The concept of "land ownership" was brought here by England. Under English Law, discoveries were made in the name of the sovereign and all lands belonged to the Monarch, to be disposed of by the Crown. Royal favorites (Penn) recieved territories to be parceled out as they saw fit. The territory Penn colonized was, as far as the Monarch saw, owened and controled by the Monarch. The Indians did not have any land to sell Penn or his coloneys because the Indians did not hold the concept of land ownership as Europeans did. The Indians had no traditions of alienating or relinquishing all or any rights to land. Many Europeans thought that this showed Indian social development to be more primative than that of the Europeans. There for, they took it. Even though Penn may of maintained friendly relations with them, he didn't purchase any land from the Indians.
Of course you're right, kbt - private property was a European concept. But when Penn received his charter he understood that the Indians (Delawares) occupying the land would expect payment to vacate, and he paid them 1200 pounds to do so. This was a lot of money and according to the sources I've read was considered a "fair" payment. Certainly it was in sharp contrast to the $24 in trade goods given the Manhattoes in exchange for the island of Manhattan.
I sometimes suspect a lot of Indians are having a good laugh at our expense from the Happy Hunting Ground.
Hi All - Posting here because a lot of the folks I enjoy reading posts from are posting here lately. Hello Jem, Bottled, Cats, Dill, et al, its been a while. I've been very busy in the past months so not as much time to read and post here. Keep it up. I see the dialogue here is still at a high level if sometime repetitive of what we've discussed in the past. Thank you for keeping this topic alive. Hope to return with some regularity soon. Until then I remain... Yours Truly, Commie
HI COMMIE!!!!!!!!!!!!! I've been wondering where you've been. Would you believe me if I told you I missed you? Well believe it! Glad to see you back if even for a little hello! Oh, and guess what? You're worst nightmare has come true, whether I get called or not----I got a questionaire for jury duty :roll:. In 1996, I was called for jury duty and wasn't selected for the group that they selected from, and now after all this time, I got a questionaire. When I saw it, I laughed and thought of you and Dil. Just thought I'd let you know. :egypt: Your friend, bb
I couple of months ago I got a letter to call in on a certain Sunday to see if I had to report the next day.... I had it marked on my computer & everything.... I completely forgot about it & remembered several days later! I figured that they probably had a warrant out for my arrest or something.... I called the court house & I lucked out... They didn't have anyone report that week because I guess they didn't have any cases!!!!! :dance: :woops: LOL
Hi BB. Remember, if you get in the box and they ask you a question (assuming you don't want to serve) give them a long winded answer. The more they know about you, the less likely they are to pick you. I hope all is well. Commie
Oh, I love the long winded answer. Those were the folks I used to make squirm, knowing they wanted off. As I was starting out, voir dire was always one of my favorites. I actually enjoyed serving on a civil jury, though I fought being foreman. Look at jury duty this way. If you try to get off a jury, look at who is left to judge the defendant. Now, imagine you are the defendant. Are you comfortable with who was left?
Back in the early 80's, my dad got called for jury duty about 4 times and I think all of them were murder cases. I could be wrong, being that it was 30 years or more ago, but I know of at least 2 murder cases he was on. He did his civil duty, appeared, but secretly hoped they wouldn't pick him and much to his dismay, they always did. He took me one day to a murder trial he was serving on, and it was kind of interesting. That particular case involved a guy who shot his wife with a shot gun while she was holding their infant daughter on her lap. Turned out he was a drug dealer and his wife was going to leave him, so he took a shotgun and shot her pointblank in the neck. After the trial was over, the jury found out what a rotten scumbag he was and the truth. When I was called for jury duty in 1996, it was for a shoplifting case. But, I'm not holding my breath if I get called. There's like a 1 in a 20,000 chance I'll get called back. I was just surprised to see it in the mail, and of course I thought of Commie and Dil. I hear of people who never get the questionaire at all. I'm not going to worry about it because right now, we have the primaries going on and I can't figure out who's stretching the truth, who's telling the truth, and who's just lying. I have to do some reseach and decide since I have until the 30th to do early voting. I'm SO CONFUSED :shrug2: who to vote for. They all sound so good.
Anonymous said: We lived two doors away from the Parents on Cypress Dr, which used to be Central Ave in the the 50's and early sixties from 1954 to 1963. I knew Steven who was three years younger than me but we never played together. I delivered the paper to his house. When returning from a vacation in Arkansas by car, we noticed our garage had been broken into and a clock radio from my Dad's workbench was missing. I knew Steven was into tearing apart radios and rebuilding them because I did the same thing...except I didn't go looking for them in other people's houses. We confronted Steven and his father who went into his room and retrieved our radio, in pieces. He was apologetic and assured us it would be fully reassembled and returned to us. I can't recall if my Dad called the El Monte police or not, but I do recall Steven coming over to the house and bringing back the radio and giving to my Mom. It worked!! I always thought that whole episode was bizarre and we moved away shortly after that. It was while I was in college I heard about the killings and was shocked to see Steven's name among the victims. I felt really bad since even though he stole from us,
Think about this the gun serial number 1902708. used in Tate killings was stolen from a shop at el monte called the archery headquarters . It just happens to be Steve parents home town. Regards the wheel
Just my 2-cents on this... I think those shockingly young ages of consent in earlier days might be connected to a much shorter average life span at the time, thus a much shorter window for having --and more importantly raising children. I'm not sure why the countries mentioned above would still adhere to those young ages, though -maybe they're just resistant (or slow) to change?
OMG that is so terribly horrible. The picture of those poor people makes my heart cry. The way they were told was reprehensible. Why didn't somebody just look in Steven's wallet for f$#@ sake!!
I think they probably did Maude's Harold (look in the wallet) but until next of kin identified him he remained a John Doe. It still doesn't make it right the way his family found out however.
But then how did the family find out it was him on tv if he was still a John Doe? They{the media/cops} couldn't have had his pic could they, except for a drivers license pic? I don't ever remember seeing a pic of Steven that could have been his drivers license pic{which would have identified him and his address}? I remember it was a reporter who initially identified whose car it was by the license plate. I remember reading that they were told by a pastor??? What the hell happened!! I believe that Steven was treated as less than important....disgusting.
I remember that a reporter checked out Jay's license plate, never heard of one checking out Steven's. I do remember that a priest from their parish identified Steven, but can't remember why he did it.
