I had a interesting weekend, I overheard a debate that I refused to get involved with, but I’d like to hear everyone’s opinion……
This is how it went, and I’m not sure how it started.
It was over what’s so different and what makes one country occupation worse than others, and these are the examples given.
US Colonists v American Indians
British Control v US Colonist
British Control Over Ireland (now Northern Ireland)
The State of Israel over Palestine
Israel v Egypt and Syria (back when they occupied that land that is now Israel)
British Occupation over Taiwan
British Occupation over South Africa
Iraq’s occupation into Kuwait
I think that was about it, I will update if I can remember more. Anyway the argument got pretty heated, from religious freedom to shear control and power…… Then again the question, why is one worse than the other, and who really has claim to that land ?
Well Native/Euro relations in the mid to late 18th Century is my area of expertise. Mostly dealing with the NY and Ohio Country Frontiers.
Ive always thought that our dealings with the world in the mid to late 20th century and on up to today is that we are trying to prevent some of the mistakes we made “Growing up”
But anyway I see more of a common ground between the euro conquest of North America with the current Hispanic conquest of North America.
Nothing like a nice, light-hearted discussion:cool: . Are you out of your mind, man? These kinds of conversations over a beer are likely to wind up in fisticuffs.
No offense, but this is too third-rail dangerous, incendiary even, to have a polite discussion about who is right and who is wrong. Just my opinion, take it for what it’s worth.