Protest against the Bombing

Margaret mairead at
Thu Mar 25 13:29:00 PST 1999

Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:

>What the fuck are you talking about?

Sorry if you couldn't tell! :-)

>What self-determination? The
>Kosovars are used in the same way as the Kurds were - as a human shield for
>the Pentagon demonstration projects.

And do you think that's so from the Kosovari standpoint as well? I had rather supposed they were in it for their freedom, or <cynical> at least the right to be abused by folk who speak their language </cynical>

>Besides, what does "ethnically albanian" mean. US is ethnically Native

Really??? I'd always supposed the population balance changed irrevocably some 150 years ago, perhaps more.

Perhaps you have a different meaning for the concept than i do? By 'ethnically albanian' i meant that the vast majority of people native to the area (i.e. they were born there of parents who were themselves there legitimately by agreements of the time) identify as albanian. That's my understanding of the current state of affairs in the region. Do you dispute that? Or do you have a different meaning for the concept of regional ethnicity?

>- does that mean that all the yanks should be kicked out (although
>bombing Washington DC does not seem as a bad idea)?

It's rather funny. My folk are Highland Scots. We come from an area settled by 2 different groups of, immigrants, one from Ireland ca. 500 CE (the original 'Scoti', which meant, variously, 'pirate', 'invader', or 'terrorist', take your choice), the other from Scandinavia ca 1000 CE. The area is thought to have been populated by the Picts, before.

In Ireland, the 'Troubles' were nominally the result of the plantation of Ulster by the scots in the 1600s -- the 'real' irish think the scots irish should at least be turfed out if not actually f.o.a.d. Oddly, they don't rewind their animosity and sense of place far enough to agree that perhaps the original irish, settlers of the Highlands and Islands should also be turfed out and shipped back to Ireland. I wonder why?

All of that is by way of saying that unless we want to try to uproot everyone, everywhere and shoehorn them all into the Olduvai Gorge, which would be just that wee bit crowded, then we've to acknowledge that some invasions/immigrations/takeovers/callitwhatyoulike are now A Done Deal and Irrevocable. It's damned sad for the victims, and there probably ought to be compensation paid, but it's a guarantee of continued misery for everyone not to say Enough Already.

I myself think we should draw the line at things that happened long enough ago that the participants and all who knew them in life are dead. I don't have any mystic reason for it, only the pragmatic idea that we've to draw the line somewhere. That would mean that, while we might want to bomb DC on other grounds, it would be disallowed to bomb on the grounds of restoring the Iroquois Confederacy to political control.

>With all due respect, you have to clear your thinking of all the
>media-implanted liberal shit.

>From your tone, then, you must not think much respect
is due. :-L Does that really seem to enhance communication, in your experience?

As to 'media-implanted liberal shit', i rather doubt you have any more authoritative sources, but if you do i'd certainly be glad to have pointers to them. I think we're all at the mercy of the corporate propaganda machines, but it's not clear to me that there's any perfect way around that problem.


More information about the lbo-talk mailing list