"Don't Fence Me In"

Posted by: Mike Kremer

"Don't Fence Me In" - 10/27/06 12:43 AM

First we had:-
The Great Wall of China.
Then, Hadrians Roman wall in the UK.
The Berlin Wall
The Israeli Wall.
And now the-
Mexican/USA Wall.
Seven hundred miles of an eventual 2000 miles has just been approved by Bush, about to be built.

Although its a fence, it will also extend some 12 feet into the ground where nessesary, to prevent tunneling. And be equipped with detection apparatus.

Is it needed? Is it political? Or too late?
Can anyone think of any other divisional walls that might be approved of, in the future?

Some things in the world never change.

--------------------
"You will never find a real Human being - even in a mirror." .....Mike Kremer.

.
Posted by: terrytnewzealand

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/27/06 01:10 AM

History shows the walls are only effective for a short time. Then the tides of human migration take over once again. I can see the USA having to build walls in Iraq to form three separate countries though; Sumeria, Assyria and the Hittite region.

As you say Mike "Some things in the world never change."
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/27/06 03:36 AM

Take a look at your calendar.

It is 2 weeks before the electrons.

It is a stunt.

A meaningless, worthless, stunt.

It isn't intended to keep illegal aliens out ... it is intended to keep Congressmen in(-office).

Likely in two weeks it will fail at the first purpose. And over the following months and/or years it will fail at the second.
Posted by: terrytnewzealand

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/27/06 04:31 AM

That's politics. They are even saying now that Pharaoh Bush is not actually a fundy. He just pretended to be to get the votes. I don't actually believe the story of course. He shows so many symptoms of being one. Like all fundys he has this stunning ability to fool himself.

Immigration is always usually a reliable one though unless you need cheap labour. John Ralston Saul (I hope you are familiar with him) suggests modern politics is based on "the tecnique of fear". Seems to work every time.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/27/06 04:39 AM

The chance of Bush truly believing in anything is nearer zero than liquid helium.

To believe something requires the ability to formulate a thought. I've yet to see evidence that he is more than a trained parrot.
Posted by: dehammer

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/27/06 10:20 AM

the only thing about this political stunt that actually bothers me is that the mexican president and many others compare it to the berlin wall.

the berlin wall was built to keep people that wanted to leave ligitamately from doing so. people in the usa can leave when every they want. we are not building it in mexico. for that matter, the people of mexico can leave when ever they want, and even can come to america, if they do so legitmately.

comparing it to the berlin wall is basically saying that mexican nationals have the right to enter the us without permission of the us goverment.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/27/06 07:14 PM

dehammer wrote:
"the only thing about this political stunt that actually bothers me is that the mexican president and many others compare it to the berlin wall."

Mexico's entire foreign policy toward the US is sending workers north so that the workers can send dinero south.

That US corporate interests are willing to sacrifice a country for their short term gain is criminal: Thus they support Mexican foreign policy.
Posted by: terrytnewzealand

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/27/06 09:52 PM

Dehammer, you don't like to compare the wall to Berlin. However it is very like the Israeli wall. This tends to support the argument many make that Israel is just another state of the USA. Or is it that the USA is a state of Israel? I forget which.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/27/06 10:38 PM

Lets get real here. They didn't vote a single dollar to build it ... it will never be built.

There is, however, a big difference between what is happening in the US and what is happening in Israel.

So far not a single Mexican has snuck into the US with a bomb.
Posted by: dehammer

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/27/06 10:48 PM

there is a major difference, tnz, with the israeli wall and this one. this wall is to keep mexico from stealling our money, while israel is trying to keep their citizens very life safe. Just because two different countries are fighting simular situations, albet one more dangerous than the other, does not mean that they are connect to each other.
Posted by: RicS

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/28/06 01:01 AM

Most countries have rather high fences around their airports which are their "borders" for a great many visitors. No one would complain about these fences. They are there for the security of the planes but also to stop illegal immigrants.

Australia built a fence several thousand kilometres long to keep Dingos out of the east and south. It worked. It was also in the middle of our country.

If I don't want someone in my backyard I can build a 2 metre fence (3 metres with special permission).

Isn't the only difference between these types of boundaries and the Israel and US fences a matter of size?

If I had a nation very close to my border whose national policy was the destruction of my nation and another neighbour actually developing nuclear weapons that their president says should be used against Israel, I'd actually think the fence was too little. The controversy about the fence is not that it keeps those that do not belong in the country out, it is that it disects Palestinian's farms, villages, etc, making their life quite difficult. Of course the Palestinian question might be a little simpler if any other Arab nation would accept any of them as refuges. They'd rather that they live in squallor and be a thorn in the side of Israel.

If Mexico doesn't like the wall, perhaps they should do something that allows their population to live a little better, or discourage their citizens from illegally crossing into another country.

It may be a political stunt (the US one, not the Israel one) but really what is the big deal? It is their borders (both Israel and the US) and they really should be able to decide who comes into their country. And dehammer, I'd actually think the US/Mexican border illegal crossings causes more deaths than the Israeli one. This border is used to smuggle people and smuggled people are often little better than slaves and do die. It is used to smuggle in terrorism. It is a route that various terrorist organisations have used in the past. It is used to smuggle drugs. Whether the drugs are the killers or the drug pushers are the killers makes little difference to the fact that it is still a danger.

If I was a US senator proposing the wall I, Mike, I wouldn't mind it being compared with the Great Wall of China or Hadrins wall. Both were built to keep out hostile forces into territory under a legitimate government control. I guess you could get picky about Romans and Britain but during that era, someone was going to attempt to control territory. At least the Romans brought roads, plumbing, sound laws.

If it is technically possible and cost effective (border patrols don't seem to work all that well and must cost a great deal to run each year) isn't it just another form of border protection, just like the border patrol or the Coast Guard. Mike, do you suggest that there should be no border protection?


Regards


Richard
Posted by: terrytnewzealand

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/28/06 08:22 PM

As I said near the beginning:

"History shows the walls are only effective for a short time."

Sooner or later the inevitable tide of evolution takes over and the wall fails to work any more.
Posted by: eternauta

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/29/06 03:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dehammer:
this wall is to keep mexico from stealling our money,
stealing money? I had the impression that the mexicans went to do the kinds of work americans don't want to do
Posted by: Mike Kremer

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/29/06 07:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RicS:
Most countries have rather high fences around their airports which are their "borders" for a great many visitors..................>
>....................or Hadrians wall. At least the Romans brought roads, plumbing, sound laws.
................>Mike, do you suggest that there should be no border protection?

Richard
Quote:
Hi Richard.
Yes you have made an excellent argument as to why borderwalls should be be there.
Your Airport fences are a good point
Reluctantly I have to agree with you.
Hadrians wall and other ancient walls, separated the educated Romans from the more barbaric Britons. But the Romans, as you say, had a lot to offer. Building, villas, roads and water supplies, and agriculture. So that the ancient Britons came to accept the style of life, even after the Romans left Britain.
There ought to be a learning curve in there somewhere. But the ancients willingly learnt about living, from their more educated conquerors. Today the conquered learn about a life style that is unobtainable within their lifetime. Prehaps its just as well for us, that they broadcast their own Satellite footprints. Their own electronic wall. Helps keeps things orderly?

You mentioned Drugs, Nuclear weapons etc....and there are a myriad more, like:- the uneducated poor, diseases, oil, moral differences,terrorism, and the almost insurmountable differences in the basic thinking of peoples. ie... in religion, the freedom of women, and surprisingly - that Communism AND Democracy are incompatible with Islamic teachings.
In modern times it seems that the greater the differences in life styles, the more likely that there will be separation, culminating in a physical wall?
Since its always the richer of the two sides that always builds these separation walls, one should properly address the builders, as to the reasons why.
One thing we hav'nt mentioned is that occasionaly the "separated side" are often forgotten about by the outside world. In particular, I have never been able to understand as to why Saudi Arabia, one of the richest countrys in the world has never openly given help to the Palestinians, in the shape of desalination plants, buildings, or just plain money.

Id like to think 'Terrytnewzealand' had a point when he said that:-
"History shows the walls are only effective for a short time. Sooner or later the inevitable tide of evolution takes over and the wall fails to work any more".

What kind of evolution does he mean? Multi-national, multi-cultural, and multi-religious?
There are only two countries in the world that purport to hold these fine attributes.
The United States of America, and the United Kingdom, but both are skating thin on the multi-cultural aspect. I believe there are differences today that will always remain.
All the more so, because Earth scanning satellites alert both sides as to any military infringments. Infringements that would have been secretly 'taken care of' by a local war, before the advent of satellites.
Democracy and Differences are now forced to live together, walls or no walls.

--------------------
"You will never find a real Human being - even in a mirror." .....Mike Kremer.

.
Posted by: RicS

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/30/06 02:47 AM

G'day,

"Effective for a short time". The Great Wall of China had its uses for around a thousand years. I'm not sure that I would call that all that short in human terms.


Richard
Posted by: RicS

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/30/06 02:49 AM

G'day,

By the way, this isn't science. It is political. It is fleetingly interesting but doesn't belong here.


Richard
Posted by: terrytnewzealand

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/30/06 03:48 AM

Mike, you asked:

"What kind of evolution does he mean?"

I mean the kind of genetic change in regional human populations that has always happened. From the expansion of Indo-European and Austonesian-speaking people about 5000 years ago, the Mongolian and Turkish-speakers 1000 years ago, European expansion in the last few hundred years, to East Asian and African people's expansion more recently. Your post way back as "Out of Asaia - Not Africa" hints the same process was involved in Homo erctus evolution and I have provided a link for the chimp/human split that shows the same process was involved then.

RicS wrote:

"The Great Wall of China had its uses for around a thousand years."

Yes. But it was never totally effective.
Posted by: dehammer

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/30/06 05:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by eternauta:
Quote:
Originally posted by dehammer:
this wall is to keep mexico from stealling our money,
stealing money? I had the impression that the mexicans went to do the kinds of work americans don't want to do
that is more political jive turkey from those who want to open the door to immagrations. Speaking as someone who has done those kinds of jobs, there are a lot of people, born to this country, that want those jobs, but we expect to be paid a wage that allows us to live in this country.

those who come to this country illegally, leave their families in mexico where its cheaper to live, and while they stay here, live in environments that are not considered safe, secure and dont have the basic necissaties. They know they are going this for their families, so they are willing to share an appartment with a dozen other people, living in a space designed for one. This is how they get the jobs, because the people that give them to them know that they dont have to pay the legal minimum wages. Then you have americans living on welfare because they cant get the job because they expect to be paid the legal minimum wage.

these are the jobs that bleeding hearts say they take from no one. these are the jobs supposedly americans dont want: sub mimimun wage, hard jobs, 40+ hours weeks with no overtime. If illegal immagrants were not here, these would not exist because the bosses would have to comply with american laws.
Posted by: eternauta

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/30/06 08:39 AM

Understood. maybe the government efforts' should be put on controlling the corporations (and smaller employers too) and effectively enforcing labour laws. Wouldn't that discourage illegal migration more than the wall?

Well, I guess this thread will finally be censored for un-scientific.
Posted by: dehammer

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/30/06 01:55 PM

they do that as much as possible. unfortuantely there are limits to what you can do with that. the people have to be in the country doing the work before they can be found. since it prevents them from getting paid, the illegal workers do their best to hid. Since it would cost them loads of fines and higher wages, the employers do their best to hid. It would cost more than the cost of the fense every year to completely enforce those rules and no one wants to pay that.
Posted by: Te Urukehu

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/31/06 02:24 AM

Dehammer:

" this wall is to keep mexico from stealling our money"

As a science minded person I find the above statement unworthy of rational discourse. It is supported only by belief and a large amount of prejudice. ?Because I have experience of such things therefore it must be so? is hardly the basis for good theory or evidence.

The following link gives background to Mexican immigration to the USA and paints a mildly different tale. Mexican labour is credited with establishing the prosperity of the USA.

http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/history/timeline/17.html

There is also mention made of Mexico once having territorial control over ?the present day states of Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and California.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mexican-Americans

http://www.farmworkers.org/immigrat.html

And the following link underscores the human rights issues attached to the Mexican migration at the border:

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/border.html#Anchor-Scapegoating-44591

Xenophobia is not a credible discourse in a scientific forum.
Posted by: terrytnewzealand

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/31/06 04:02 AM

RicS wrote (I'm getting political again, sorry):

"Of course the Palestinian question might be a little simpler if any other Arab nation would accept any of them as refuges. They'd rather that they live in squallor and be a thorn in the side of Israel."

Surely you can understand the Palestinian attitude. I'm sure you would kick up a fuss if you were turfed out of your home simply because someone with a different religion claimed it.

Mike wrote:

"Multi-national, multi-cultural, and multi-religious? There are only two countries in the world that purport to hold these fine attributes.
The United States of America, and the United Kingdom, but both are skating thin on the multi-cultural aspect."

You are really opening yourself up to a bitter argument hare, Mike.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/31/06 05:23 AM

In the Middle East there are no good guys. All are victims and both are victimizers.

The US, UK, France, Germany, Japan are allies today after a devastating war in which far worse things happened than have happened in the entire history of the Middle East. Yet only 20 or so years after the war ended you'd have hardly known it took place.

Given each parties inability to see their own acts for what they are ... as far as I am concerned they all deserve each other.
Posted by: terrytnewzealand

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/31/06 07:03 AM

Fueled by fundamentalism.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/31/06 05:41 PM

Absolutely fueled by fundamentalism.

I can't remember who said it recently but the quote "When they love their children more than they hate each other" sums it up in my opinion.

I no longer care who started it.
And I no longer care who was right or wrong first.
Or who has suffered the most.
They all deserve each other.
Posted by: dehammer

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/31/06 07:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Te Urukehu:
Dehammer:

" this wall is to keep mexico from stealling our money"

As a science minded person I find the above statement unworthy of rational discourse. It is supported only by belief and a large amount of prejudice. ?Because I have experience of such things therefore it must be so? is hardly the basis for good theory or evidence.

The following link gives background to Mexican immigration to the USA and paints a mildly different tale. Mexican labour is credited with establishing the prosperity of the USA.

http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/history/timeline/17.html

There is also mention made of Mexico once having territorial control over ?the present day states of Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and California.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mexican-Americans

http://www.farmworkers.org/immigrat.html

And the following link underscores the human rights issues attached to the Mexican migration at the border:

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/border.html#Anchor-Scapegoating-44591

Xenophobia is not a credible discourse in a scientific forum.
first off, your talking ancient history compared to the issue at hand.

every citizen of those states know that the area they lived in was once controlled by mexico. does that mean that we should be paying them for the privilage of living here?

there was a time when there was not enough americans to do the work we needed. that time has long since passed. does that mean we own people that did not have any connection to those who came, and settled here afterwords, a living at the expense of the decendants of those who helped build this country?

the quote was directed at someone who said that no american wants those jobs. as someone who would gladly have done those jobs at one point, that statement was highly laughable. I dont need theory to support the knowledge that people that come here willing to take half the minimum living wage are takeing away money from those who expect to be able to put food in their families mouth. those illegal immergrants are sending the money to mexico where the cost of putting food and shelter for the family is a small fraction of what it is for those who live in this country. should we starve our children and let them die of easily cured diseases so that we can take the same illegal wages as these people are doing?

your statement shows that you have not the slightest understanding of the situation, yet you are there lecturing me on how bad i am expecting to have a chance to live in my own country, without someone else taking all the jobs and money out of this country because 200 years ago the predecessor of that goverment had control over this area.
Posted by: dehammer

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/31/06 07:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Absolutely fueled by fundamentalism.

I can't remember who said it recently but the quote "When they love their children more than they hate each other" sums it up in my opinion.

I no longer care who started it.
And I no longer care who was right or wrong first.
Or who has suffered the most.
They all deserve each other.
considering its been going on for several centuries, i dont see a solution happening any time soon.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 10/31/06 09:06 PM

Millenia ... not centuries. They've been at it, in one form or another, for more than 10,000 years.
Posted by: terrytnewzealand

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 11/01/06 09:18 AM

Dehammer quote:

"your statement shows that you have not the slightest understanding of the situation, yet you are there lecturing me on how bad i am expecting to have a chance to live in my own country, without someone else taking all the jobs and money out of this country because 200 years ago the predecessor of that goverment had control over this area."

Are there any people of American Indian ancestry in the forum? I look forward to any comments they might care to make.
Posted by: eternauta

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 11/01/06 03:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by terrytnewzealand:
Dehammer quote:


Are there any people of American Indian ancestry in the forum? I look forward to any comments they might care to make.
I don't thing this is going to be fair terry, virtualy every country's political present is built on the ruins of pre-existing cultures that, in most cases, didn't welcome them.
Posted by: dehammer

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 11/01/06 05:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Millenia ... not centuries. They've been at it, in one form or another, for more than 10,000 years.
i only know that its been a proven fact that they have been at it since the 1700's. you could easily be right. the things is much of their arguements are over the teaching of alah. what did they are argue about before that i dont know.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 11/01/06 05:31 PM

TNZ wrote:
"Are there any people of American Indian ancestry in the forum? I look forward to any comments they might care to make."

I would too but that might be all to predictable.

The reality of human existance is that everyone alive today is the beneficiary of some horrible act of genocide, torture, and theft in some form or another. And everyone alive today is also the descendant of someone victimized by genocide, torture, and theft.

Get over it!

At some point someone has to draw the line and say enough is enough. We can not go back and rectify the past wrongs. We must go forward and provide each and every citizen equal opportunity, based on their ability, to achieve.

What happened to the Native Americans was a crime. But what they did before that crime was similarly criminal. Those we call "Native Americans" were not the first inhabitants of this continent.

As long as Mexico guards its southern border with armed Federales to prevent Guatemalan's from coming North they are in no moral position to lecture the US about closing off its border. There is more than enough hypocrisy to go around.
Posted by: terrytnewzealand

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 11/02/06 02:16 AM

Dehammer quote:

"What did they are argue about before that i dont know."

Marduk, Seth, El. There's never any shortage of things to argue about, especially when your god is on your side!

DA you said:

"We can not go back and rectify the past wrongs. We must go forward and provide each and every citizen equal opportunity, based on their ability, to achieve."

Very true. But if we see the same wrongs being committed today should we just sit back and say "let evolution do as evolution does"?
Posted by: dehammer

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 11/02/06 06:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
The reality of human existance is that everyone alive today is the beneficiary of some horrible act of genocide, torture, and theft in some form or another. And everyone alive today is also the descendant of someone victimized by genocide, torture, and theft.

Get over it!

At some point someone has to draw the line and say enough is enough. We can not go back and rectify the past wrongs. We must go forward and provide each and every citizen equal opportunity, based on their ability, to achieve.
when i read this i had to laugh, not at you (i totally agree with what you said), but at the memory of a black guy i once knew. he was a very bad secruity guard, but claimed he could not be fired because, "my grandfather was a slave, and the white man owes me an easy living". It was all i could do to not laugh at him, because my ancestors came to america as endentured servants.

when you start claiming people owe you something because of ancient wrongs done to your ancestors, its a little hard to figure out where to draw the line.
Posted by: Te Urukehu

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 11/02/06 09:42 PM

Dehammer:

I do know what I speak of and I recognise racism when it is displayed. Native Americans much like other first nations people worldwide have no wish to engage in conversation outside of indigenous circles because it is an exercise in futility.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 11/02/06 11:35 PM

TNZ asks:
"Very true. But if we see the same wrongs being committed today should we just sit back and say "let evolution do as evolution does"?"

Of course not. I specifically address what we should to today when I wrote: "We must go forward and provide each and every citizen equal opportunity, based on their ability, to achieve."

Adding insult to insult is not a recipe for change.
Posted by: dehammer

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 11/03/06 06:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Te Urukehu:
Dehammer:

I do know what I speak of and I recognise racism when it is displayed. Native Americans much like other first nations people worldwide have no wish to engage in conversation outside of indigenous circles because it is an exercise in futility.
so your definition of racism is where someone doesnt want people from another country coming over and taking jobs and money from the people that live there, including the decendants of the same race.

I have no problem with american born hispanic, mexican decendants or what every having jobs in america. I have no problem with black people having the same jobs i hold. I have had black bosses, hispanic bosses, female bosses, chineese decendant bosses and bosses of other races. I have not problem with them being of what ever race or sex. I have no problem with gays, bi's or straights. I have no problem with anyone having american jobs as long as they are americans. that includes natrualized americans. what i have a problem with is people that come in illegal, pay no taxes, and steal the work from americans, some of them the same race, to send the money to another country to support that country's people.

when these people get sick they expect the american people to pay for their medicene and doctors visits, yet they dont pay the taxes that pay for those visits and meds.

I dont even have a problem with people being here and holding jobs if they have a green card (an instrurment of the american goverment that basically says that person has the right to be here)

If they want to come here, work for the same wages we do, hold the same jobs as we do, get the same medicene and doctors as we do, they can pay the taxes we do. otherwise they can stay in their country and pay their own taxes and use their own doctors and such.

that is not racism.

if i had a racism problem with mexicans, i would have the same problem with mexican americans, or mexican decendant americans, or hispanics. (some people perfer one name over another, so putting them all in one group is racism). I dont.

I have lived with native americans before, and to tell you the truth, it was months before i knew it. one of my best friends is a native american. I have no problem with native americans. they are just the same as anyone else. some have a problem with what my ancestorys did or did not do to or with their ancestors. most dont. most have the same attitude that DA mentioned earlier.
Posted by: RicS

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 11/03/06 04:41 PM

G'day Te,

Actually I found what you said somewhat offensive. What gives "first peoples" any greater rights than any other citizen of a nation.

Let me see. My father had an inheritence right in Ireland that was over a substantial amount of land. He could not take up that right because the government created laws that discriminated against inheritence to foreigners. I have no idea if these laws still stand but they were set up for the "purity" of Ireland so that, because of the huge, exodus from Ireland, they did not end up with inherited land going to a large degree to foreign ownerships and therefore foreign landlords. To me this is the same as theft. But would abuse an Irish person over this. Huh!

So my father's inheritence, because of his birthright, was removed because of an accident that ensured that he grew up away from the land of his ancestors.

The Internet is an interesting place. You cannot "see" a person on it so a person can be any sex, age, creed, religioun, colour (as long as they can type in English!). So you would have no idea of my ethnicity. I'm a part aboriginal (a first peoples in your view). Now the tribe that I descend from probably first stepped foot in Australia around 40,000 years ago. That is many centuries before any person of Polynesian descent stepped foot in New Zealand, or any of the Pacific Islands. It is about three times the period that the first settles occupied North America and since the plains Indians or Native Amecicans occupied the plains around 500 years ago for the most part, driving out weaker earlier occupants, it is about 80 times further back than they can claim affinity with the land.

Now I was born on the fringes of a city. I received no special rights at all. My father was injured at work so we were poor. I went to a prestigious school because I was smart but had no hope of attending University except that I was smart and the Navy accepted me and even sent me to University. It was when I was in my late 20s that I discovered that my immediate family was the closest thing there was to a tribe now completely extinct. But the land that the tribe called their own has one of the richest mineral deposits, including oil, in Australia under it.

I was advised to claim "land rights" and was told that the benefits could be immense. I have no more right to that land than the graziers that have held leases over it for sometimes several generations, or even the poor fellow that purchased a chunk of it about a year before anyone discovered that it was claimable under the Land Rights legislation.

Because I can claim membership of a long dead tribe by blood, does that mean that I had a right to the land? Or that I should be treated differently to any other Australian? It still annoys me that if I tick a box on my social security form for my disability pension that, by declaring my aboriginality, I receive a significantly higher benefit and some medical costs that are not covered otherwise, covered, because of this check box. Am I stupid for not ticking the box? I personally don't think so.

The "futility" to which you refer, is generally the doing of the first peoples. Aboriginals that live in remoter areas of Australia do not send their children to school so they end up unfit for any form of employment. Until recently nothing was done because of the "cultural" rights of the parents. They finally decided this was a stupid idea and now they are tying the adult's benefits to the attendance of children at school and, surprise, surprise, children are going to school.

In Australia, there has been an issue that is being reported upon but isn't getting a huge amount of publicity because of the fears of being accussed of racism. Aboriginal groups (often in cities) have ended up with adult males that prey on the very young children, molesting them freely. Until recently, prosecutions have been unheard of because, the claim was it was a "cultural thing". Since I've lived in remote communities with Aboriginals I at least understand enough of the culture to know this has nothing to do with the culture and in a fully tribal system the men would be speared and possible have their genitals mutilated for such activities.

So please tell me why you think "first peoples" cannot speak with anyone except their own cultural people because it is such an excersise in futility. This bit I really do not understand.

This is in a science forum and should never have been here. The thread has developed into an argument about whether the fences are racist and then devolved into whether comments are racist. If you ask me, this thread should have been moved to "Not Quite Science" or deleted entirely. But the comments have been made, have been read, and so I'm going to comment. Because this is something that really annoys me.

As far as I am concerned, all members of a country have the same rights. I don't care whether they are in the country on a tourist visa, a green card, illegally, born there, or are "first peoples". Those that are in the country illegally have rights of respect only to the extent that any human owes to another, not rights to services or freedom for deportation.

To provide special provisions for "first peoples" just because they were there first is not only idiotic, imho, but counter productive and injurious to the "first peoples" so that instead of being able to "pursue happiness" and live a normal life, they become part of a victimhood mentality and believe they are owed something that others in the same country are not. Previous slaughters, genocides, forceable loss fo lands, are meaningless to the generation removed from those to which it was done to. A German born after 1945 has no need to apologise to a Jew that survived a concentration camp and certainly not to a Jew that wasn't even born then. Strangely Jews seem to understand this, as do most Germans.

Refusing to acknowledge horrors in recent histories such as Japan does with its education system that blames the blockade of oil by the US for the Second World War, rather than the appalling attack on the Chinese and very clear racist and superiority based intentions to create a "sphere of influence" in the Asian region, isn't a good thing at all. And compensation probably should be paid to those that are still alive that were "comfort" women in Korea, China, Indonesia etc. Actually it should have been done decades ago.

You only have to look at the Balkans to see just how bad a situation can become when blame for atrocities that no one is now alive to have participated, continues to be made against peoples of a certain type.

In Australia we have demand for apologies for a "stolen generation", where aboriginal children were forceably removed from their parents. The fact that this was most often because of serious risk to the child seems to have been forgotten. The crime appears to be that the children where educated and treated in a similar fashion to any other ward of the state during that period.

My wife was forceably removed from her mother at birth. This was done because in the early 60s a young mother was considered unfit to raise a child and tactics up to and including smothering the mother with a pillow until unconcious so that the child could be removed, as well as forced signatures, threats of being jailed, etc. Is my wife considered to be a "stolen" generation? No, actually, because she is of Russian/Polish extraction. Indeed, the only acknowledgement of this ghastly system, is that it was the "paternalist" society at the time and in the absence of any ability to provide for a child, it might have been cruel to the mother, but probably was fair to the child.

How come one standard can be applied because the child was white, and another, black, especially since the black cases generally involved far more extreme circumstances such as severe alcoholism of the mother?

So just what rights do you think "first peoples" should have? And why is it racist to simply state that all peoples in one nation should be treated the same? Because I believe you called dehammer racist for saying exactly that.


Regards


Richard
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 11/03/06 05:02 PM

No one alive today, other than perhaps Neil Armstrong on the moon, was the first person anywhere.

Time for everyone to get over it and move on.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 11/03/06 07:07 PM

Yeah, and Neil and Buzz had the good sense to get off as quickly as possible before someone came along and slaughtered them smile

All your Moonbase are belong to us.

Blacknad.
Posted by: terrytnewzealand

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 11/04/06 08:59 AM

RicS. A very long but well reasoned diatribe. I agree with most, if not all, of what you said. My ancestry is a combination of Scot and Irish after all.

Mike made an interesting observation earlier when he said "Since its always the richer of the two sides that always builds these separation walls, one should properly address the builders, as to the reasons why." This is possibly not true of the Berlin wall but maybe the wealthy East germans wished to protect their status.

I'm perhaps sorry for bringing up the subject of Indigenous Americans. However I think it has provoked some thoughtful comments. We seem to all agree that wrongs were committed in the past. In a previous post I asked:

'But if we see the same wrongs being committed today should we just sit back and say "let evolution do as evolution does"?'

Admitted we cannot alter the past but there are expansionist regimes at present committing much the same crimes against humanity as colonial powers committed in years past. What should we do about this?
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 11/04/06 03:16 PM

To fight current injustices is a good and worthy fight.

To fight injustices created in the past by inflicting new injustices upon others is guarantees they will do the same to you. A never ending circle of destructive behaviour.
Posted by: Mike Kremer

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 11/05/06 03:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:

To fight injustices created in the past by inflicting new injustices upon others is guarantees they will do the same to you. A never ending circle of destructive behaviour.
"A never ending circle of destructive behaviour"

Which of course is the very reason that physical walls are built. I would even go as far as to say, -Any wall built today encourages a form of apartheid?
Differences in the world are increasing, not decreasing. Those with differences, tend to congregate together.
Differences just don't die out, they multiply when left alone.
If persecuted, they move on, and then go build walls if needed.
Gone are the old maxims of - 'love thy neighbour, and turn the other cheek'.
Life is too complicated, with too much at stake for that to work today.
Then there are those other 'creeping walls', that further add the overall picture.
The financial walls, the political walls, the trade barriers, etc. Even invisible walls, where subtle change, and acceptance become a matter of course. Like...'The Worlds Largest Ship' I posted earlier...dumping cheap goods?

I'ts my considered belief that physical walls and barriers will increase, as time go's on,....even that it may well become the accepted norm in the near future.

--------------------
"You will never find a real Human being - even in a mirror." .....Mike Kremer.
....And never behind a wall...!
.
Posted by: terrytnewzealand

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 11/05/06 08:49 AM

Mike Kremer wrote:

"The financial walls, the political walls, the trade barriers, etc. Even invisible walls"

The walls between species. Perhaps the walls between different groups of people may lead to speciation in future? I remember a topic on SAGG where the consensus was the human species would grow closer together rather than speciate. In the words of the Nigerian singer Prince Nico Mbarga "Who knows tommorrow?"
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 11/05/06 09:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mike Kremer:
I'ts my considered belief that physical walls and barriers will increase, as time go's on,....even that it may well become the accepted norm in the near future.
It is paradoxical that the world becomes smaller and the global village gets bigger and yet divisions increase.

Many aspects of life are becoming increasingly polarized. In Western countries the gap between rich and poor is growing exponentially. In many areas we now have walled estates (common in places like Hollywood, but springing up everywhere) where the well-off live in sheltered, gated areas that the average Joe cannot access. The logical extension is huge self-contained apartment blocks where people have all the amenities they need, like Malls and grassy roof park areas, and never need to set foot outside to tangle with the 'undesirables'.

We now have many distinct ethnic communities within the UK, showing that at least for us, Multi-Culturalism has failed. There are places now where I would be unwelcome in my country of birth and this demonstrates the growing fragmentation and division.

We have diametrically opposed causes which in large part define many people's lives and mean that there is enmity and no common dialogue between groups. Things like feminism, pro choice & pro life, animal rights & pro hunting, environmental campaigners & big business. These things increasingly define and divide people.

The strange thing though is that politics appears to be bucking the trend. In the UK all parties have moved towards the centre and we no longer have left and right wing. There is so little to choose between the main parties that people are reduced to personality politics - we vote in the leader we like the most and not the one who?s policies we most agree with because their manifestos are virtually identical.

The strange thing about the Mexican/American wall is that it is proposed by people who promote the unrestrained Free Market and believe that if left to itself the market will effectively self organise, and yet don't see the inconsistency of putting protectionist barriers and artificial structures in place to prevent the market from doing exactly that.

Blacknad.
Posted by: samwik

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 11/05/06 10:08 AM

Haven't followed this thread much, but I saw Kinky Friedman recently say he was against the wall because he worried that in 10 years WE may want to be getting out of here!
~sa
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 11/05/06 09:04 PM

Again ... lets get real about the wall ... it will never be built.

The cost of the proposed wall is $2,000,000,000.00

The only part of that that was funded was the 0.00.

It was political posturing before an election based upon the theory that the American electorate is composed of a large number of stupid people.
Posted by: dehammer

Re: "Don't Fence Me In" - 11/05/06 11:23 PM

I suspect it will be build in sections, not as much by the goverment, as by states and groups of individuals. perhaps one day it will be complete, or it could just fall in disrepair into another legacy of the political party of the time.