PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum - View Single Post

JCE · #9 03-29-2003, 03:10 AM

"Panama. The Philippines. Other places. Yes, we eventually "gave" them back."

Yes, even the places which were purchased or ceded to the US were eventually given back to the people who had taken them from the previous owners, who had displaced the owners before them, who had etc. etc. etc. Sometimes, as in the case of Panama, after extremely valuable improvements to the local economy (look up how much income the canal generates for the Panamanian economy, and who paid for the big ditch.) 'Legitimate' ownership of any chunk of earth depends entirely on how far back you want to go in history.

And yes, this country was 'taken', purchased, or won in battle from the French Russians, British, Spanish, and the American Indian, who had all taken the lands from others and each other for centuries, (Including the Amerindian, who after 'invading' from Asia were not above engaging in warfare, territorial conquest, and slavery against each other). But I don't agree that because of 100-200 year old events we need to concede that the rest of the world is a lily white and guilt free forum whom we need to waste a lot of time convincing. If it is history you want, the world that needs convincing consists of Chinese that in the last 70 years 'annexed' Tibet (and are currently working on occupying the oil rich Spratly islands to the exclusion of the other 6 nations which claim sovereignty); the French, who are back in the Ivory coast and never left Tahiti, and aren't that long out of Algeria; The Dutch, who couldn't recover their Indonesian empire after WW2; The Russians, who reluctantly left Northern California and Alaska after a purchase that relieved them of an accounting of their treatment of the indigenous Indians, and relatively recently gave up their invasion and control over much of Eastern Europe, not to mention their centuries old lust for Afghanistan; The Swiss, with a history of providing both financing, banking services, and THE premier mercenaries for would-be conquering armies (and currently manufacturers of some of the worlds most advanced military firearms )- sort of one stop shopping in the middle ages for military might! Perhaps we should be convincing the African nations, with their history of tribal invasions, territorial conquests, and of selling their surplus populations/slaves/war captives to Arab traders for re-sale to English, French, Spanish, and American slave traders, and their ongoing tribal genocides against each other. Or maybe you refer to the Germans, with a history of invading most of western and Eastern Europe and north Africa within the last 70 years; or the Mideast, with historical conquests extending from Spain to Turkey, and current dreams of an Islamic super state extending from the Atlantic coast through SE Asia and into Australia. But wait, you specifically referred to Hawaiians, those invaders from the South Pacific who turned paradise into a prolonged inter-island battleground, eliminating entire species of native wildlife in the creation of decorative costumes. (Just what did become of the Menehunes - the alleged original Hawaiian island occupants that left archeological records predating the invasion from the South Seas, and were claimed in 'Tahitian/Hawaiian' legend to have greeted the Tahitian invaders with open arms before disappearing forever?) It must be their approval we need.

Sorry, but the entire world has practiced invasion, conquest, self interest expansionism, political conquest, etc. ad nauseum, so I don't see where a country that hasn't much engaged in these practices anywhere nearly as recently or aon as large a scale as the other inhabitants of this planet has to accept them as judge and jury. And I don't write you off as a northen California liberal - I try not to pigeonhole people that way, and have my own views - some liberal, some conservative, all open to reasoned argument and therefore subject to occasional evolution or reversal. But you can't logically hold up the historical actions of this country without considering the (even more recent) historical actions of those whom you would have act as Judges. 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes' is indeed a two sided query. We need to ask it both of ourselves, and in determining the qualifications of those who would be our judges.

Yet the proof is in the pudding. As this thread pointed out before being diverted, in the last century, we did not keep any of Europe or Japan except for some graveyards! (In fact, most of the financial war loans and reparations went unpaid as well, and the Marshall and Deming plans cost a Ton of money to put in place. So you could argue that aside from the moral feel good issues, we don't profit very much from our overseas ventures if in fact it isn't actually a financial loss).