How can this be justified?
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
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...