Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chalu2 who wrote (2712)	8/12/2001 11:33:05 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 23908

chalu2, I have been reading an interesting book that might interest you too: Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. It attempts to answer the question: why did Europe conquer the rest of the world, rather than the other way about? Why did Amerinds die of European diseases, and not the other way around? Jared Diamond's answer in a nutshell, is, Eurasians got the lucky draw in flora, fauna and goegraphical alignment. I found his arguments interesting: amazon.com Getting back to the Israeli/Palestinian question, why do you give all your sympathy to the Palestinians? In fact, let me turn your whole analogy around, and you can tell me what you think of it. If your moral currency is strong continuous attachment to land on which your ancestors were conquered or driven out by force centuries ago, the Jews yield second place to no one in this line of thinking. Just write in "Israel" for "Wyoming" (I don't know the Arapaho name of your ancestral lands), "Jews" for "Arapaho", and "Romans" and "Arabs", for "white settlers". Is it only that the Israelis have succeeded in re-establishing Jewish autonomy on their ancestral lands, and are the stronger party now? Is that why your sympathy is all with the Palestinians? Consider the following analogy: If the Arapaho succeeded in reclaiming their ancestral lands by purchase or conquest, would you not have your own "Palestinian" problem in dealing with the white settlers you had conquered or displaced? If you had to fight off repeated attempts by the U.S.A. to retake your newly autonomous Arapaho lands, would that not necessarily color your relations to the white settlers who remained on your land? If during the course of your struggle to retain autonomy, the white ranchers on your lands changed their self-identification from "Americans" to "Citizens of Occupied Wyoming" (as the Palestinians have changed from "Arabs" to "Palestinians" during the last 40 years), and demanded an independent country of their own, to be taken from land under your control, how would you regard their claims?

To: chalu2 who wrote (2712)	8/13/2001 4:50:41 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Respond to of 23908

Re: This land was taken illegally, under any just definition. Unfortunately, the US did the job the Israelis fear doing by completely decimating us in numbers, robbing us of our languages and traditions, and creating myths about how we had no concepts of land ownership and deserved conquest as bloodthirsty savages (Anyone who wants savagery can read the diaries of Columbus in the original--you'd think you are reading Mein Kampf, or an account of atrocities at Auschwitz!). Might makes right, I guess, and the victors write the history. Might makes right indeed.... And that's why Israel is still the tiny strip of land along the Mediterranean it was in 1948 when the Western powers allowed its creation. Likewise, if you Indians had the same (geo-)political clout and technological access as today's Arabs, then the USA would still be circumscribed to the Founding Fathers's 13 Eastern colonies... () It's not a matter of "Israel fears to crush the natives". It's just that they can't afford to do it (full-scale)! Muslim peoples comprise much more than a few tribes scattered across a wilderness of plains and forests... They number hundreds of millions, stretching from Morocco to Indonesia, not to mention Muslim minorities within European metropoles. And, last but not least, they are key suppliers of oil&gas products. Bottom line: you don't want to mess with that sort of "Indians"... Gus. () timepage.org

To: chalu2 who wrote (2712)	8/14/2001 3:22:26 PM
From: Thomas M.	Respond to of 23908

had no concepts of land ownership This is true, but it is not a knock on Indians. In fact, I consider it to be an aspect of their society that was superior to ours, in a moral sense. They respected the land as something they are blessed to live on, rather than the idea that the land is blessed by human presence. Regardless, this characterization is in no way a justification for taking their land. and deserved conquest as bloodthirsty savages This characterization might be true, relative to European settlers at the time. However, once again, this does not justify taking the Indians' land. Tom