RE: Rumsfeld Says...

From: Steve Drew (
Date: Tue Mar 05 2002 - 22:18:18 GMT

  • Next message: Steve Drew: "Re: Example of an aggresive irrational meme"

    Received: by id WAA21543 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 22:26:58 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.0.3
    Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 22:18:18 +0000
    Subject: RE: Rumsfeld Says...
    From: Steve Drew <>
    To: Jom-emit <>
    Message-ID: <>
    Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Mar 2002 22:21:03.0546 (UTC) FILETIME=[096D81A0:01C1C494]
    Precedence: bulk

    > Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:31:19 -0000
    > From: Vincent Campbell <>
    > Subject: RE: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence
    > <<Grant:
    >> Even the laws of most countries make allowances for people when they
    >> defend
    >> "my home, my family, my children, my beliefs, my property." If you shoot a
    >> stranger on the street, you go to jail for murder. If you shoot a stranger
    >> in your home or while they are attacking your children, or your person, it
    >> is called self defense and not prosecuted. There are no limits to what I
    >> can do in defense of what is "mine.">>
    > <Derek:
    >> On the contrary, what you describe is virtually uinique to the USA. Both
    >> Ecuador and the UK (where I have some personal experience) would put you
    >> behind bars for a very long time if you shoot somebody just because they
    >> are intruders on your property. The situation in the USA is a historical
    >> relic of the time when cowboys had to forcibly clear stray indians off
    >> their ranches. The law had to be made so that they could do this without
    >> ending up in court every other day. It's a historical accident, not a
    >> cultural universal.>
    > Very true, although that case in the UK a year or two ago (The
    > Martin case was it?) suggested that at least some proportion of the
    > population felt that it should be legitimate (although not me- shooting an
    > unarmed teenager in the back as they were trying to get out of the property
    > is not self-defence to my mind).
    > I think Grant's wider point about territoriality is basically right.
    > I don't want to stir up the Aussies on the list, but there seems to be two
    > diametrically opposite views about aboriginals in Oz, either the traditional
    > colonial one of disdain and control (evidenced by Prince Phillip's spear
    > throwing comments the other day- oh we Brits are so proud...), or a
    > guilt-ridden over-celebration and over-estimation of their culture and
    > capabilities (a bit like those pro-native americans who refuse to accept
    > that the Anasazi might have been ritualistic cannibals as the archeology
    > strongly suggests).
    > Vincent

    Hi Vincent.

    Yes we do seem to anthropormorphise about 'native' populations. I see little
    difference between their behaviours WRT the enviroment vs resource need that
    we have today. The problem is when laws are drafted to support this Golden
    Age. The saga of Kennewick man and the tribes that claim him as an elder is
    a case in point.



    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 05 2002 - 23:04:47 GMT