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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (159361)	3/21/2005 12:00:17 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Difference with Africa was that brits were not attracted to colonising so much there, settling in large enough numbers to form significant proportion of the population .... they just administered it, maybe made a few quid and went home, for the most part ... your homeland and Zuidafrika being exceptions, to an extent, but still not near enough to form even a sizable minority Thats a point, but the natives were getting around to kicking the brits out in E. Africa about the time the Jews would have been moving in. So I doubt they would have taken kindly to the UN or anyone else pushing such a thing. The problem is that by the mid 1900's bulk migrations to set up ethnic countries was no longer acceptable. Plenty of it happened earlier. Regrading Africans, I think they are one of the great winners in the redistribution of peoples during the last few 100 years. Not only did they retain their homelands, but their genes have done quite well elsewhere, particularly the Americas. And this was accomplished totally in the underdog state. An amassing story IMO.