Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I'm confused... they get permission to go to the land that they claim as rightfully theirs, and they only occupy it during the day time?
|
I think that's it pretty much in a nut shell.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dlish
i agree nim.
give the tassies to the kiwis cos i dont see them lasting on their own! nah seriously though,...
any country that wants/needs democracy has a right of self rule if they can show enough reason and resolve to want and know how to rule themselves.
chechnya is a classic example where russias meddling screwed a fine working specimen of democratically elected leaders and turned them into 'religious rebels'.
|
Good point here. But does that mean you are in favor of independence for the Maoris (is that what you meant?). I think this comes back to right of self-determination. Which to me, is where the discussion/conversation gets more interesting. How would you compare/contrast New Zealand with Chechnya?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by levite
Yeah, I'm not a fan of "trendy" political causes, either-- especially supporting one side or another in foreign conflicts that have nothing to do with the US, and whose arguments and meanings are generally either barely discerned or grossly misunderstood by the majority of the "activists" who are involved.
Leaving aside the Israel-Palestinian conflict, which I think is too complex to get into here, people essentially support Tibet, I think, because they like the Dalai Lama, not because they actually feel strongly about Tibetan nationalism. Not that I am opposed to Tibetan nationalism, or that I favor China's conquest of Tibet! I'm just saying I think that's what most people are motivated by, right or wrong.
|
Ah, but I think we're gonna have to visit this sooner or later (or even open up another thread). I agree that the Dalai Lama is a very charismatic person (having seen him twice, I find him very likable), much more MTV friendly than say, Yasser Arafat or Mahmoud Abbas. (Good G*d, if the Palestinians ever get a leader of that caliber (MLK, Dalai Lama, JFK, Obama), they might just achieve what they want). But more to the point, I think it is easier to support Tibet because of it's distance and exotic quality. Plus, China is the 'it' bogey man these days. It is very popular and trendy to bash China (and Arabs, Muslims, North Korea etc). As such, having a face to the enemy as it were, it makes it very easy to bash the Chinese and root for anyone against the Chinese. Look how muted the response to the Chinese earthquakes were. This forum had more discussion about a little tremor in Iceland versus NONE about the big one in China. Some people even feel China deserved that earthquake out of sheer ignorance and malice (Sharon Stone).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by levite
But as for Hawaii...I think they have a pretty good case. The US annexed Hawaii without so much as a by-your-leave from the Hawaiian populace, and I think that since the transition from US Territory to State was conducted under the auspices of a Territorial and Federal government that included no native Hawaiians (as far as I can tell), at the very least, Hawaii ought to be given the same Federal semi-autonomous district status as Native American reservations and tribal lands in the Continental US, and Native Hawaiians ought to have at least partial self-government....
Come to that, the Inuit probably have a fairly good claim on Alaska, too....
|
Ok, let's roll with this. You have good summary here, but isn't this a slippery slope of sorts? Where does it begin and end? Will all sorts of claimants start coming out of the woodwork (other indigenous tribes etc.). Another thing to consider is what do "they" want? If the Hawaii group is relatively small then their claim does not have "mandate of the people" right? But what if a referendum showed 85% or some crazy number of Hawaiians wanting independence? Is that legitimate then? I think there would be a good case (though I don't know the legal structures for this).
As for the Inuit, are they clamoring for independence? I haven't heard anything, does anyone know? If so, then Canada will have some problems with them too I would assume.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dlish
maybe its got to do with the human rights abuses that china and israel commit again civilian pupulations.
no one likes oppressing nations. its probably why the US is on the wrong side of most people nowadays.
i know it sounds simplistic..but i think it rings true
|
I think you're onto something here but it needs more parsing out.. Human rights is a tricky thing. I don't think the Israelis and Chinese feel like they are human rights abusers. I think it also depends on who you ask too. I think there are plenty of Americans who feel like they have had their human rights abused right here in America (or at the very least, civil rights). As an American who traveled through Israel and China, I caught an earful from their people about how we Americans are hypocritical about human rights etc. It was harsh to say the least.