User loginLive Discussions
Google searchMost popular threads
Weekly Archives
Blog linksAfrican American Political Pundit |
Tip jarThe Public LibraryReality checksNews sourcesLink CollectionsDropping KnowledgeLibrary of Congress African American Odyssey Who's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 1 user and 8 guests online.
Online users
...Syndicate |
Don't think this won't produce terroristsSubmitted by Prometheus 6 on August 19, 2005 - 6:55am.
on War Quote of note:
Protesters Turn Temples Into Theaters of Struggle NEVE DEKALIM, Gaza Strip — Militant young holdouts fighting Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip made a furious last stand on the roof of a settlement synagogue Thursday, pelting riot police and soldiers with chunks of concrete and gallons of caustic fluid while troops fired back with water cannons. The confrontation at Kfar Darom was the most violent since thousands of police officers and soldiers moved into the 21 Jewish settlements in Gaza on Monday to carry out the withdrawal. More than 80 police officers and soldiers were injured and more than 100 protesters arrested. Eventually, all the holdouts were loaded, shouting and struggling, onto waiting buses. ...In polls, a majority of Israelis have backed the pullout. Despite the wrenching scenes it has produced, a survey commissioned by Israel Radio indicated that most people were satisfied with the army's work in carrying out the evacuation. But settlers, many of whom believe that God gave Gaza to the Jews, mounted months of furious protest. In recent weeks, they had been joined in Gaza by thousands of radical young supporters, most from West Bank settlements. By early Thursday, the remaining Gaza settlers were outnumbered by the outsiders as the resistance came to a head in Kfar Darom. In recent days, young protesters had outfitted the community's bunker-like synagogue for a full-on siege, laying in provisions, scattering spikes on the road and lugging in concrete blocks. As the troops moved in Thursday, a veil of thick black smoke, shouted prayers and supplications, and a scorching wind lent an apocalyptic feel to the proceedings. Youths gathered on the synagogue roof held up mirrors to try to blind the troops with reflected sunlight. Hundreds of demonstrators holed up in the building fought a battle with soldiers that lasted hours into the night. Salting the earth? I've seen interviews with settlers who said the Palestinians "don't deserve" their stuff. I'm pretty confident it wouldn't none of the settlers would have left voluntarily without that provision. "Salting the earth" is probably right. I couldn't think of a better way for Israel to begin to make amends with the Palestinians than to leave the vacated homes and buildings intact. Such a gesture would not satisfy every Palestinian but it would go some ways toward making peace with a great many of them. I suppose it would have been too much for the Clinton and Bush Administrations to have insisted that the dwellings not be destroyed despite the fact that the foreign aid the U.S. provides Israel made it possible for these settlements to be built in the first place. I guess it don't hurt unless its poker. We can observe that there have been no reported cases of actually salting the earth, despite the opportunity. The people doing the protesting are the truly hard core who have been willing to live under a permanent threat of death for a long time now. This risk, a form of sacrifice, has been rendered worthless by the pullout. These people had a lot invested. While there surely have been cases of violence, including murder, overall the emotional intensity has been severely checked by civilization. We were employing the term as a metaphor to describe the Israeli government policy of destroying the houses and buildings left by the settlers. This practice, IMHO, is akin to rubbing salt in the Palestinians wounds. It is extremely counterproductive and spiteful. The Jewish settlers are being paid by the Israeli government for the loss of their homes and other real property. There are many, many Palestinians who are in desperate need of shelter. Destroying houses that could have provided for their needs at this critical time seems pointless and mean. "The people doing the protesting are the truly hard core who have been willing to live under a permanent threat of death for a long time now. This risk, a form of sacrifice, has been rendered worthless by the pullout. These people had a lot invested." I have no sympathy for them. International law is quite clear on this policy of establishing settlements on land seized during armed conflict. war. The Israeli government's policy was not sustainable. Time and natality were not on Israel's side. BTW, once again National Public Radio devoted a great deal of time to covering the evacuation of the Jewish settlers but I don't recall that it devoted one minute of time to this policy of destroying homes and buildings. On the other hand, BBC did. Go figure. We were employing the term as a metaphor to describe the Israeli government policy of destroying the houses and buildings left by the settlers. Sure. However, the metaphor is limited by the fact that the land itself is being left to the Palestinians, with no attempt made to damage it. There is a prime opportunity for non-metaphoric salting, but that opportunity is not being exploited. In this context, I suspect that the Israeli government is doing all it can to reduce the angst of the forcibly removed settlers. Consider giving a synagogue to the Palesinians, that would seem an insult. As we've discussed, Zionism is a spectrum, and nearly every Jew shares the vision of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. A few want all of it at any cost, most find that wishful but not pragmatic. So they are sympathetic to the settlers, even while agreeing they had to be retrieved to maximize any opportunity for peace.
So the Palestinians should give thanks for having land returned to them that should not have been taken from them in the first place? Why does the angst of the settlers trump the need to place Palestinians in decent housing? What about the angst of the Palestinians who have been living in refugee camps since their homes and farms in Gaza were taken at gunpoint for the benefit of Jewish settlers? Is this a case of he who has the most guns gets the most angst? why are the houses and buildings that were left behind being destroyed by the Israeli army The Israeli guv'mint doesn't want the settelers trying to sneak back with guns and reclaim their property. You can't go back to what isn't there any more. Common sense. And the Chinese are all over Liberia taking advantage of the desperate situation there to scoop up cheap resources pennies on the dollar, or renminbi. Plus, a C.I.A. spinoff corporation is "training" Liberia's new police force(can you say death squad?). The great Race is on again...and we all would rather talk about Israel and Palestine than Liberia and Sierra Leone where our, my, cousins and ex-African-Americans live. ...and here comes Mr.P6 with the "irrelevant topic" pimp-slap...Ouch.
I'm not that bad... "The Israeli guv'mint doesn't want the settelers trying to sneak back with guns and reclaim their property. You can't go back to what isn't there any more. Common sense." It is far more likely that the Israeli government did not want to give the Palestinians a leg up in terms of developing their economy and infrastructure. Finite resources that could have been directed toward other critical areas of Palestinian need will now have to be directed toward constructing homes and other buildings that were leveled during the evacuation. All public works projects ain't equal. I wasn't aware that there was a policy or rule at this site that prevents or discourages anyone from talking about Liberia and Sierra Leone. Why don't you enlighten us? It's okay, PT. I'm bad, just not that bad. It is far more likely that the Israeli government did not want to give the Palestinians a leg up in terms of developing their economy and infrastructure. There is nothing that the Israeli government would like more than a prosperous Palestinian state on their border. It's the Palestinians who decline this offer in favor of hope of destroying the Jewish state. After watching the scenes, I was intending to add princehall's conclusion myself: empty standing buildings constructed by Jews would certainly have attracted armed Jewish squatters.
We paid for the settlements. US taxpayers footed the bill for their establishment and their dismantling. But of course there's been no discussion of this in America's "free" press. We paid for the settlements. US taxpayers footed the bill for their establishment and their dismantling. But of course there's been no discussion of this in America's "free" press. Because it's not actually true that US taxpayer money was used to construct the settlements...although one can make a case that without US taxpayer money there wouldn't have been the opportunity to use private money for that purpose. US taxpayer money may well have been used fior the evacuation. Money well spent.
They went into it on The McLaughlin Group...Pat Buchanan did, anyway.too bad the video link seems broken. And Mort Zuckerman made the rather amazing statement
The rest of that statement
is also worth noting individually.
And that's a fair question. There's no doubt that Hamas feels that their attacks on Jews caused this retreat, and thus feels that more attacks will result in more retreat. The dilemma facing Israel was that they need a way to distinguish attacks on civilians in Israel vs resistance to what appears a low speed invasion (the settlements). Attacks on the settlements have been perceived worldwide as being in some grey zone, and that greyness has cost Israel in the overall issue of the security of Israel proper. So if Hamas expects to achieve more success in forcing out settlements, they may be correct. Israel should either abandon or annex as they decide, and get it over with quickly. Afterwards the Jewish state can be expected to achieve greater unity once the settlement question is settled, and react with strengthened resolve against attacks against Israel. "Because it's not actually true that US taxpayer money was used to construct the settlements...although one can make a case that without US taxpayer money there wouldn't have been the opportunity to use private money for that purpose." Any economist worth his or her salt would tell you that that is a distinction without much of a difference. If I agreed to pay your mortgage and you used the money that you would normally use to pay your mortgage to buy a Porsche, it would be absurd for you to claim that my gift did not finance your purchase of a new car. "Attacks on the settlements have been perceived worldwide as being in some grey zone, and that greyness has cost Israel in the overall issue of the security of Israel proper." No, most of the world does not consider the attacks against the Israeli settlements in Gaza as occurring in a grey zone of judgment. There are more people in the world who would describe themselves as Muslims than there are people who would describe themselves as Christians and Jews. The attacks on the settlements may certainly carry a degree of moral ambiguity, although not because of the overused cliche regarding the loss of so-called innocent lives which implies that there were people in the settlements who deserved to be killed, but there is no "grey zone" for most of the people in the world unless Muslims don't count as people. If I agreed to pay your mortgage and you used the money that you would normally use to pay your mortgage to buy a Porsche, it would be absurd for you to claim that my gift did not finance your purchase of a new car. It's closer to you agreed to pay my mortgage because I couldn't afford it, and seeing my basic needs cared for, my children bought me an expensive bottle of wine. Without your largess, the bottle of wine is shown extravagent, but it's not as if you financed it either. No, most of the world does not consider the attacks against the Israeli settlements in Gaza as occurring in a grey zone of judgment. There are more people in the world who would describe themselves as Muslims than there are people who would describe themselves as Christians and Jews. I certainly hope that at least part of the world's Muslims do not support the murder of settlers. "I certainly hope that at least part of the world's Muslims do not support the murder of settlers." Those who have been the victims of settler-colonialism view their resistance to the genocidal practices and polices that make such invasions sustainable not as murder but as the only avenue open to them to assure their survival. "Israel should either abandon or annex as they decide, and get it over with quickly. Afterwards the Jewish state can be expected to achieve greater unity once the settlement question is settled, and react with strengthened resolve against attacks against Israel." This is the recipe for disaster they have been following. Their specious claim of someone else's land continues to destablize the region and the rest of the world. The claim is predicated on a Jewish mythology (as written in the Bible) that advocated and authorized the murder and enslavement of the Canaanites and the seizing of their territory. The historicizing of the myth took place after World War II. Ironically, an African American, Ralph Bunche, helped to legitimize this massive theft from the Palestinians. This is the recipe for disaster they have been following. Consolidating a claim to land is not a recipe for disaster, everyone moves on and deals with the new reality. Leaving the claim in doubt invites others to assert their own claim. History shows this very clearly. Misunderstanding this dynamic was a funamental error by the Chiang Kai Shek influenced government of Taiwan. Rather than asserting a claim to the island of Taiwan, and consolidating that claim, they asserted, but could not consolidate a claim to all of China, and we see where that got them, a laughable claim to China, but more importantly a clouded title to Taiwan no path to clear the title, and the threat of war. Danger arises from lack of consolidation of power. If Israel had kicked all the Palestinians out of Gaza and annexed it in 1967, that would be the reality of today. Where Israel went wrong was in allowing settlements with no real will to consolidate authority.
True...stripped of morality that's a good description of the mechanics. "It's closer to you agreed to pay my mortgage because I couldn't afford it, and seeing my basic needs cared for, my children bought me an expensive bottle of wine. Without your largess, the bottle of wine is shown extravagent, but it's not as if you financed it either." What made Israel's misguided adventure in Gaza financially feasible was the massive amounts of foreign aid the U.S. has poured into its treasury. Think of it not as a purchase of an expensive bottle of wine but, rather, upon uncorking the bottle and sampling its contents and finding it greatly to your liking asking your children to buy the winery where the wine was produced knowing all the while that the money would have to come from me. "Ironically, an African American, Ralph Bunche, helped to legitimize this massive theft from the Palestinians." What adds to he irony of the role that Dr. Bunche played in this land grab is that he fell ill one morning while accompanying Count Bernadotte Fowlke, the U.N.'s chief representative in Palestine. Later that same morning Fowlke (I think I have the spelling wrong) was assassinated while sitting in his car that had been stopped on a ruse by the Jewish terrorists known as the Irgun. If Bunche had been sitting next to Fowlke as he normally did he would have been murdered too. "Misunderstanding this dynamic was a funamental error by the Chiang Kai Shek influenced government of Taiwan. Rather than asserting a claim to the island of Taiwan, and consolidating that claim, they asserted, but could not consolidate a claim to all of China, and we see where that got them, a laughable claim to China, but more importantly a clouded title to Taiwan no path to clear the title, and the threat of war." Since the Nationalists regarded themselves as the political heirs of Sun Yat-sen and the only legitimate government of China and they were ably assisted in this grand delusion by the U.S. government the claim to represent the whole of China was the only one they could make and still expect to receive U.S. aid. There was no other claim they could make if they wanted to remain allies of the United States. It was either our way or swim back to the mainland. There was no other claim they could make if they wanted to remain allies of the United States. I'm not suggesting that the US was blameless. If however Taiwan would have claimed independence from China in any year 1950-1970, they would be recognized today as an independent country. The real point is: don't get greedy, nail down your gains. I think this analysis is what motivates Sharon.
"The real point is: don't get greedy, nail down your gains. I think this analysis is what motivates Sharon." Sharon is a butcher. Greed and bigotry are his motivations. Sharon's visit to the Dome of the Rock is what precipitated the most recent intifada. It was a calculated strategy designed to derail the fake ass "peace process," and it succeeded. Sharon has already made it clear that he plans to expand settlements on the West Bank. The Gaza pull-out enables the Sharon government to focus its efforts on illegally annexing the best land on the West Bank. "Later that same morning Fowlke (I think I have the spelling wrong) was assassinated while sitting in his car that had been stopped on a ruse by the Jewish terrorists known as the Irgun. If Bunche had been sitting next to Fowlke as he normally did he would have been murdered too." And the assassins, if I recall correctly, were led by or follwers of Menachem Begin, one of a long line of terrorists who have been elected to the office of Prime Minister in Israel. Israel has many streets and prominent buildings named after assassins and terrorists. Its government is full of them, and they are honored and valued members of the political establishment. It is not just a state-sponsor of terrorism, it epitomizes the notion of a "terrorist state." Also, remember, Israel created Hamas as a counter to the PLO. Of course they lost control of their surrogate "terrorists" and it turned its sights on them.
Hm. New data (no, I didn't know that). They thought they could manipulate Islamic fundamentalist groups by proxy, much like Reagan/Bush tried with its training and support of Bin Laden and the group that eventually emerged as al Queda. In fact, Reagan/Bush probably borrowed a page from Israel's playbook when they used this tactic. Of course Israel denies their early involvement with the creation of Hamas. But the evidence is out there mixed in with Israeli state propaganda and the usual disinformation/misinformation campaigns to mislead, deceive, and dupe the public. From a source I find trustworthy: Nothing in that story gives credence to the claim that "Israel created Hamas", nor "America created Al Qaida". It is true that history has a lot of stories of undesirable long term consequences of short term gain. Israel may well have provided financial support to the enemies of Arafat. Reagan publicly provided both financial support as well as Stinger portable anti-aircraft missles to Afghan mujahideen fighting Soviet occupation. Both of these efforts may well have had undesired long term consequences and be regretted today, but it is simply not the case that either constitute "creation" of what evolved later. Observe that in the case of the mujahideen, elements of which evolved into Al Qaida, one could equally blame the Soviet Union (for invading, then for failing to maintain control), the US (for failing to kill bin Laden, for arming the mujahideen), Islam (for providing the theocratic motivation behind the Taliban and bin Laden), drug laws (for keeping up the value of opiates), capitalism (for creating a wealthy west while most Muslims live in poverty), and on and on. And all of these things have some amount of culpability, but to point to one of them as the "creator" while ignoring the others is illogical. Whatever the story is regarding Israel and the political opponents to Arafat, we can predict that it was a complicated evolution which had many "creators". Sharon's visit to the Dome of the Rock is what precipitated the most recent intifada. It was a calculated strategy designed to derail the fake ass "peace process," and it succeeded. If a visit to the Dome of the Rock can result in the other side sending suicide bombers to attack wedding parties, any du jour peace process was indeed fake ass, and needed to be derailed as a sham. Imagine if the Israelis had gone ahead and exposed some greater weakness at that time? The damages at this time would be directly proportional to the weakness exposed. As it is, whatever peace process which may be at play today is not a sham. The Israelis know the intentions of Hamas, and will not expose any important weakness. The reduced level of violence in recent times is based on reality, not symbolism.
That visit resulted in a lot of rock throwing. The suicide bombers resulted from the rock throwers getting shot. "It is true that history has a lot of stories of undesirable long term consequences of short term gain." Your casual dismissal of the systematic disenfranchisement of a people and the theft of their homeland perfectly reflects the current thinking of the Bush/Sharon junta, especially the part about "short term gain." "Whatever the story is regarding Israel and the political opponents to Arafat, we can predict that it was a complicated evolution which had many "creators". There is nothing complicated about Israel's "creation" of Hamas and America's "creation" of al Queda except the willingness of some people to deny the facts of these corrupt governments and their long-term complicity in the formation and maintenance of "terrorist" organizations. It doesn't matter how many other players contributed to the formation of Hamas and al Queda, Israel and the US, respectively, were integral to their establishment. Who allowed the founder of Hamas, Sheikh Yasin access to Israeli media to undermine the PLO? Israel. Israel also supported Hamas in myriad other ways. Who supplied and trained the mujahadeen? The US. Those stinger missles America gave to Bin Laden and his crew proved decisive in the defeat of the Soviets in Afganistan. "If a visit to the Dome of the Rock can result in the other side sending suicide bombers to attack wedding parties, any du jour peace process was indeed fake ass, and needed to be derailed as a sham." Sharon is a mass murderer of Palestinian people. Imagine a resurrected Adolph Hitler showing up at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. You think the Jewish people wouldn't be incited to violence? "Imagine if the Israelis had gone ahead and exposed some greater weakness at that time? The damages at this time would be directly proportional to the weakness exposed. As it is, whatever peace process which may be at play today is not a sham. The Israelis know the intentions of Hamas, and will not expose any important weakness. The reduced level of violence in recent times is based on reality, not symbolism." I find the above to be at best incoherent, and at the least to function on a par with the kind of "thinking" associated with the idiot President Bush. I know you can do better DW. Calm down, take a moment to disconnect yourself from the Matrix, and consider for a moment how much propaganda you eat for breakfast every morning. Get off the Fruit Loops, my friend. They will permanently damage your brain.
That visit resulted in a lot of rock throwing. The suicide bombers resulted from the rock throwers getting shot. Both sides quickly escalated. It's not at all clear how an impartial judge could decide whether the final state of violence was a reaction to the symbolic visit of Sharon or to events during the escalation of violence. Most people recall it as being a reaction to the visit.
Most people have no sense of perspective in the temporal dimensions. To see the final state as a reaction to the initial in-your-face gesture means disregarding that escalation. That's just wrong, no matter how fast it was. Get off the Fruit Loops, my friend. They will permanently damage your brainThats why I stick to the Cap'n Crunch. That, some coffee and a pack of Newports, that is. Well, shucks, Sharon has a right to visit the Wall even if he is a military man. King David killed far more Palestinians than him. And so did the Mamlukes/Turks that built the mosque on top of David's temple there. I wonder if the provocation wasn't just an excuse/opportunity for Arafat to start a military offensive. Anyway, I remember that a Palestinian Authority police officer on a joint patrol with the IDF shot an Ethiopian-Israeli enlisted soldier point blank in his skull - even though a higher ranking (white)officer was sitting right next to him. I thought that set this whole thing off - the breakdown of joint patrols and the need/excuse to return to outright Israeli control of the checkpoints. But maybe it was the Dome of the Rock, not the dome of an unfortunate young brother. And for the partisan crowd, we lost one brother in the present Intifada. The first African-American(from the Black Hebrew/Dimona community) born in Israel was shot with an AK-47 by a Palestinian "freedom-fighter" bastard while singing at a Bat-Mitvah. I am taking up lots of space but....No. No. No! Dont blame Ralph Bunche or Andrew Young for any of this. Uh-unh. They were peace makers doing their best under very difficult circumstances.
And President Chen has a right to visit the Great Wall.
We're not discussing that Israel. It doesn't exists, hasn't for a couple millenia. Bringing in the biblical legend is irrelevant, clouds the issue and is an obvious attempt to distract.
Really? You must have been too young to understand when it happened.
If he was born in Israel, he wasn't an African-American.
Very, very difficult circumstances indeed. In 1948 when Israel was formed, Ralph Bunche was chairing the Department of Political Science at Howard University...and Andrew Young was attending as an undergrad. You aren't off-topic, but you ARE being an obvious dick. That won't last here very long. MAYBE one more day...maybe one more comment.
Well before the Hitler era, Zionists came thousands of miles to Israel is building a racial state, not a religious one. I have found Michael Neumann's article on anti-semitism to be a concentrated perspectival restorative.., possibly helpful in light of the tactical and strategic meandering of this thread precipitated by some very curious apologetics. DW, what is the basis for your uncritical support of Israeli tactics in this race war? About a year ago someone posted a question to Noam Chomsky in the znet
That's only one reflection of the extreme anti-Arab racism that is deeply rooted in American intellectual culture. IMO - this engrained attitude {unconscious?} is one principally worth discerning and addressing, lack of temporal and psychological perspective being key barriers to objectivity and conscience..., Amira Hass keeps it thankfully real in Ha'aretz..., an up to the minute topically focused breath of conscious fresh air - well worth reading in its clear entirety.
"That's only one reflection of the extreme anti-Arab racism that is deeply rooted in American intellectual culture." Lest we forget, Amuricons ain't exactly enamored of Jews either. Isn't it ironic how Jews have dominated the "anti-semitism" discourse, using such rhetoric to refer exclusively to their victimization, while blithely ignoring the fact that the term "Semite" refers equally to Arabs. DW, what is the basis for your uncritical support of Israeli tactics in this race war? I'm far from uncritical. I think they're dominated by the overhanging cloud of the holocaust, which prevents them from doing what needs to be done to win. Leaving the situation in perpetual doubt is the way to maximize casualties on both sides. To be concise, I think Israel should attack Hamas with far more firepower. The minor increase in intensity when Israel started taking out isolated Hamas targets yielded significant progress. Hamas seeks the death of all Israeli Jews, and has proven to be more than an idle threat. Hamas must be killed, not tortured and allowed to strike back.
DW, sounds like you need to run right down to the nearest Israeli army recruitment office and sign up. Isn't it ironic how Jews have dominated the "anti-semitism" discourse, using such rhetoric to refer exclusively to their victimization, while blithely ignoring the fact that the term "Semite" refers equally to Arabs. However this irony is based on evolving word definition rather than anything more deep. Widespread Anti-Jewish sentiment among Europeans has existed at least 1000 years, and the English term "anti-semitism" evolved as its descriptive name. Consider more irony: when we speak of "Asians", we tend to be ignoring Israelis, even thought they live in Asia as much as the Chinese. The investigation shows this issue to be shallow indeed, much like the anti-semitism one.
DW, sounds like you need to run right down to the nearest Israeli army recruitment office and sign up. So I can be even more frustrated by the continuation of ineffective tactics?
No, so you can singlehandedly wipe out Hamas and anyone else that threatens Israel's hegemony. "Consider more irony: when we speak of "Asians", we tend to be ignoring Israelis, even thought they live in Asia as much as the Chinese." That's because the majority of Israelis are of European ancestry. Also, and you may find this difficult to digest given your general orientation, Israel, from a cultural geography standpoint, is more a part of Africa than Asia.
What needs to be done to win DW? Genocide? Given the demographic and infrastructural realities on the ground, how long do you suppose Israel could keep its winnings? You're aware that massive depopulation by disease was the foundational basis of anglospheric colonization of the Americas. Absent that, it would've been far more difficult to simply "take over". Hebrew is also an afro-semitic language...., "Hebrew is also an afro-semitic language....," Exactly. And the origin of this language family (now called Afro-Asiatic) has been traced to East Africa, specifically Ethiopia. What needs to be done to win DW? Genocide? If you agree, as I do, that there was but one topic of genocide during WWII, the holocaust, then genocide is certainly not required. It is not required to gas Palestinians, or seek to kill them all. If you define genocide to include US behavior during WWII, then indeed that is what is required. What needs to be done is to remove all hope among the Palestinians of eliminating Israel, much as hope was removed from Germans and Japanese regarding winning WWII. This can be done with a focus upon those actually posing a threat, and a defocus upon the majority of Palestinians who may wish for the end of Israel, but wish even more for a stable, prosperous life without the constant threat of violence. However, to win a war, the primary goal must be the elimination of the threat, not some concern for nearby civilians.
You're aware that massive depopulation by disease was the foundational basis of anglospheric colonization of the Americas. Absent that, it would've been far more difficult to simply "take over". I'm aware that it was a factor, but there were two even larger factors:
Uncritical acceptance of the common mythos doesn't well serve your quest for truth. The Americas were likely the most densely populated region in the world and The military technology of the native Americans was more than up to the task of dealing with guns and steel {great interview which I encourage you to listen to} From the perspective of conquest and colonization, the only thing Europeans really had going for them was germs. In retrospect, with evolving understanding of the data upon which the most current estimates are based - an additional tip of the hat is due to European just-so-storytelling for its efficacy in obviating the temporal dimension of what preceded it in the new world. This same propaganda savvy is evident in Sharon's tactical manipulation of the media in Israel's colonial race war. Uncritical acceptance of the common mythos doesn't well serve your quest for truth. Neither does uncritical acceptance of interesting but speculative alternative theories. If it was purely the luck of the draw, Europeans were mighty lucky. I suggest that military technology and good organization has a way of creating good luck when you're out conquering. But sure, alternatives will always seem attractive.
Comments from unregistered users have to have content, not just invective. And, in fact, registered users can wind up in moderation mode when they prove they can't be trusted to hold to the standard we've set here. Which is to say your dickdom didn't even last one more comment. "That's only one reflection of the extreme anti-Arab racism that is deeply rooted in American intellectual culture." Anti-Arab racism is deeply rooted in American popular culture too. Several years ago a book, whose title I can't immediately recall, was published regarding Arab images as reflected in Hollywood films. The book's author stated that of the more than 800 films that Hollywood has produced since the 1920s containing Arab characters all of these characters were depicted in negative ways. That is, as being untrustworthy, deceitful, dishonest, unprincipled, greedy and sexually aggressive and exploitive. These stereotypical and racist depictions have continued unabated to the present day. |
|
This site best viewed with a jaundiced eye
|
||
One of the things I have found troubling and puzzling about the Jewish settlers leaving Gaza is why are the houses and buildings that were left behind being destroyed by the Israeli army? Has anyone heard or read any explanation for this action?