Comments on: In Loco Parentis http://malcolmpollack.com/2009/07/17/in-loco-parentis/ I go many places Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:28:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Malcolm http://malcolmpollack.com/2009/07/17/in-loco-parentis/comment-page-1/#comment-152019 Malcolm Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:23:00 +0000 http://malcolmpollack.com/2009/07/17/in-loco-parentis/#comment-152019 Well, Jack, this is a Progressive initiative to protect Indians from themselves, by restricting economic activity not inside the reservations, but in US territory adjacent to the reservations. Nobody is talking about interference within the reservations. Your last paragraph deserves a response, but I'm still at work, so it will have to wait. Well, Jack, this is a Progressive initiative to protect Indians from themselves, by restricting economic activity not inside the reservations, but in US territory adjacent to the reservations. Nobody is talking about interference within the reservations.

Your last paragraph deserves a response, but I’m still at work, so it will have to wait.

]]> By: jack http://malcolmpollack.com/2009/07/17/in-loco-parentis/comment-page-1/#comment-152018 jack Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:58:03 +0000 http://malcolmpollack.com/2009/07/17/in-loco-parentis/#comment-152018 I'm not sure I agree with your final comment in general, and with regard to Indian affairs in particular it is not necessarily true either. I think a great number of Progressives today hold a non-interference doctrine with respect to Native peoples: Native peoples have the right to self-determination. I certainly do. In fact, on every gambling on indian reservation propositions in California I have been quite chagrined since I hold I have no place in deciding what Natives can and can't do on their national lands. Native peoples are classified as domestic-nations, a kind of contradiction which has in effect allowed the U.S. government to treat Native peoples as foreign states when it needs to, and as members of U.S. society when it desires so. Either way, these peoples have lost out. Progressives and conservatives both, in their desire to "better the Indian peoples" or "to civilize them" or to "integrate them into U.S. society" have been disastrous. Conservatives, I might add, spend as much time as liberals (a great deal of time) telling others how they should live, how they should act, and how they should think. That only liberals do that is, like the similar myth about activist judges, is a conservative myth, one that serves to reinforce the notion of the separateness (and rightness) of the conservative identity. Liberals have their own myths (e.g. the racist conservative). I’m not sure I agree with your final comment in general, and with regard to Indian affairs in particular it is not necessarily true either. I think a great number of Progressives today hold a non-interference doctrine with respect to Native peoples: Native peoples have the right to self-determination. I certainly do. In fact, on every gambling on indian reservation propositions in California I have been quite chagrined since I hold I have no place in deciding what Natives can and can’t do on their national lands.

Native peoples are classified as domestic-nations, a kind of contradiction which has in effect allowed the U.S. government to treat Native peoples as foreign states when it needs to, and as members of U.S. society when it desires so. Either way, these peoples have lost out. Progressives and conservatives both, in their desire to “better the Indian peoples” or “to civilize them” or to “integrate them into U.S. society” have been disastrous.

Conservatives, I might add, spend as much time as liberals (a great deal of time) telling others how they should live, how they should act, and how they should think. That only liberals do that is, like the similar myth about activist judges, is a conservative myth, one that serves to reinforce the notion of the separateness (and rightness) of the conservative identity. Liberals have their own myths (e.g. the racist conservative).

]]>