SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (156611)1/19/2005 3:29:28 PM
From: neolib  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
The effect was displacement. It wasn't colonial because Israel is not a colony.

Ok, you win on that. I was using colony to mean taking over an area and controlling it. Perhaps conquest is more accurate.

Your basic premise is that if Europeans displace Asians, this equals colonialization and is utterly unacceptable. However, if Asians displace Asians, they may displace and ethnically clear to their hearts content; different rules for them.

I don't say that at all. When any ethnic group displaces another ethnic group and expropriates the land for themselves, they are engaging in conquest (or colonialization?). When Sunnis do it to Kurds, same thing. When one tribe in Africa does it to another tribe (which I dare say you could not tell apart visually!) I consider it wrong as well.

The book The Washing of the Spears, by Donald R. Morris is an excellent history of the Zulu nation. The slaughter of 2M Bantu's occurred just prior to the arrival of whites on the scene. No one blames the Boers for this. The Boers and the British did subsequently lock horns with the Zulus, to the great detriment of the latter. But the deaths in those wars were far less. The Bantu people in general lost most of their land to the whites however.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext