Quote:
Originally posted by AuntyM:
Interesting Eagle. You just KNEW what our responses would be, but you posted anyway. ;\)

Lots of talk about what Boldt said. However.... nowhere in any treaty did it say 50%. That's Boldt's interpretation of what the Tribes thought they were going to be entitled to if they gave up land. We have no true evidence that they thought that at all, nor do we have any indication that's what was negotiated by Stevens. If he meant half, he would have said so.

A liberal, touchy feely Judge took pity on treaty tribes and elevated their station in life to commercial fishermen. :rolleyes:

The US of A has reneged on treaties before... and rest assured, they can again. The political climate in this country changes quickly and so can people's sympathies.

The religious right is not at all fond of tribes contributing to alcoholism, tobacco use or gambling in our country. Guess which group is in control of our government right now?

\:D
Good old aunty.... making it up she goes again.

"That's Boldt's interpretation of what the Tribes thought they were going to be entitled to if they gave up land." Wrong on both counts. 1) The 50% language came from an interpretation of what the term "in common with" meant in 1855. 2) The Tribes did not think they were going to get 50% and would have been happy to get something less via settlement of the issue. Your friend Slade (from the Gorton Fisherman clan) decided not to settle because he thought the state had the stronger hand. Wonder what he thinks now???

"If he meant half, he would have said so." Wrong twice again. 1) It was a negotiation... Stevens does not simply put in what he means... others had some say as well. 2) The trade language that was used to communicate meaning at that time in history was thoroughly studies by the experts. "In common with" basically meant half.

"A liberal, touchy feely Judge took pity on treaty tribes and elevated their station in life to commercial fishermen." Another urban legend perpetuated by the uninformed. Boldt was about as conservative as they came. He was appointed by the Eisnehower administration for crying out loud. He was one of the reasons the Tribes wanted to settle... beacuse they never believed they would get a fair shake with him in the chair. He was also part of the resaon Slade felt confident the court would rule in favor of State's rights. Slade was in a position to settle the case and give the Tribes less than 50%. I wonder how he feels about that now???

How can you even put these two statements in the same post??? "The US of A has reneged on treaties before..." "The religious right..." I think you had better talk with your church groups again... they have been strong supporters of the tribes and protection of tribal rights.... from day one. I doubt things have changed too much.

Try again.