Date: Sat, 03 Jan 1998 20:37:03 +0000 From: Mark Jones <Jones_M-AT-netcomuk.co.uk> Subject: Re: M-I: Re: Marx on Native Americans James Heartfield wrote: > In message <34AE7B53.81E10404-AT-netcomuk.co.uk>, Mark Jones > <Jones_M-AT-netcomuk.co.uk> writes > >But the whole point here is that in the process of negotiating > >the Indian Treaties the United States also was put in the position of > >consituting legal subjects where none had previously existed. In that sense the > >treaties were not just unequal, they were a mockery, genocidal savagery, the > >trampling to death of pre-capitalist social formations. > > Wasn't that what I said? > -- > James Heartfield James, your general position is that when great nations oppress small nations, or the powerful intimidate and bully the weak, it is better to give in than to fight back. You support the bully on the grounds that he is stronger and more likely to win. The spectacle of resistance embarrasses and irritates you. The issue in this debate is just what it WAS that " put the US in the position of consituting legal subjects where none had previously existed."? It was the determined resistance of the Indians which made it necessary to acknowledge their existence and even their interests, in the only way the Americans could: by negotiating with them and signing deals with them. The fact that the negotiations were a mockery and American intentions genocidal, makes it MORE important, not less, that they were obliged to treat, to make deals, to sign agreements which they were then obliged to publicly, not secretly, dishonour, and the Treaties still exist as witness of the racism, perfidy and shame of US imperialism. That, of course, is why you object to them. Like every turncoat, your hatred of the victim and the oppressed is sharpened because the obstinate, awkward facts are a constant reminder of your own moral nature. Mark --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005