Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List Edit Profile Register  
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Archive through April 10, 2002

Sepulchritude Forum » The Absinthe Forum Archive thru June 2002 » Archive Thru April 2002 » Solution to the Middle East Problem » Archive through April 10, 2002 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Posted on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 12:56 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Has there ever been any case of white Europeans failing to take over a far away land because of they had no resistance to the diseases of the indigenous people?

I often wondered why it seemed to always be indigenous people falling suseptible to European diseases and never the other way round. Was it that white Europeans were just dirty, disease ridden bastards with poor hygiene and hence carrying a disproportionate load of diseases than there fellow man and therefore an inbuilt strong resistance to these diseases? Judging by the lack of frequency of washing themselves (up until even the early part of the 20th century) I guess this probably had something to do with it.

Posted on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 7:34 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

In South America, vassals to the Incas quickly became vassals to the Spanish. Think Central Europe: first the Nazis, then the Soviets.

Here’s a macabre tale: Pizarro, the conqueror of Peru, orders his 50 year-old lieutenant, Diego de Almagro, to explore Chile. Almagro goes south with a few soldiers and horses and along the way collects and drags along thousands of Aymara Indians. They cross the high plains of the Andes, a brutal winter hits, and thousands of Aymaras freeze to death. Almagro takes a quick look at Chile, finds little that attracts him, and turns back. Passing through the same, still-frozen high plains, Almagro and his men make crude, log-style shelters out of the stiff corpses of Indians.

Can anyone wonder why the literature of “magical realism” originated in South America? The region’s history is surreal.
Posted on Tuesday, April 9, 2002 - 6:25 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Although, especially in Florida Mexico, and Central America the Indians had too much war going on- so they would sell out their enemies to the Conquistadors.

Other places they would be threatened with death if they didn't tell the bastards where to find the riches.

In those cases, the Indians would often lead them astray and away from their own lands. When their deceptions were discovered they were of course killed, but they died with honor and got a good bit of glory too.

One guy led his group about 700 miles out of their way, and it took about 3 years to do it too. Always the fabled riches were just over that hill...

I seem to remember that particular outfit ended up with like 7 soldiers making it home, out of about 900 that started the campaign.

Posted on Tuesday, April 9, 2002 - 5:32 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Oh, the germs were important, no doubt, and probably moreso in the early days you are talking about, when the population, organization and supply lines were not in the Europeans' favor. You'll notice that during the early period, tho, the Europeans were a lot more careful about not pissing the Indians off...
Posted on Tuesday, April 9, 2002 - 2:41 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Sure, there was the technology, but I don't think it could have been done at all without the germs.

Obsidian arrowheads go right through plate armor.

Organizationally, for awhile there, the indians had it over the Europeans (before the chaos destabilized thier societies and communications channels.) You could get trade goods from Alaska, Mexico, and all points between where I live in PA.

The Europeans had little pallisaded settlements and waited for the boat to bring them food and mail from home.
Posted on Tuesday, April 9, 2002 - 1:25 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Well, there was also the matter of superior technology and organization, the fact that there was a lot of room to "push" them into and the fact that the Europeans quickly managed to outnumber them.

Even then, it wasn't easy. See Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel".
Posted on Tuesday, April 9, 2002 - 12:36 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

The American Indians were not defeated by booze and gambling.

It was smallpox, and a host of other diseases. Many entire cultures ceased to exist because everyone was dead of the plague before they had ever come into direct contact with a European.

This was actively used by Grant, who had smallpox infested blankets sent especially to an Indian refugee camp.
Posted on Tuesday, April 9, 2002 - 11:38 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Indeed, one could make a strong argument that opposition to Isreal's excessive use of force is a PRO-Israel position, because the longer Israel keeps this up, the greater the hostility towards her is going to become. If Israel wants to stop the attacks against her, she needs to make friends, not enemies. Remember, the radical Islamists are deliberately provoking Israel into violent retaliation. Do you think they would do this if they didn't think Israel was hurting its own cause? The people resoponsible for the recent bombings are trying to undermine Arafat, because Arafat is willing to comprimise. If Israel renders Arafat "irrelevent", who are they going to make peace with, Hammas? Unlikely.
Posted on Tuesday, April 9, 2002 - 10:17 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

This Day in Rotten History:

Apr 9 1948

Jewish terror groups Irgun and Lehi massacre Arab villagers of Deir Yassin located on Jerusalem-Tel Aviv road. News of massacre creates panic among other Palestinians, who flee former mandatory Palestine at onset of first Arab-Israeli war.
Posted on Tuesday, April 9, 2002 - 10:04 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Well fuck you too Arj.

There is nothing anti-Semitic in what I have said. My stance has always been that the Palestinians have a right to their own viable state which should co-exist with Israel and also that the Palestinian refugees sould be allowed to return to the land where they were born. I believe that a Palestinian who was born in what is now Israel has as much right to live there as a Jew who was born there. And this makes me anti-Semitic in your eyes. Bollocks then this makes a lot of moderate Israelis and Jews anti-Semitic also.

You on the other hand believe it is perfectly justifiable to drive Palestinian civilians out of their homes, off their land and out of their country in order to give their land to people who are Jewish. But of course you are not anti-Islamic or even anti-Palesinian.

Israel cannot simply pretend that the fate of the Palestinian refugees is not her problem and that they have no right to return. Israel caused the plight of these million of refugees, Israel has a duty to solve their plight. Israel cannot have its cake and eat it. It was Israeli action that forced these people to become unwilling refugees. Israel is obliged under UN conventions to let these people return home.

I am not and have never been anti-Semitic (anti-Zionist yes). The two things are verry different. Zionism, Israel and Judaism are not all synonomous. But you probably know this anyway and use the dreaded smear of anti-Semitism against those who do not think that Israel has every right to act exactly as it wishes to whoever it wishes for the sake of what Zionists see as Israel.

(Oh and in Ireland all those who were born in Northern Ireland have the right to live there and the equal right to vote there. There are no refugee camps crammed full of Catholics along the border with the Irish Republic. West Belfast is not sealed of from the eyes of the world and there are no helicopter gunships firing down on the Falls Road)
Posted on Tuesday, April 9, 2002 - 7:26 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

How eloquent Lord Leprechaun. Spoken like true anti-semitic pseudo-intellectual Euro-trash. Israel should fight for its existence recognizing the threat is not just Arab thugs who admit they want to destroy Israel with violence, but half-edjumacated graduates of Western clown colleges such as yourself who want to destroy the country with "ideals" that are just opinions, and which won't work in that region at this time. You Euros pull together for a decade of peace and think the rest of the world is primitive for not doing the same. Guess what, you people were at each others' throats for most of this century (and the Irish still aren't beyond religious animosity), and the nation-state with its biases likewise lives on in the Middle East. Israel has a right to exist within that hostile system. So you want to see Israel destroyed. I get your point. I want to see two states living peacefully side by side as good neighbors, not mixed together more than they are today. Dumping 3.7 million more Arabs into Israel is not going to bring lasting peace, which is my hope, if not yours. Our arguments have been fully briefed, and the reader can make his or her assessments. I've nothing more to discuss with you.
Posted on Monday, April 8, 2002 - 3:40 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

From about 1530 until 1600, the Spaniards in colonial Chile tried to defeat the indigenous Mapuches, then gave up and left them alone for 280 years. No one could vanquish the Mapuches, not even the Incas. Fierce doesn't begin to describe them.
Posted on Monday, April 8, 2002 - 3:29 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"we just had the good fortune that the people who's land we wanted had a predeliction for alcohol and gambling"

um, i don't know the history that well, but i would suspect the alcohol and gambling came over on the boat with "us".
Posted on Monday, April 8, 2002 - 3:15 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

The Palestinian / Israeli problem is not too dissimilar than when the Europeans came to America - we just had the good fortune that the people who's land we wanted had a predeliction for alcohol and gambling. Imagine what we would have done if Geronimo had strapped a bunch of explosives to a 12 year Native American kid and sent him to New York.
Posted on Monday, April 8, 2002 - 1:30 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Oh let's be fair. It's not ust the Muslims and Jews. Hindus do it, Christians do it, even educated Druze do it...

The only long-term slutions are, alas, long-term, which is to say that the killing will end slowly if education and sustainable economic development are encouraged, because these are the foundations upon which just governments must be built. However, it is a tough row to hoe convincing people to focus on these things when stuff is blowing up around them. The Palestinians, to their credit, seem to understand the value of education, at least. They have the highest per-capita of college graduates in the Middle East.

Check out the Aga Khan Development Network. AKIV kicks ass, and deserves a lot more attention as an exeplar of Islam and humanity than he gets.
Posted on Monday, April 8, 2002 - 1:11 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

The cultural values both peoples hold are the true problem.

That's why I don't have a good solution- because, in that part of the world, what they are doing is natural and acceptable. Unless it's being done to you, in which case you plan for revenge- a cultural value in both Arab and Jewish peoples.

An eye for an eye.

The man who wrote that- he was blind before the eye poking even started.
Posted on Monday, April 8, 2002 - 11:55 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Incidentally, the "into the sea" remark, attributed to Egyptian President Nasser, has never been substantiated. In fact, the British High Court (after a British MP offered £5,000 to anyone who could confirm the quote) ruled in 1976 that there was no evidence that any Arab leader had made a public statement which could be viewed as genocidal.

The continuation of this myth is especially sad when you consider that in 1948, scores of Palstinians were drowned when they attempted to flee Jaffa, only to have their exit by land cut off by Zionst forces. Tens of thousands were forced to flee by boat, literally forced into the sea.
Posted on Monday, April 8, 2002 - 11:49 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

and what exactly is "cleansing" about "Ethnic cleansing"?
Posted on Monday, April 8, 2002 - 11:35 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


As for ethnic cleansing, the Israelis have never had that as a goal, while the Arabs have since 1948 vowed to push the Jews into the sea.


David Ben Gurion:

"With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it."

"There are two issues here : 1) sovereignty and 2) the removal of a certain number of Arabs, and we must insist on both of them.""

"It is impossible to imagine general evacuation without compulsion, and brutal compulsion."

"[Palestinian Arab] villages inside the Jewish state that resist 'should be destroyed .... and their inhabitants expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state.' Meanwhile, 'Palestinian residents of the urban quarters which dominate access to or egress from towns should be EXPELLED beyond the borders of the Jewish state in the event of their resistance.' "

Menachem Ussishkin:

"We cannot start the Jewish state with .... half the population being Arab . . . Such a state cannot survive even half an hour. [Expulsion] is most moral ..... I am ready to come an defend ... it before the Almighty."

"Therefore I would say to the [Peel] Commission and the government that we would not accept reduced Land of Israel without you giving us the land, on the one hand, and REMOVING the largest number of [Palestinian] Arabs-particularly the peasants- on the other before we come forward to take the reins of government in our lands even provisionally."

Hahman Syrkin:

"Palestine thinly populated, in which the Jews constituted today 10 percent of the population, must be evacuated for the Jews."

I've got plenty more where that came from, but my intention is NOT to portray the Israelis as desiring to wipe out or drive away the Plestininas, but to show that the fact that just because some Palestinians have expressed the desire to drive out the Israelis, it doesn not mean that this is the goal of the entire people.

Oh, and on the subject of democracy, here's a little number from the Zionist Organization of London, published around 1919:

"Democracy in American too commonly means MAJORITY RULE without regard to diversities of types or stages of civilization or differences of quality. Democracy in that sense has been called the melting pot in which that quantitatively lesser is assimilated into quantitatively greater. This doubtless is natural in America, and works on the whole very well. But if American idea were applied as an American administration might apply it to Palestine, what would happen? The numerical majority in Palestine today is [Palestinian] Arab, not Jewish. Qualitatively, it is a simple fact that the Jews are now predominant in Palestine, and given proper conditions they will be predominant quantitatively also in a generation or two. But if the crude arithmetical conception of democracy were to be applied now, or at some early stage in the future to Palestinian conditions, the majority that would rule would be the Arab majority, and the task of establishing and developing a great Jewish Palestine would be infinitely more difficult."
Posted on Monday, April 8, 2002 - 10:57 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


You say it's not ethnic cleansing but your idea of a democratic state is a democratic state with no Palestinians allowed. You push the Palestinian civilians who lived in what is now Israel out of Israel and into a no-mans land and say you'll never let them back. What is this if not ethnic cleansing? You say Israel needs a Jewish majority to survive. That is not democracy, that is a rigged democracy. That's about as democratic as saying South Africa needed to be controlled by Whites to survive. Democracy should treat all men (and women) as equal and not discriminate. You don't want to let the civilians the Israelis forced out of Israel because you're afraid that what you want is not what they want.

That is what it is all about isn't it, you want the Palestinian civilians that Israel actively forced out of Israel to get the fuck out and stay the fuck out. All you want is for them to fuck off over the border to Jordan or anywhere else for that matter, you don't care. They're not Jewish so you don't want them in Israel. That is what Sharon wants also. It's a war against Palestinian civilians an the only peace you want is for them to fuck away off from the land in which they were born and by rights should be alowed to live. You won't let them back no matter what you don't want them to have their own state, you just want all Palestinian civilians to fuck off and if they don't go of their own accord you'll use wepons to make them go. That is Zionist racism and I'm just glad that not all Israelis or Jews take the same stance.

Posted on Monday, April 8, 2002 - 7:56 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Some people manipulate their will to power brilliantly; but once they have that power, they're cornered and torn to pieces.

Yassir Arafat, meet Chile's late Salvador Allende. A two-time loser in presidential elections, the Socialist Allende simply never gave up, forging alliances with the revolutionary far left while placating center left groups with promises of a mild-mannered, constitutionalist "Chilean way to Socialism". The result was a victorious 34% "majority" in 1970's three-way presidential election, LESS votes than Allende received in the two-way 1964 election, when he LOST to a Christian Democrat, Eduardo Frei.

Allende was torn apart by his "friends" as well as his enemies. Too leftist for the center, not leftist enough for the Marxists, Allende attempted -- incompetently -- to play the two groups against each other. Meanwhile, the center right and far right, with U.S. backing, waged a cold war on Allende's regime. The less well-equipped far left, aided by Cuba, made their own share of kidnappings, bombings and assasinations. Both groups included terrorist organizations: "Patria y Libertad" (far right) and "MIR" (far left). In a climate of increasing fear and distrust, the military finally clamped down (at first with the support of about half the population). Ariel Sharon, meet General Augusto Pinochet.

An exact analogy? Not at all. My point simply is that the Allendes and Arafats of this world make the Pinochets and Sharons smell blood. Too bad the former two got the brass ring they wished for. They couldn't handle it.
Posted on Monday, April 8, 2002 - 6:15 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

No Hobgoblin, I'm not advocating forcing anyone out of their homes. The population exchange is a fait accompli, and your solution of returning more Palestinians to live amongst Israelis in Israel would cause more problems rather than solve them. If Palestinians want to return to a new Palestinian state, fine. We'll see if they can produce a democracy, as Israel has.

As for ethnic cleansing, the Israelis have never had that as a goal, while the Arabs have since 1948 vowed to push the Jews into the sea. In 1948, the Israelis would have been all too happy to live beside a Palestinian state as called for by the UN. But the Arab nations wanted it all and attacked. I'd like to see you criticize that, but perhaps that's too much to expect. Your throwing around these words racist and fascist is so typical. The last refuge of scoundrels. The entire world is not capable of a peaceful mutiracial society as is the U.S. Sometimes, in the real world, good fences make good neighbors. And yes, according to the UN charter, states may go to war against people who are trying to destroy them.
Posted on Monday, April 8, 2002 - 4:35 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Actually, now I think of it, have you ever tried Hobgoblin beer, its not bad at all.
Posted on Monday, April 8, 2002 - 4:34 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Theres a fuck off Bagel shop on Brick Lane, damn they do a hot salt beef bagel to die for.

The kosher sausage rolls arent bad either :P
Posted on Monday, April 8, 2002 - 1:34 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


If you're in London then do look me up, I've never tasted Kosher beer (I'd like to) but I do like Bagels.


Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page