JC> JC> But I do think it is "policy" to "eliminate by assimilation". Even
  > JC> immigran
JC> SB> And I think that policy is not only official,
JC> Can you cite a government document that makes this policy offical? There 
ar
  > an awful lot of people working hard to NOT make it official policy. (For
  > example, English has NOT been officially declared the official language 
f
  > the U.S.)
Well, OK, I concede.  It's not official.  I was using the word,
"official",  very loosely; which, seeing that I'm a writer, is totally
inexcusable.  I meant that I believe government officials in high places
support it.
JC> SB> but very well supported by many whites.  I'm dialoguing with a person
  > SB> in another conference, who is going to post an essay to me stating 
is
  > SB> views on "the Indian problem." I already basically know them, 
owever.
  > SB> He wants to see the government stop honoring *all* treaties, 
liminate
  > SB> *all* reservations, and simply have "one law for all people."
JC> Sounds like the illustrious Republican Senator from the state of 
Washington
  > Slade Gorton and his cronies.
Grin!  He probably votes for those guys.
JC> And does your correspondent propose the same "treatment" for _all_
  > minorities (gender, physically ability, religion, etc.) or is he just
  > "targeting" NAs? My experience has been that people like your 
correspondent
  > only target _one_ group. For example they are in favor of eliminating
  > "special treatment" for NAs, but want to retain "special treatment" in 
he
  > form of tax-free status for religions.
He's definitely not targeting everyone: just native americans and recent
immigrants.  I'm sure he supports a tax free status for religions.
                                Sondra
-*-
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ Forget housework!  I'm busy being creative!!
--- Opus-CBCS 1.7x via O_QWKer 1.1
---------------