Who wants to learn about nondescript countries in Siberia? Its where people are sent to die.:shrug:
Victims
- Thread starter wesmorris
- Start date
Who wants to learn about nondescript countries in Siberia? Its where people are sent to die.:shrug:
there are no countries in Siberia...:bugeye: S.A.M you are worrying me here...Siberia is a landmass in Russia.
Yeah yeah, some white space on the northwest side of the map. :shrug:
Its all Siberia.
No wait Russia is north east. Right?
/giggle
Jews started buying land in Palestine long before the state of Israel was given to them. Palestine was under control of Britain at the time, if you recall, it wasn't under Muslim jurisdiction. The international law protects Israel's existence. In the Six Day War, Israelis won their land and some extra territories. Yes, that was honest combat, that's how land is acquired among nations ever since humanity started its existence.
Learn to read books.
The land was given to the Israelis on a silver platter. Influential Zionists wrote and signed declarations that became the template for how powerful countries were legally forced to view the Palestine issue (essentially, in favor of the Zionists). They were funded immensely by the U.S., who needed the Israeli presence in the Middle East for Western stability and control.
Fought for and won fairly? Hah! What have the Jews ever fought for and won in their 4,000 year history? They've always been conquered and relocated. Leeching off the world's sympathy for the Holocaust, they were armed and aided in establishing a state through the British-controlled mandate. The Israelis didn't fight for a damned thing.
It's nice that you mention Siberia. Siberian natives are just as troubled as American Indians because Russian oil development is destroying their environment. Don't you have pity for Siberians?
no they are not. The oil development is much cleaner than any other country, because it has to be pumped out of the ground and every ounce of it is precious it goes to pipes that are checked for leaks hourly with sensor systems high tech. The natives are for it because the companies that get the oil from their lands, pay the natives condiments and make new roads and new jobs for them.
Oh rly?
Gawsh how nice of you to let me know.
Btw, Britain was administering Palestine, they did not own it. And none of the above makes it compulsory for Palestinians to accept what some white man somewhere decided to do with his country.
Indians have seen such colonialists come and go since 5000 years. Weren't worth a damn to us. Israel is just another colonialist.
They should move to Latvia. Latvians are very accomodating of immigrants who want a state.
I'm sure if they asked the Russians nicely, they would get it for them.
Its not like Latvians need a state, lots of Caucasians around to accomodate them.
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
I said past tense. Also if I am in heaven. In other words, if I end up in a place where I am as happy as possible, I am not a victim. I am not sure what I can say about a dead person's current status. I can certain say, about that man if the bulldozer ran him over and killed him, that he was a victim of, I assume, Israel's policies and that driver's actions.
You need to learn to pick your fights. And it seems you have, with the help of others sent the thread off on a tangent, however important.
I'm wondering what defines a victim. His own actions or the actions of his oppressor
I think its an interesting experiment in victimhood; I am now supposed to be feeling sorry for displaced Siberians while welcoming Israeli occupation
In the eyes of many people, I think so.
I've witnessed many times that those who were attacked but defended themselves were not considered victims - and as such not entitled to retribution and justice.
1. Succomb, give in, capitulate, declare defeat and pledge allegiance to the more powerful opponent.
2. Resist, in whatever way possible, given the circumstances, to death.
3. Declare the more powerful opponent as evil, as someone who has no honor, and continue with one's life in whatever way possible, given the circumstances.
I'll pick number two.
There is also the option to simply persevere, don't you think?
e.g. the city of my birth, Mumbai, was given as a wedding present to Charles of England by the occupying Portuguese, when he married Catherine Braganza of Spain. (1661).
However, there are no British, Portuguese or Spanish in Mumbai today. Took 200 years of course, but some things cannot be achieved in one generation.
How long did it take for Indians to realize, "hey, these British people are disassembling our successful shipbuilding and steel industries, making our farmers pick cotton rather than grow food (which they actually sell back to us as clothing), given us two dozen famines as a result, and make our people fight their wars"? Two hundred years is a ridiculously long time to put up with that nonsense.
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
Interesting question. Let me see. First I want to repeat that in the situation in the photo I do not want to limit that man to victim status. I do think he is a victim, but not only that. I also want to keep the label flexible in time. I also do not want to contain him by the label if he does not want it. But I am happy to contain the bulldozer policy makers with the label victimizers or oppressor or perps, though they may also be other things, regardless of what they want. So it depends somewhat on the context.
The obvious answer is not to. Or to feel sorry for the displaced Siberians, but not to be distracted by it. Hell, I didn't read the exchange with them, so I don't know. Sounds rather silly.
Ah but the concept of a nation is a western one. We were a culture that assimilated. We welcomed foreigners, immigrants, as much for their talents as for their contributions.
The idea that someone would come, not to add but to take away was a novel one and it took at least 3 generations under the British to unlearn 5000 years of hospitality and accomodation (pretty much what is happening in Arab countries now, where the sofra is no longer of such importance as a representation of honour). But they did a pretty good job. Most Indians today have the same attitude that the British had then and consider themselves equal to if not better than all the savages out there.
http://www.hindu.com/2007/12/11/stories/2007121155841000.htm
We are now an arrogant culture rather than an argumentative one.
We've turned full circle from victimhood to superiority
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
I think specifics need to be gone into. This is way too abstract a level. We need to know the implications of 'not being a victim' if one fights back. Does this mean one no longer needs emergency health care and the ones who did whatever it was committed a crime? Probably not. I hope you see what I mean. If the not being a victim means that no one committed a crime or should make reparations or should stop doing what they did and yet we see what they did as a crime the internal state of the one treated immorally is not the issue.
Victim can mean a simply practical thing. Someone used power in an immoral way against you. (not that working this out is simple, but it is not about how the person feels, sees themselves)
Victim can also be a description of what the person is now experiencing after the fact.
Someone could tear down a billionaires house illegally. His people go out and see to it that the prosecution of the criminal is taken care of according to the law and the billionaire, not for a moment disturbed since he has 12 houses and rarely used that one, just moves on to his next phone call. I can't see him as a victim in the latter sense. Even if the criminal was driven by unjustified rage and hatred because the billionaire is black.
If three guys stop me in the street and try to mug me and I (miraculously, I mean, they would have to be very small and pathetic if there are three of them) I defend myself against their violence, do not get hurt and make a citizen's arrest, I can't say I would be, in the latter sense, a victim. In a practical sense I was the victim of a crime - assault and battery - which is not changed because they were bad at it.
If I fought back when they started hitting me and I got my ass kicked - ah, now we move into the realms of liklihood - I would, very likely both be a victim, amongst other things, and feel like one, so be one in the latter sense. I would probably be nervous at night, have physical pain and so on. Even though I fought back. However that very day I might confront my boss about his abusive practices in relation to me and other staff, while gesturing with my crutches, and be considered a hero for risking his job to state the truth to power. So I am also not a victim.
I want to keep stressing that we shouldn't boil humans down into single labels and permanent ones. And that you can have perpetrators without the second kinds of victims.
Thats rather ambitious of you. I am interested in this phenomenon too and in my opinion, people prefer a "standard" victim. You want someone who needs help, who is grateful for it. You don't want someone who takes the help for granted as a given or someone who thinks that the crime done to them justifies revenge.
IOW, victims must be "good" or they are not victims. A show of strength from a victim is unwanted.
I think its possibly why some people hate the Palestinians - because they refuse to accept their status.
Don't they know they lost, dammit? Why won't they give up? Just make them STOP!