From: jan@bagend.atl.ga.us (Jan Isley)
Subject: Re: Comments on the 2nd RFD: soc.culture.native
Organization: 1 Bagshot Row
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 07:01:28 GMT

gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo) writes:
>I would, however, like it if the format of the charter could be "prettied
>up" a bit, but I'm sure Jan Isley can take care of that matter.

Careful, I may pretty it up to my idea of the charter which I may be
in a distinct minority of opinion about. :)  More on that in a bit.

>idoy@crux1.cit.cornell.edu (Mike Wilson) writes:
>> I have talked with Jan Isley and he would like to start the vote on
>> a nice round date, March the 1st.  Look for the CFV then, ...

Umm, that was supposed to be February 1st.

While I have not verified this yet with David Lawrence, I imagine the
CFV hitting the airwaves on Monday, Feb 1st, and for the sake of round
numbers, *ending* on Monday, March 1st.

I have been following the charter discussion but I had decided to stay
out of it.  But as my friends all know, I have a hard time staying out
of things.  I think the charter discussion has graduated into a full
blown mess.  It has become exactly the kind of discussion that I
personally hope does not take place in the proposed new group.

I think that soc.culture.native is the very best name available.  The
name of the newsgroup is the only charter the overwhelming majority of
readers will ever see, period.  The most scholarly written charter will
have little or no effect on the newsgroup after it is created unless
the newsgroup is dominated by net police waiting to pounce on anyone
that posts an article on a subject that does not conform to someone's
ideal politically correct charter.

For instance, I think that the positioning over words describing who
qualifies as a native, in this discussion or the current discussion
in alt.native, is counterproductive and does not belong in *my* idea
of soc.culture.native.  To go further out on this limb I am on and
jump up and down on it a bit, with a straight face, I will suggest to
you all that there is *no* people *anywhere* who are the original
inhabitants.  The original inhabitants and their cultures are all long
gone everywhere.  However, humans are recent (and perhaps temporary)
events in the life of this planet that take themselves far too seriously.

The point is that there are people out there who think that they are
of a native culuture regardless of how native I think they may be.
I would like to hear from them.  I would like to hear about them.  I
would like to know more about their history and culture, and how they
are dealing with the here-and-now.

So, all of this rambling means that if I were to write a charter it
would be very short.  Something like:

---
Soc.culture.native is for discussion of by for and or about all the
native peoples of the earth and their cultures.  Their past, present,
and hopefully, the future of their culture and how they manage to deal
with the so-called, modern world is all considered within the scope of
this newsgroup.

Discussion of who is or is not a "native" is specificly not encouraged.
---

Or something equally simple and inclusive.

Now, having changed my mind long enough to render my opinion, I will
once again retreat from this discussion and wait to cast my yes vote.

peace
-- 
Jan Isley  jan@bagend.atl.ga.us  {emory|gatech}!bagend!jan  (404)434-1335