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: Mani1 who wrote (3286)	9/10/2001 10:15:06 AM
From: LV	Respond to of 23908

<<I believe in self-governance of the people and not Imperialism. To me, self-government means current people of a geographical area and not race or religion.>> I agree with the idea of self-governance but only in a democratic environment where the rights of minorities are protected. But how do you protect the rights of minorities living under repressive governments? How do you deal with violent oppression of religious or racial or ethnic minority by the majority? If you would like a specific example, look at Moslems and Hindus before the partition of India. Mutually hostile populations were intermingled, and the only way to prevent bloodletting was to separate them. It would appear that you are arguing that such a solution is never acceptable. To me, that seems unreasonable.

To: Mani1 who wrote (3286)	9/10/2001 11:36:12 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 23908

To me, self-government means current people of a geographical area and not race or religion. Mani, who sets up your geographic areas, a convention of cartographers? If you remove the cultural constructs of race, religion and ethnic identity (closely bound up with race and religion), you have removed most of the reasons that people bind themselves to other people as part of a nation. Nationhood is an idea, not a location. National locations change throughout the years (as the boundaries of Persia/Iran have done) while race, religion, and ethnicity remain relatively stable (compared to boundaries). When new nationalities arise, they depend on the idea, not the location. Fifty years ago there was no idea of Palestinianism. (That's why the Arab leadership in Palestine skedaddled to Cairo and Damascus instead of leading an organized resistance in 1948). Now there is one. But it is not based on the borders of where the Palestinians are now, but on the idea of where they used to be (and, I might add, in reaction to their terrible treatment from their fellow Arabs). In this, they've become just like the Jews.