| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
 |
|
The F.O is supposedly pro-Arab, pro-Catholic and pro-Europe....
Not particularly popular causes.....
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
As you know, our rules forbid opposition to a member advancing a novel theory so I'll try to sum up Ishmael's new take on when it is correct to occupy other people's land. As I understand it -- he will fill and thrill in due course -- the basics are
1. It has to be somewhere nobody's ever heard of eg Prince Edward Island, the Holy Land, England etc
2. It has to be small(ish) eg Prince Edward Island, the Holy Land, England etc
3. It has to be described by a visiting American humourist fifty years before as 'a wasteland' e.g. Mark Twain, T S Elliot etc. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | Mark Twain traveled to the so-called Holy Land in the late 19th century. He records what he saw in his book Innocents Abroad. His report? A naked wasteland, sparsely populated by the most disadvantaged wretches he had ever encountered. |
He could have come to many parts of Lancashire, Yorkshire, Durham and Northumberland and said exactly the same thing.
I suspect there's a point to what you're saying, but I'm feeling especially obtuse this evening. Pray tell.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Boreades wrote: | | He could have come to many parts of Lancashire, Yorkshire, Durham and Northumberland and said exactly the same thing.. |
No. He could not have. Twain was well-traveled. I have read all of his travel books. His description of what he found in the middle-east is without comparison.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | ...other people's land.... |
I am unfamiliar with this term.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | His description of what he found in the middle-east is without comparison. |
As I said, I'm feeling obtuse. Please can you let us know what its relevance is?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
...other people's land....
I am unfamiliar with this term. |
Yes, it's a bit technical, I agree, so let me sketch it out for you. The area in question had been occupied by Arabs since at least the eighth century AD. Not necessarily Muslim, but various Christian (and other) sects. Suzerainty belonged at various times to Arab, Kurdish, Frankish and latterly Turkish regimes, latterly of all (from about the fourteenth century) to Ottoman Turks.
Individual land ownership in the legal sense of tenure was pretty mixed (and not necessarily well researched, especially by me) but the general position with all regimes would be a mixture of traditional and documented entitlement with parcels of land being assigned both to individuals and 'magnates' -- the latter including village headmen acting on behalf of everyone else. In the more mountainous districts a wider clan system -- eg the Druze --was in operation, with communal ownership of pretty much everything.
All this ended in 1918....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | The area in question had been occupied by Arabs |
What is an Arab? They're all one group in possession of collective ownership of Palestine are they?
That territory was owned by the Ottoman Empire prior to it being under British control. Were the Ottomans stealing it from the "Arabs?" Were the British stealing it from the "Arabs?"
Not "Arabs."
| Individual land ownership in the legal sense of tenure was pretty mixed... |
Among that mix. Jews. Increasingly among the mix over time. In the "legal sense," as you put it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I had no idea you were going to bring such interesting questions to the table, Ishmael. You are normally a bit predictable on politics. Congrats. I'll have to break off my disquisition and join you in these challenging speculations.
Ironic since Palestinians (and increasingly Jewish-Israelis fed up with the next lot turning up claiming to be so) are often asking Who is a Jew? I suppose it would be 'one who speaks Arabic' though Arabic is itself a fairly broad church.
| They're all one group in possession of collective ownership of Palestine are they? |
This is indeed the key question since no group of people have ever collectively been in ownership of any parcel of land anywhere in the world since human beings have been in existence. Phew, what a can of worms!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | They're all one group in possession of collective ownership of Palestine are they? |
This is indeed the key question since no group of people have ever collectively been in ownership of any parcel of land anywhere in the world since human beings have been in existence. |
| ...other people's land.... |
I am unfamiliar with this term.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
. ..other people's land....
I am unfamiliar with this term. |
It's woolly but graspable. Arabs and Russians own much of "the land" around where I live. That does not mean that Arabs and Russians own "the land of Kensington & Chelsea". Even if they bought up every house in the borough, they still wouldn't. As I said, nobody does. The nearest thing we have to such a concept is that The Queen (or rather 'the Crown') owns the entire foreshore of England -- meaning there can be no private beaches, to the great benefit of all.
Individual land ownership in the legal sense of tenure was pretty mixed...
Among that mix. Jews. Increasingly among the mix over time. In the "legal sense," as you put it. |
Exactly so. Under the British Mandate lots of Jews bought lots of land and the British, as per the Balfour Declaration, were happy for them to do so. The Arabs less so because a) they didn't want the Jews to form a majority when the British eventually granted independence under one-man-one-vote but mainly because b) Arab land was collectively owned and could not be sold (except by chicanery as per the Highland Clearances).
The Jews cut this Gordion knot by a) forcing the British out by terrorism and then b) forcing the Arabs out by terrorism. It is a matter for you whether this constitutes 'ownership by right of conquest' -- though as a white Canadian I daresay you approve of the general principle.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | That does not mean that Arabs and Russians own "the land of Kensington & Chelsea". |
It doesn't?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
I give up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
The.... is JC an anti-semite? rumbles on....
JC it has to be said is "anti" a lot. He is not "a live and let live" sort of guy. In fact he is a do-gooder, and like most do-gooders he sees a lot of bad in our world.
JC is anti....British, American, EU, war, fascism, establishment, royalty, military....... it would be strange if he was not anti Israeli.
His critics have him wrong. In his worldview, JC believes that larger imperialist nations are oppressing smaller ones. So for him it's a question of siding with these smaller oppressed nations eg Venezuela, Cuba, and the Palestinians against the larger ones....that is providing they offer up a smidgen of anti imperialist rhetoric. It's all moving the Revolution closer.
JC does not see any contradiction between his support for anti racism, anti sexism and LGBTism and his dislike for those (imperialist) nations who have done most to foster the rights of these groups....or indeed, any contradiction between the oppression of groups in some of the regimes he supports.
Happy future days! Any current Latin American machismo will be be swept away cometh the day of the International Revolution, so there is no immediate need for JC to pull up the Castroists for their oppression of gays, as they themselves are the victims.....of a greater oppression.
It's just his view based on hierarchy of oppression, where stopping imperialsim and wars is the overriding priority.
He is dangerous because he is a do gooder, not because he is nasty to Jews.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I trust everyone has seen the parallels between the Genoese Bridge and Grenfell Tower. To anyone over the age of six it was immediately apparent that the cause in both cases was "beyond current human knowledge". In the first case it was the effect of encasing tension wires in concrete (and thereby not being able to inspect them properly) and in the second case cladding high rise buildings (and thereby inadvertently creating fire chimneys).
Let us deal quickly with the objections. Yes, looking back, it ought to have been foreseen; yes, some voices did foresee it; yes, economics did contribute at the margins; but no, these were simply the 'error' part of trial-and-error, the unavoidable handmaiden of advancing technology. Nobody was to blame.
Which means everyone and his dog will be lining up to blame anyone remotely involved who they don't like.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
