Berry said:
Whether a certain group "owns" a land or not, it has always been defined by the whitemen. So what makes you think it'll prevent them from defining something which is in favor of them?
What gives them the right to define something and not the black people?
What about Africa, divided up into various dominions by Africans, most notably in what is now Zaire and Swasiland. How about India? A highly sophisticated system of ownership and rule. Under various princes and Raj's. China? The uniting of China under a single dynasty and the building a huge fucking wall. Sound like defined property to anyone?
Ownership has been in existence since their were more than one person living in one place, eg this is my club that is your spear etc etc.
Reports are widespread = fact. Have you ever heard the saying the plural of anecdote is not fact.... If we were to follow your line of reasoning then equally validly there is no torture and evrryone is much happier, entirely logical given how widepsread the reporting of this was especially in the early days of the operation.
Oh great all powerful and wise Berry, what is it that defines internationally competitive? Please educate us backward creatures? Could international competitiveness be seen by CAD/Balance of payments of a country operating without protection? Would exports be a good measure? Could it be tough microeconomic reform that resulted in structural unemployment?
Omg Berry you're so smart you have the intellectual equivalent of hot pants on right now you understood the special theory of relativity at 10. Einstein grappeled with it for years. That means your IQ must be in the two-hundreds (which is evident in all your posts). How long was it before you taught yourself calculus based entirely on a 14second advertisement for pump-rockets?
Berry said:
But as long as it's been proven that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then it has been effectively "proven".
So now you contradict yourself? Just before proof was widespread reports now it is conviction in a court of law what next? you might suggest that proof has a link to evidence. Given your new expanded definition of proof you're talking out of you arse as nobody has been convicted in regards to G. Bay.