How can this be justified?

Jeff Bone
Tue, 02 Oct 2001 14:01:47 -0500

Up front:  Paul brings up several different very good points that I haven't
addressed --- however:  not having addressed them does not imply anything about my
position.  Try as I might, writing the infinitely-comprehensive e-mail has been an
unachievable task to date. ;-)  Onward...

Paul Prescod wrote:

> 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 never stated whether I doubted or believed this, and am unclear on its relevance
to the points I've made.

> Jeff: open your eyes! Most of the world is segmented along ethnic
> boundaries. What do you think the war in Kosovo was about? It was about
> giving Kosovars an unofficial, not-quite-soverighn homeland because they
> were abused by the ethnic majority. What was Rwanda about?

This only underscores my point:  the notion of segregated homelands is a dangerous

> > For that matter, why do the Jews need a "homeland"?  Why does anyone need a
> > "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 cannot
> protect ethnic minorities in most parts of the world. It would be
> wonderful if they could. But they can't.

This doesn't answer my question:  *why does anyone need a "homeland" in this day
and age?*  I'm not unaware of Cyprus, etc.  Quite the contrary:  I'm suggesting
that all of these things share a common memetic disease, the notion that
segregation is desirable and homelands necessary.

> > ... 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 secular
> country.

Well....  (a) Good point, and it wasn't my intent to suggest that either side is
innocent or even occupies any sort of moral high ground, but (b) "apartheid" is in
fact a part of the issue, as evidenced by the recent UN Conf. on Race Relations
which we (the US) pissed all over.

> I would presume that the Navajo nation "owns" reserve
> land that is essentially segregated as other first nations groups do.

Have you ever been on the res, Paul?  It's an informative experience...