  That was the second, and more important, reason for my
interjection.


	Look at the Quebec situation that C. Craven has presented to us.
What, *economically* is at issue here?  Is it a people trying to
re-establish a native economy?  No, it's about logging rights.  That's an
important issue, certainly, but how is a dispute over land rights in order
to do logging an issue for the mass of working people?  Are the Micmac
going to establish a logging collective?  Can they be a model for other
people? What about people who have no land to claim?


	I'm far happier to see that land go to the poor native Canadians,
but my point is that it seems to be a reformist issue.  The native
Canadians are clearly looking to participate in a modern economy - as land
owners.  I'm not suggesting that someone else should own the land but I am
suggesting that this dispute may not have all that much import for wage
workers.

	
	My remark was no spitball because there is no offense in it nor is
it a re-hash because the debate has yet to progress to a point where
anything can be re-hashed.



	peace