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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (2726)	2/12/2004 8:14:14 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

Other then their ability to assimilate into a large, rich, powerful, democratic, and relatively free country, they got a worse deal then what is on offer for the Palestinians. They (the Indians/Native Americans) got a tiny fraction of the land not a big chunk even though their opposition had less desperate need for the land. They where slaughtered more indiscriminately even if you exclude the effects of disease. They didn't get independence and international recognition but instead where placed under the control of the conquering power. They where forced into often small areas of land far from their original homes often far enough to have a different climate. Do you think the Palestinians would be willing to accept such a deal? I don't. "Actually if you go back further like every country in the world from the people who controlled it previously. Are we all going to state blowing up busses and pizza places and discos?" Yes, in fact, that's usually what happens when one group or country takes land from another group or country. Evidence of that can be seen all throughout history. A modern example is Chechnya. No actually it isn't what usually happens. More frequently throughout history the conquered people where wiped out or pushed away or beaten down until they could not resist. Of course through most of history their was no explosives for suicide bombers but typically the people did not resort to terrorism or even notice much difference between the new set of distant abusive overlords and the old. And as nomadic hunters they had a large range that was theirs to use. We moved in and took it away. And we paid extensive reparations. Why should the Israelis not pay reparations to the Palestinians? The reparations are pathetic compared to the amount of land. Actually we didn't directly pay reparations. Sometimes we paid for the land (usually peanuts for it), we also have a federal bureaucracy that gives them money supposedly to help them but that gets in the way and causes as much problem as it solves. Under certain treaties and old laws we allowed many of them to run casinos but I wouldn't call that reparations. The Jews frequently did pay for land when the moved in to Israel/Palestine, sometimes more then once, as they had to pay off alternate claimants to the land. I'm sure they would be happy to let the Palestinians run casinos and I doubt the Palestinians would want an Israel bureaucracy over them that was anything like the Buero of Indian affairs even if it did give subsidies and help build infrastructure. Right now, Israel is "a Jewish controlled state" And the only way Palestinians would want to assimilate in to it (if Israel let them) would be to make it a "non Jewish controlled state", they wouldn't want to be part of a Jewish controlled state. The Indians on the other hand did become part of a state controlled by the people who moved in and took their land and they still do not exert any strong control over the state and they probably never will. However generally Indians have done best by assimilating into to the society of the "invaders". Those who staid on the reservations have not done as well and even they are somewhat assimilated. Tim