Is that writer living at a time when Native Americans are still living in Connecticut or owning Connecticut?
作者是否能找到,美国土著人还住在康涅狄格州的时候?
.. Yes. By Locke's definition, you can say... So maybe by Locke's definition, the Native Americans could have claimed a property right in the land itself.
是的,按照洛克的定义,你可以说。,也许按照洛克的定义,印第安人可以宣称拥有对该土地的财产权。
What he found was when he went and sat around with Native Americans.
他发现和印第安人坐在一起。
Native Americans are also reading the low level.
阅读能力也很差,美洲原住民阅读能力。
And then Woodward argued quite directly that the loss of the Vietnam War began to liberate the South, in a sense that the South, Southerners, white Southerners, were the only Americans other than we always forget Native Americans who had ever lost a war.
接着沃德沃直截了当地说,越南战争的损失开始导致南方的解放,因为从某种程度上说,南方人,南方白种人,是美国唯一除了印第安人之外,我们总忽略这些北美原住民,输掉过战争的人
Like, you're accusing him of justifying the European basically massacre of the Native Americans.
你指责洛克正义化了欧洲殖民者,屠杀印第安人的行为。
So Feng, in a way, agrees with Dan that maybe there is a claim within Locke's framework that could be developed on behalf of the Native Americans.
冯,某种程度上赞同丹的观点,也许在洛克该观点的框架内,是有可能发展出捍卫印第安人权益的观点的。
Doesn't it kind of imply that the Native Americans hadn't already done that?
这难道不是在暗示,印第安人并未完成圈地吗?
The settlers were enclosing land and engaged in wars with the Native Americans.
殖民者在圈地,并挑起了与印第安人的战争。
Well, the Native Americans, as hunter-gatherers, didn't actually enclose land.
印第安人,作为采猎者,事实上是没有圈地。
And Lila is an anthropological study of Native Americans.
这本书是对印第安人的人类学研究。
Because if you are right that this would justify the taking of land in North America from Native Americans who didn't enclose it, if it's a good argument, then Locke's given us a justification for that.
因为如果你是对的,洛克此举将正义化从印第安人手中占领,他们尚未圈定的土地这一行为,如果他的观点是正确的,那么洛克给出了占领土地的正当理由。
应用推荐