.. 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。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

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。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

Native Americans are also reading the low level.

阅读能力也很差，美洲原住民阅读能力。

麻省理工公开课 - 媒体、教育、市场课程节选

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

耶鲁公开课 - 美国内战与重建课程节选

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。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

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。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

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？

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

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。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

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。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选