Mr. Schuster, I just want to commend you on all the fine words you have written in this discussion. I hadn't checked back here in awhile, and I am very pleased and delighted at the intelligence and sensitivity with which you have spoken out.
I did my best to wade through the last post from Mr. Thurman, but found myself wondering if we had now entered the level of debate wherein theologians argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I do not intend this as a slight to Mr. Thurman's obvious capacity for reasoned debate, but it seems to me that the latter points being raised have strayed far afield from what is actually a very basic issue.
To wit, if you are using a people's name and identity without their consent and approval, and they have clearly stated that they object, is it then not clearly the right thing to do to cease persisting in this usage?
Since when does the victim of a theft have to prove a "moral imperative" in order to have that which was stolen given back?
-
- -- Rebekah Morrigan, Indian Country Perspectives forum (posted 4/23, 1:37 p.m., U.S. Eastern time)
JOIN THE DEBATE
|