Tue, 02 Oct 2001 12:08:43 -0800
Some of this is so fleeping ignorant I just had to respond.
Jeff Bone wrote:
> To illustrate just how pea-brained this is, let's substitute a few
> such: Israeli <-- American, Arab <-- "Black", Jewishs <-- "White."
> "Now if you were an White American, would you feel comfortable
> kids or grandkids might live in a mostly-Black state...?"
> Welcome to Idaho. (Thanks, but no thanks.)
Paul said :
>Whites and blacks are about fifty years ahead in race >relations in
>America. Why do you think that civil rights was such a >slow process?
>just because social change is slow. It was also to >give black people a
>chance to integrate into American society.
This is ill. In a few brief sentences you managed to dredge up the very
tired, dull and ignorant view that blacks are somehow inferior. Did
you ever possibly think that maybe it took so damn long because you had
enough white folks who were just too plain scared to allow blacks to
'integrate' in the first place? Segregating the educational system,
denying freedoms.. these take their tolls. Blacks had been living on
this continent almost as long as the Europeans had been inhabiting it...
I'm sure that they had fine minds when it came to aclimating and
dealing with society.
The civil >rights movement was
>mostly non-violent and I believe it succeeded >precisely because white
>people looked at black people taking blows and showing >self-restraint
>and they said sub-consciously: "those people are ready >to be part of
Right.. because before the entire lot of black folks was just a teeming
hoard of gorilla people who would scream through the yard and bludgeon
whitey. No. There was a lot of change going on.. on both sides. Black
people started taking less (while that doesn't necessarily mean they
broke out into violence, it does mean that there was more assertiveness)
and white people started figuring out that hey, these folks are human.
They moved on. You should too.
Nevertheless, you are in fantasyland if you doubt that immigration laws
are set up to allow people with other cultural backgrounds in only at
the rate that they can be "assimilated" into American culture.
I don't remember reading that he said that ... IN FACt, the mix between
assimilation and cultural heritage is what makes this a pretty damn sexy
>Economically it would probably be best to "open the >floodgates" and
>in many more people.
>> Now, we get all up in arms whenever anyone else in the world pulls
>> of crap, why do we let the Israelis get away with it, indeed, support
>> in doing so?
>Jeff: open your eyes! Most of the world is segmented >along ethnic
>boundaries. What do you think the war in Kosovo was >about?
Oil. Pipelines and control.
It was about
>giving Kosovars an unofficial, not-quite-soverighn >homeland because
>were abused by the ethnic majority.
Right. And they have that now. Mmmhm.
>What was Rwanda about?
IT seemed like it was about us sitting back and watching slaughter.
>If you were an Israeli would you "trust" that Rwanda >could never
>in Israel? Would you have faith that the governmental >systems are so
>robust that they could never be corrupted even by >people who hate Jews
>and Jewish culture and have no democratic tradition?
Perhaps you can't. But I think there's still a lot more logic in the
sensible secular government idea thrown around by Russell /Jeff than
having a discriminatory system that is apparently and obviously NOT
>Germany was a democracy and probably "color-blind" >also.
When? Maybe my history on germany sucks... pre-hitler I don't remember
>> For that matter, why do the Jews need a "homeland"? Why does anyone
>> "homeland" in this day and age?
>What day and age are you living in, Jeff? One without >Cyprus, Northern
>Ireland, Rwanda, Kosovo and a hundred other ethic >wars? Mere laws
>protect ethnic minorities in most parts of the world. >It would be
>wonderful if they could. But they can't.
And I guess the US is just a failed experiment at that cause too eh?
>> ... Do the Irish practice apartheid?
>Apartheid is not really the issue. (that's the point) >Neither side in
>the Israel/Palestine claims that apartheid is the >issue. It isn't even
>on the negotiating table. Neither side wants to live >in a shared
But apartheid is the issue if that is what is being practiced, said or
unsaid. By regulating, and segregating (as numerous examples on FoRK
have brought up (most notably the NYT email ) there is a ethic/religious
apartheid going on. ITs evident. Whether its on the negotiating table
or not doesn't make for a hill of beans. The practice still prevails.
ITs equivalent to saying that all those years that S. Africa practiced
apartheid, that it didn't really matter until they discussed it.