[f1000]

I will start by saying that I do not believe Greenlandic Icelanders should be "pushed" into the sea. They are there now, and that is a fact. I hope, though, that this thread will explain to some of our members why there should be strong support for Inuits if they start resisting/terrorizing the Nordics in Greenland...

I think this is a more interesting debate.

[Zimphire]

[Shaddim]

**Logic, Logic, you are being summoned to the war room!!**

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by f1000:
I will start by saying that I do not believe Greenlandic Icelanders should be "pushed" into the sea. They are there now, and that is a fact. I hope, though, that this thread will explain to some of our members why there should be strong support for Inuits if they start resisting/terrorizing the Nordics in Greenland...

I think this is a more interesting debate.

At this time, they are no Inuit I am aware of acting as terrorists. The question is therefore irrelevant since it is highly hypothetical, and remains so, until they start to do it and make their reasons known.

Politically speaking, I am not certain that the Danish government tried to exterminate them (like it happened for First Nations of all Americas).

I also am aware that through the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the Inuit are very strong and gained their own relative autonomy. Now I cannot speak in their name, for the Inuit Nation is a large concept with several dialects and their footprint covers the ancient U.S.S.R. as well as the North of Canada, Alaska and previously, probably included the Ainus of Japan.

I know a bit of the Inuit of Canada, especially of Northern Quebec, and was involved politically, working for them. I know enough to let them speak for themselves, as it is their wish.

In terms of support, I would not support terrorism, but I did support them (Inuit of Northern Quebec) in many of their claims.

Small correction if I may: "Inuit" is plural. "Inuk" is singular and genderless. There is no need for a "s".

[f1000]

At this time, they are no Inuit I am aware of acting as terrorists. The question is therefore irrelevant since it is highly hypothetical, and remains so, until they start to do it and make their reasons known.

No, it is your point that is irrelevant to the thread. I didn't ask whether Inuit terrorism should be condoned, but whether it should be if it existed. Stick to the topic.

If a woman has been raped, but she does not attempt to kill her rapist, does that legalize the rape?


Politically speaking, I am not certain that the Danish government tried to exterminate them (like it happened for First Nations of all Americas).

Did not attempting to exterminate the indigenous population make Danish colonialism legal? I think a lot of Pakistanis & Indians would answer no.

In my opinion, it doesn’t matter which Scandinavian countries did the actual converting/exterminating; for the Inuit, it was all just gang rape.


I also am aware that through the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the Inuit are very strong and gained their own relative autonomy. Now I cannot speak in their name, for the Inuit Nation is a large concept with several dialects and their footprint covers the ancient U.S.S.R. as well as the North of Canada, Alaska and previously, probably included the Ainus of Japan.

Scandinavians still control Greenland, so I don’t understand your point.


I know a bit of the Inuit of Canada, especially of Northern Quebec, and was involved politically, working for them. I know enough to let them speak for themselves, as it is their wish.

When they tried to speak for themselves by saying “GET OFF MY PROPERTY,” they were killed en masse; if they are mellow now, it’s because they are thoroughly cowed and obscenely outnumbered.

Remember the Seinfeld episode where “man-hands” asks Seinfeld to make a wish? His response could have been the Inuit’s.


In terms of support, I would not support terrorism, but I did support them (Inuit of Northern Quebec) in many of their claims.

That’s because your house is not on any land they claim.

[Logic]

Is this the best you could do? You didn't have anything to prove me wrong in the other thread?

Ah well.

I think Greenland should get independent, but I'm not sure they want that. They have their autonomy but have not yet requested independence.

There, see. I replied to your topic what I think even if this thread was pure flamebait and I pity the people who think this is funny. But I guess that some of you can't argue your way out of a wet paper bag so I didn't expect much more than this.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by f1000:

At this time, they are no Inuit I am aware of acting as terrorists. The question is therefore irrelevant since it is highly hypothetical, and remains so, until they start to do it and make their reasons known.

No, it is your point that is irrelevant to the thread. I didn't ask whether Inuit terrorism should be condoned, but whether it should be if it existed. Stick to the topic.

If a woman has been raped, but she does not attempt to kill her rapist, does that legalize the rape?

So... If, as you said, the "gang rape" you refer to happened, and the Inuit did not reply by terrorism, but there was "gang rape"... this means that you are asking if the "gang rape" was legal? By the way, I love the way you contradict yourself...

your quote:

Did not attempting to exterminate the indigenous population make Danish colonialism legal? I think a lot of Pakistanis & Indians would answer no.

In my opinion, it doesn’t matter which Scandinavian countries did the actual converting/exterminating; for the Inuit, it was all just gang rape.

I also am aware that through the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the Inuit are very strong and gained their own relative autonomy. Now I cannot speak in their name, for the Inuit Nation is a large concept with several dialects and their footprint covers the ancient U.S.S.R. as well as the North of Canada, Alaska and previously, probably included the Ainus of Japan.

Scandinavians still control Greenland, so I don’t understand your point.

I suggest you get some references because actually, the Inuit are not in such a bad position. As I said, your point is highly hypothetical and does not make much sense.

I know a bit of the Inuit of Canada, especially of Northern Quebec, and was involved politically, working for them. I know enough to let them speak for themselves, as it is their wish.

When they tried to speak for themselves by saying “GET OFF MY PROPERTY,” they were killed en masse; if they are mellow now, it’s because they are thoroughly cowed and obscenely outnumbered.

Remember the Seinfeld episode where “man-hands” asks Seinfeld to make a wish? His response could have been the Inuit’s.

I think this is not applicable as you put it. It may have been true of the Cherokee, the Navajos and the Cree and the other groups. But for the Inuit, there was no territoriality as you understand it until a few decades after the first installation of white people.

Their territory was not "taken" like it was by force in North and South America. The Inuit were included in the whaling and fur economy until they got dependant of the goodies that the Southern cultures brought (guns, flour, textiles, etc.) and its auto admninistrated anesthetics: alcohol.

After the economic crash of New York, the fur markets got pretty low, which meant that for some time the Inuit were stuck with less goodies. I am not certain about what happened in Groenland during that period, but I am ready to bet that they were badly affected since Révillion Frères, the European competitor of the Hudson's Bay company went bankrupt. The alcoholism probably started in an important way then.

The Inuit have always been welcoming people; they share with everyone. When go on the land and meet them, you will always be offered tea. When they bring the game from their hunts, everyone will have a peace, even if you are a known criminal... Property does not exist the way you think...

In terms of support, I would not support terrorism, but I did support them (Inuit of Northern Quebec) in many of their claims.

That’s because your house is not on any land they claim. [/B]

You'd be surprised how much it costs to build a house over there. Unless it is sponsored by the government, there is not a chance in Hell you will build something there. Heck, I doubt you'd have the money to get there and put your tent over there!

LOL

Now we could address the issue of the real oppressor Inuit are facing: GreenPeace.

[Logic]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Now we could address the issue of the real oppressor Inuit are facing: GreenPeace.

I never thought I would see someone who agrees with me on that!



ps. hope you are not joking

[f1000]

I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of your original question, which itself was flamebait. Colonialism might be immoral, impractical, or even stupid, but it is no more illegal than wars are. Declaring Israel to be "illegal" is meaningless, since there is no world government.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Logic:


I never thought I would see someone who agrees with me on that!

ps. hope you are not joking

I know from experience. Believe me. After 6 years with the Inuit, I learned to remove some words from my daily conversation:

1) GreenPeace
2) Anthropologist
3) Let me help

1) as they ruined them. It touched me to the point that I cannot see myself giving them money.
2) made them look stupid because these guys did not understand. And it is true for many of them
3) over there we need their help. The little we can offer we should wait for them to ask after we offer once.

I could go on for hours about how that experience changed me from a pretentious pr!ck to a less pretentious pr!ck.

LOL*

And some say I have no sense of humor.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by f1000:
I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of your original question, which itself was flamebait. Colonialism might be immoral, impractical, or even stupid, but it is no more illegal than wars are. Declaring Israel to be "illegal" is meaningless, since there is no world government.

Aaaah.

If you had said so earlier we would not have gone through all this grief!


Tii turumaviit?
(Want some tea?)

[Logic]

Originally posted by f1000:
I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of your original question, which itself was flamebait. Colonialism might be immoral, impractical, or even stupid, but it is no more illegal than wars are. Declaring Israel to be "illegal" is meaningless, since there is no world government.

So why won't you try to argue your case in that thread?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by f1000:
I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of your original question, which itself was flamebait. Colonialism might be immoral, impractical, or even stupid, but it is no more illegal than wars are. Declaring Israel to be "illegal" is meaningless, since there is no world government.

[Logic]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
I know from experience. Believe me. After 6 years with the Inuit, I learned to remove some words from my daily conversation:

1) GreenPeace
2) Anthropologist
3) Let me help

1) as they ruined them. It touched me to the point that I cannot see myself giving them money.
2) made them look stupid because these guys did not understand. And it is true for many of them
3) over there we need their help. The little we can offer we should wait for them to ask after we offer once.

I could go on for hours about how that experience changed me from a pretentious pr!ck to a less pretentious pr!ck.

LOL*

And some say I have no sense of humor.

Thank you. I've been saying this for years about Green"Peace" but I have only encountered hostility from my fellow westerners, except Icelanders and Norwegians.

One example is the founder of Green"peace" who later founded Sea Shepherd. He just a terrorist and nothing else. His organization(that is funded by Greenpeace) blew up our whaling boats and the command center that ensure the safety of all our fishing boats. What did the US do about it? Absolutely nothing but sending a member of Greepeace to the IWC.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Logic:
Thank you. I've been saying this for years about Green"Peace" but I have only encountered hostility from my fellow westerners, except Icelanders and Norwegians.

One example is the founder of Green"peace" who later founded Sea Shepherd. He just a terrorist and nothing else. His organization(that is funded by Greenpeace) blew up our whaling boats and the command center that ensure the safety of all our fishing boats. What did the US do about it? Absolutely nothing but sending a member of Greepeace to the IWC.

Although I understand the message of GreenPeace, it is rather radical in its application. Fair enough the fishing industry may be pushing the limits a lot at times, but I am not certain that they should be the real targets.

Populations need to be responsibilized for their use of resources.

I am sorry you had to suffer such attacks.

[Logic]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Although I understand the message of GreenPeace, it is rather radical in its application. Fair enough the fishing industry may be pushing the limits a lot at times, but I am not certain that they should be the real targets.

Populations need to be responsibilized for their use of resources.

I am sorry you had to suffer such attacks.

True, their goal is noble but their way of achieving that goal is too radical for me.

And I agree that nations should have to be responsible in their fishing and unfortunately for Greenpeace we are probably the only nation in the world(ok, western world) that has been able to manage our resources OK. Hell, we even went to war against the Brits to defend our fish

[f1000]

Originally posted by Logic:
So why won't you try to argue your case in that thread?

Your thread was illogical, and I believed that this was a better way to show it.

I just thought a "Logic" deserved some extra special ribbing.

[Logic]

Originally posted by f1000:
Your thread was illogical, and I believed that this was a better way to show it.

I just thought a "Logic" deserved some extra special ribbing.

How is it illogical? Have you even read my first post or did you just see the title and kneejerked?

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by Logic:
His organization(that is funded by Greenpeace) blew up our whaling boats and the command center that ensure the safety of all our fishing boats.

To the whales, he's a freedom fighter. It's all a matter of perspective...

[Logic]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
To the whales, he's a freedom fighter. It's all a matter of perspective...

Good point!

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by Logic:


Good point!

[f1000]

You win angaq0k.

Now where's my tea?

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by f1000:
You win angaq0k.

Now where's my tea?

I do not believe I won anything.

Instead, I believe we all learned...

You had a good point though. I am pretty strong defender of First Nations, especially the Inuit.

And believe me, they don't understand the killing in Middle East. Some Cree in Canada was accused of anti-semitism because his belief is that Palestinians are victims of oppression; the big guys with the big guns bullying the small guy with not much.

The individual in question had to apologize publically and was repudiated from his position (which was politically very visible). But oppressed people share a lot and will support one another and they are right to do so.

That does not mean terrorism should be supported as a way to resolve any conflicts. But sometimes, for some, it seems to be the only voice they have left... And there is no small sacrifice, as criminal these could be.

Territoriality is an artificial concept. Personally, I think if we were able to give away what we truly do not need, we would probably not have so many problems. To have a country is to have an economy and a way to concentrate the benefits.

Now who really benefits from this type of operation? A few people in power. In the end, the Inuit and the First Nations of America were submitted to oppression to answer the need of power from a few. A power sustained by the immigrant population which is given leftovers for compensation afterwards (which is much more than reservations..)... like the possibility to drive a SUV, while the powerful can buy $500 t-shirts for which the manufacturing costs was 5 cents, made by a child who wil still be starving at the end of the day, in one of these countries where benevolent corporations are helping to bring out of the "gutter".

I am not promoting communism, but I believe that greed is exactly what is leading us to our own destruction. And what is happening in the Middle East is exactly that.

I did not win. I do not wish to win. Especially at the espense of anybody.

I wish we could all win. All of us human beings, all of that human race, in all its colors and speaches and beliefs. As long as we respect one another in the end and throughout the process...

Now let's put that water to a boil...

[ladybird]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
I do not believe I won anything.



Now let's put that water to a boil...

[f1000]

How is it illogical? Have you even read my first post or did you just see the title and kneejerked?

I already told you why the title of your thread is illogical: there's no such thing as a "legal" colonialist state, so how can you ask people whether one is "illegal?"

Perhaps if you rephrased the question, I might give you a response instead of a ribbing.

[Logic]

Originally posted by f1000:
How is it illogical? Have you even read my first post or did you just see the title and kneejerked?

I already told you why the title of your thread is illogical: there's no such thing as a "legal" colonialist state, so how can you ask people whether one is "illegal?"

Perhaps if you rephrased the question, I might give you a response instead of a ribbing.

first, try to use the [ quote ] blabla [ / quote ] without the spaces for replying. it makes it easier to read

So you agree that it is illegal, and that it is a colonial state?

Then I'll add the question, do you think it is moral to do what was done?

Would be great if you replied to this in my thread so that your great thread about Greenland won't be derailed

[f1000]

Originally posted by Logic:
first, try to use the [ quote ] blabla [ / quote ] without the spaces for replying. it makes it easier to read

So you agree that it is illegal, and that it is a colonial state?

Then I'll add the question, do you think it is moral to do what was done?

Would be great if you replied to this in my thread so that your great thread about Greenland won't be derailed

Sorry for my formatting ineptitude. It seems that I must drink some more tea.


Is Israel a colonial state? Not according to the following definition:

colonialism

n : exploitation by a stronger country of weaker one; the use of the weaker country's resources to strengthen and enrich the stronger country


Are Jews taking Palestinian lands by force? Yes, and the result is a growing apartheid.

For further discussion on this matter, return to your thread.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by f1000:
[...] there's no such thing as a "legal" colonialist state [...]

For that matter, maybe there isn't even such a thing like a "legal" (sic!) state...?

After all, most (if not all) states were established trough violence of some kind: so the "legality" of a state would only be the "legality" of its ruling (often post-revolutionary, so to say) class, which, once having seized "power" (thus concentrating it among the few), then effectively usurped the populace's (substantially distributed among all) power. OK, said in poor words - but the meaning should be obvious.

Anyway, Denmark as a pseudo-colonialist state is rather ridiculous and contradictory (being, after all, one of the most "free" existing states!), IMHO: they should really give Greenland back to the Inuit, at least as a first step. And, obviously, the same should Israel do with Palestine: much more difficult, however, also due to the religious fanatism (both of the "soft" and "hard" kind) of both parts.

Ooops... authoritarian states and authoritarian religions - haven't we heard that already...?

P.S.: Maybe colonialism (and imperialism, etc.) are rather unavoidable characteristics of "powerful" states/religions? Just wondering...