- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 705
- Joined: Oct 19, 2022
- Wed Oct 11, 2023 1:49 pm
#103602
Hi Bruce,
Several comments in this thread have indicated that the author of Passage B likely agrees with the suggestion of giving the land back to the Native Americans, but that we just can't be sure. In fact, the author actually doesn't agree with this remedy (and in fact in the original article that this passage comes from, makes that point explicit.) The problem is that the author's response to the "one natural (one might almost say obvious) way of reasoning" is omitted from this passage.
I think that one point that may be missing in this discussion is just how extreme this proposed remedy is. The argument presented is basically, "Well the Native Americans were on the land first, and the European settlers unjustly took their land, so now the land should be given back." So what does that mean practically speaking? The United States of America, the most powerful country in the world militarily and economically, would just dissolve and all of the non-Native American U.S. citizens would leave the country? That not only isn't practical, it's completely unrealistic, and isn't what the author actually would recommend.
When the author describes the way of reasoning as "natural (one might almost say obvious)" that doesn't mean that it is correct. It's almost like saying, "at first glance, this seems like a straightforward easy solution." Again, we aren't provided with the author's response to this reasoning, which makes it difficult to see that that author does not necessarily endorse it.
Several comments in this thread have indicated that the author of Passage B likely agrees with the suggestion of giving the land back to the Native Americans, but that we just can't be sure. In fact, the author actually doesn't agree with this remedy (and in fact in the original article that this passage comes from, makes that point explicit.) The problem is that the author's response to the "one natural (one might almost say obvious) way of reasoning" is omitted from this passage.
I think that one point that may be missing in this discussion is just how extreme this proposed remedy is. The argument presented is basically, "Well the Native Americans were on the land first, and the European settlers unjustly took their land, so now the land should be given back." So what does that mean practically speaking? The United States of America, the most powerful country in the world militarily and economically, would just dissolve and all of the non-Native American U.S. citizens would leave the country? That not only isn't practical, it's completely unrealistic, and isn't what the author actually would recommend.
When the author describes the way of reasoning as "natural (one might almost say obvious)" that doesn't mean that it is correct. It's almost like saying, "at first glance, this seems like a straightforward easy solution." Again, we aren't provided with the author's response to this reasoning, which makes it difficult to see that that author does not necessarily endorse it.
