🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr13.185652.17362@techbook.com> gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:
>   Well, I can certainly blame the US for all the land-grabs taken after
>   1776, can't I? Which includes everything outside the 13 colonies. Hmmm,
>   that's quite a bit, don't you think?

The imperial land-grabs were well over by 1776.  England, France,
Spain, Portugal, and to a lesser extent the Netherlands had all
divided up the New World centuries before.  National boundaries
thereafter were decided by international wars between the resulting
New World states, and by land purchases.

>   I don't have any argument with the latter paragraph, but it has nothing
>   to do with what I orginally corrected you on.  It's possible to
>   criticize the formation and structure of Israel without distorting the
>   facts to make the US look like some shining light.
>
>   You still haven't mentioned the Indians.

Please remember that the new and improved US now has a thousand points
of light.  Much better than the single shining light of yesteryear. :-)

>   >Notice please that the Philippines were given independence in 1946.
>   >Now please explain what the Black Panthers have to do with territorial
>   >imperialism.
>
>   There's good reason to believe they were finally -- finally -- given
>   their independence to prevent large scale Filipino immigration to this
>   country.  And, anyway, so what!?  Just because 46 years later we got
>   around to it, we weren't imperialistic?

There is also good reason that Phillipine independence was always in
the works.  The US involved Filipinos in their government pretty much
from the start.  They got commonwealth status in 1935, and were then
self-governing.  The Japanese invasion sort of slowed things down.

A parallel case was Puerto Rico, also taken from the Spanish at the
same time.  They are also a commonwealth, and don't want independence.

>   Considering the way the US government invaded Indian land (you still
>   haven't mentioned the Indians, and you keep slipping away from that one)
>   annd the way they invaded black neighborhoods and dealt with Black Power
>   advocates, it has _a lot_ to do with imperialism.
>
>   I repeat: do not attack Israeli domestic policy by comparing it
>   unfavorably to US policy.  They BOTH SUCK!

Hmmm, putting down Black Power militarists constitutes imperialism?
Not quite.  That interpretation would require one to consider Watts,
Harlem, etc as colonies of Washington.  If that were really the case,
then Washington would be better off divesting, for these colonies are
hardly money making opportunities.
--
=Jim  jime%atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)