Oh yes, Henry George. This is about the Cherokee Nation from the time of Henry George. Of course the dead only have is to defend their reputation.
"In 1883 a small group of Eastern humanitarians began to meet annually at Lake Mohonk, where with an agreeable background of natural beauty, congenial companionship, and crusading motive, they discussed the Indian problem. At their third meeting Senator Henry L. Dawes of Massachusetts, a distinguished Indian theorist, gave a glowing description of a visit of inspection he had recently made to the Indian Territory. The most partisan Indian would hardly have painted such an idealized picture of his people's happiness and prosperity and culture, but, illogically, the senator advocated a change in this perfect society because it held the wrong principles of property ownership. Speaking apparently of the Cherokees, he said: "The head chief told us that there was not a family in that whole nation that had not a home of its own. There was not a pauper in that nation, and the nation did not owe a dollar. It built its own capitol, in which we had this examination, and it built its schools and its hospitals. Yet the defect of the system was apparent. They have got as far as they can go, because they own their land in common. It is Henry George's system, and under that there is no enterprise to make your home any better than that of your neighbors. There is no selfishness, which is at the bottom of civilization. Till this people will consent to give up their lands, and divide them among their citizens so that each can own the land he cultivates, they will not make much more progress." (36) (36) 1900, pp. 25-32; Lake Mohonk Conference, Report, 1904, pp 5-6; Department of the Interior, Annual Report, 1900, pp. 655-735. REH From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 2:15 PM To: 'Keith Hudson'; 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, , EDUCATION' Subject: Re: [Futurework] Women and the world economy:A guide to womenomics Henry George would understand. Fixed land +increased demand=rising costs. From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 11:00 AM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, , EDUCATION; Arthur Cordell Subject: RE: [Futurework] Women and the world economy:A guide to womenomics At 14:22 21/05/2012, Arthur wrote: I may have missed it in the article but the rise of two earners in the household has meant more income and in some way has boosted the price of housing. Bidding up the price of land. Yes, directly so, of course. Because 20-class females (the better educated with better incomes) will mainly choose 20-class males to marry then the income divide between the 20-class and the 80-class is amplified with effects on land pricing. Keith Keith arthur From: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 2:43 AM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [Futurework] Women and the world economy:A guide to womenomics At 01:06 21/05/2012, Mike wrote: Women and the world economy:A guide to womenomics |The Economist http://t.co/Ag4XLuui ... It's a useful article (so thanks for making it available to us) but pretty pedestrian for all that -- and entirely missing out the single most important reason why women have been heavily oppressed for thousands of years. Agriculture. Incredibly, the word itself didn't appear in the whole article! It was the spreading of manual agriculture all round the world that necessitated the maximum number of children to work in the fields and women, too, at seeding and harvesting times, which broke the contraceptive effect of breast feeding as it had occurred during hunter-gatherer times. Thus women were hit by a double whammy during the agricultural era. They were required to work the fields on occasion but they were also necessary to work hard at home, feeding, cleaning, educating and organizing far too large families. All this has gone by the board in the case of about one third of the world population but it's still the case that most women are still oppressed -- and to the most vile extent in the Islamic countries where the agricultural culture has become further strengthened by sharia law. However, as agricultural syndicates are pushing most of the rural poor into the cities, then women will start re-asserting themselves in the same way as has already happened in the West and is now taking place in the coastal provinces of China. All this may not seem relevant to the authors of the article (anonymous as usual) who were, quite obviously, confining themselves to the advanced world, but it should have been. The plain fact is that newly assertive women of the West have, for the past 30 years or so, decided to have less than replacement-sized families. From now onwards it doesn't really matter what further marginal changes take place in the role of women -- politically, economically, culturally -- because populations of European countries and the white population of America are already at the point of dropping precipitously. The article was describing the table manners of those who were dining on the Titanic when it hit the iceberg rather than the fate of the whole ship. Keith Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com <http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/> Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com <http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/>
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
