On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:35:49 -0700, Pan > wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:09:00 -0500, Michel Boucher
> wrote:
>
>
>>Actually, I think it's even more elegant. The First Nations had no concept
>>of ownership, sop consequently the land, to them, was both priceless and
>>without any value. However, the concept of ownership andvalue are highly
>>prized by the white man (kabloona, to the Inuit) and therefore they are
>>using the white man's own tools for assimilation against him. Poetic as
>>well as restorative justice.
>
>So when the American Indians sold Manhattan island to the white folks,
>they were ripping of the Honkies?
>The land had no value, was worthless, and the white man nor anyone
>else could own the land?
>
>So the white man shouldn't be ****ed?

my favorite part of that story is that the canarsee indians really had
no plausible claims to ownership of manhattan in the first place:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_156.html

so that might be the one time they got over on the white man. but
he's been repaying the indians for this swindle at his leisure.

your pal,
blake