Quote:
Originally posted by Mark Granier:
Mark, that is staggeringly simplistic. American Indians were tragically betrayed and brutalised by European AND 'American' governments; the history reads like an open wound. But (to my knowledge anyway) these days they are not told where they can or cannot work; nor do they have concrete walls partitioning them from their places of work. Nor do Native American people have to undergo humiliating daily queues and searches at checkpoints. Were they subjected to such treatment (and worse) I don't know what their response might be. I would think it makes a world of difference to see soldiers (who are liable to view you with suspicion) on your own streets. I was brought up in the Republic of Ireland, and am, if anything, anti-nationalist. But I've been to Belfast a few times and even to a blow-in like me the army presence could feel sinister.
|
But if Native Americans were known with some frequency to lobs shells from the reservation, or to go into city buses with explosives in their backpacks, I suspect that some sort of security measures would be taken. What your remarks suggest to me is that the Native Americans have been so defeated and conquered that they have given up any form of resistance, and in so doing, they have eliminated any temptation to subject them to oppressive security measures. Still, Native Americans do suffer from indignities even today, as do many American groups, and are at least the worst-off among them (say, childrten living with rats, abusive parents, and social service agencies that ignore their plight), entitled to blow up buses or bomb wedding receptions?
And who's to judge? Can we say it's wrong for Iraqi insurgents to kill citizens lining up for jobs that will pay them subsistance wages, but it's okay for Palestinians to do the same? And why wasn't 9/11 a permissible venture in view of the fact that, let's face it, the US has acted rather disgracefully from time to time? And how about bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors if you truly believe abortion is murder being carried out on a massive scale? Can we burn down theaters showing "blasphemous" movies and expect sympathy even from those who share our opinion of the movie? Or can we agree and insist that the morality of one's cause does not exempt one from all other forms of morality?
I suppose a somewhat stronger case could be made for terrorism in the name of a good cause if it actually worked to advance the cause, but there's no evidence that it does. On the contrary, terrorist attacks on Israel only caused the Israelis to build a security wall and set up more checkpoints, which has only made matters worse for the Palestinians. So the suicide bombers didn't just kill innocents, but also contributed directly to a substantial worsening of the lives of Palestinians on the West Bank, exacerbating the very conditions that are offered as moral cover for further acts of terrorism. It didn't take terrorism to end Apartheid in South Africa, and Ghandi did pretty well without it. Apart from the immorality of targetting innocents, it is simply a bad tactic for advancing the Palestinian cause.