gslack
Senior Member
- Mar 26, 2010
- 4,527
- 356
I am studying the theory and practice of interpretation? The choice to use that was a bit of a reach don't you think? There was no theory involved in my claim and nothing about the people coming here and hacking an existence out of a wilderness that is interpretive. They did that, its a fact.
Comparing the modern immigrant in this country to either the pioneers or the original colonists is an apples and oranges contest.
It is because the comparison of any experiences separated by time is apples and oranges that your conjecture involves both theory and interpretation.
What you lose your thesaurus?
What theory? Point to a theory I used or pointed to or implied... Interpretation? What interpretation is there in the fact the first settlers here had no nation or state to turn to? Its not interpretive its the way it was.
I state again, the plight of the first settlers in this country (before it was a country) is not comparable to that of modern immigrants to this country. Modern immigrants have a state and federal government to appeal to, they do not fight off wildlife and native americans, they do not have to grow and hunt their own food to survive, and they have protection under the laws of this country that can be enforced rather quickly.
If a original settler had a grievance he was SOL... If his kid was eaten by a bear, tough luck... If he got his farm burnt to the ground by the local natives, sorry for that...