Educating Stephen about generalizations

Consider the following statements:

The sky is blue.

Two and two is four.

Space is empty.

Water is wet.

I suspect every English speaker in the world understands that these are generalizations. Every English speaker in the world except Newspaper Rock reader Stephen, that is. They're generally true, not universally true.

Exceptions prove the rule

Why aren't they universally true? Here are the non-general parts of these statements--the parts that are implied to every English speaker in the world (except Stephen):

The sky is blue (in general, but it's white or gray during storms and black at night).

Two and two is four (in general, but 2+2 can equal 5 or something else in non-Euclidean geometry).

Space is empty (in general, but it's occupied by minute amounts of matter and energy).

Water is wet (in general, but as water vapor or ice it has no liquid texture).

Whenever any English speaker in the world writes something in the form A=B, every other English speaker (except Stephen) understands that it's a general statement about A and B. It doesn't mean every case of A is B. Unless you explicitly say there are no exceptions, there are always exceptions.

In fact, we use words such as "every" (every A is B) or "all" (all A are B) precisely for this reason. If A=B covered the universe of possibilities, there'd be no need for words such as "all" or "every." The fact that these words persist proves the need for them.

More exceptions and explanations

Now that I've explained grade-school English to Stephen, I trust there won't be any more misunderstandings. When I write sentences such as these:

Chickens lay eggs.

Indians have brown skins.

Americans are ignorant about foreign affairs.

The Lakota lived in tipis.

They're generalizations. Every statement such as these has exceptions, so it isn't literally true. It's only figuratively or generally true.

Why aren't the above statements literally true?

Chickens lay eggs (in general, but not males and not females with diseases or birth defects that prevent reproduction).

Indian have brown skins (in general, but some are more white or black than brown).

Americans are ignorant about foreign affairs (in general, according to studies, but some are knowledgeable).

The Lakota lived in tipis (in general, but some lived in huts or lodges before the tipi era and others lived in houses after the tipi era).

Why writers avoid unnecessary qualifiers

Why don't professional writers write "in general" every time it's technically true? Because it clutters a text with unnecessary verbiage. Prose that isn't lean and taut is the death of good writing. Writing is supposed to serve the cause of communication--to convey ideas and impressions effectively even if they aren't literally true.

If we took the approach Stephen prefers, here's how we'd have to change one text to make it more accurate:Four score and seven years ago, in general, our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, in general, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, in general.

Now, in general, we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, in general, can long endure. In general, we are met on a great battle-field of that war. In general, we have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. In general, it is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate--we can not consecrate--we can not hallow--this ground, in general. In general, the brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract, in general. In general, the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here, in general. In general, it is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced, in general. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us, in general--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion, in general--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, in general--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, in general--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth, in general.Any questions, Stephen? Do you need me to explain that Lincoln didn't mean that every American state, city, neighborhood, and individual was literally at war? That he meant America was generally at war even though many citizens continued to live peaceful lives untouched by violence?

We could go through this text line by line and discuss why the qualifier "in general" is technically true. The United States wasn't literally founded in one year; the founding period arguably stretched from the 1770s to the 1790s, at least. Not every soldier literally fought bravely or nobly; some acted cowardly or deserted. Lincoln didn't expect every American, including the weak and infirm, to literally take up arms; he wanted people to support his cause morally if not physically.

Conclusion

Sheesh. Now do you understand that the qualifier "in general" is unnecessary, in general, because it's understood? I hope so, because I'm sick of your parsing my language unnecessarily. It's an utter waste of time.

Please let me know if you need any other aspects of grade-school English explained to you. As a professional writer who makes his living with words, I'm here to help those who can't read or write well. Think of it as just another benefit of your friendly, neighborhood Newspaper Rock service.

Below:  9/11 was bad. Oops, I mean 9/11 was bad in general, although some good things, such as an increased emphasis on homeland security, came out of it. All clear?

Educating Stephen about patriotism

In Letter to a Fallen Marine's Children, reader Stephen took me to task for criticizing part of said letter.I can't see anything particularly right wing about this letter;You don't see anything "particularly right wing" about taking credit for defeating communism and fighting terrorism? In other words, you're completely ignorant of the conservative legacy claimed by supporters of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush? Okay, but I wouldn't brag about it if I were you.

Apparently you're not only ignorant about historical facts, but about the political rhetoric of the last half a century. "The nay-sayers and cowards hid in the shadows sniveling that nothing was worth dying for" is a reference to liberals who sought alternatives to confrontations with Vietnam, the Soviet Union, and Iraq. If you disagree, name all the conservatives whom you think this line refers to. Good luck with your answer...you'll need it.interesting how you label anything you disagree with as 'conservative'.Since I'm generally liberal in my views, I tend to disagree with conservatives. To anyone with a shred of common sense, that explains why my targets are generally conservative.

But you think I label things "conservative" whether they're conservative or not? Yeah, I've labeled Ward Churchill, Russell Means, and Barack Obama "conservative" because I disagreed with them...not. Clearly you're attacking me by rote because you're too dumb to come up with an intelligent argument.Try going a day without all that mindless dualism.Try going a day without all these mindless comments.

If you were clever, you would've noticed that I didn't attach the label "conservative" to Zembiec's whole letter. Many of the acts I listed, especially before the 1950s, were committed by both liberals and conservatives. My posting was primarily a critique of faux patriotism, which is why I wrote:Another mindless defense of American "patriotism" and conservative "values"...sigh.Shocker: Indians owned slavesAlmost every single people on earth have had slaves; including your beloved Indians, perhaps because of the slaves Indians owned, Native Americans shouldn't be proud to be native?You keep making the same point as if I haven't rebutted it already, although I have several times. Perhaps you're too dense to understand my response. For your sake, I'll keep repeating it until you get it: Indians Owned Slaves.

When you have something intelligent to say about the fact that Native slavery was much less comprehensive and cruel than European slavery, go ahead and say it. Until then, quit wasting my time bringing up Native slavery as if I've never addressed it."Incidentally, you can bet Mendoza was a Bible-toting Christian."

Thanks for the fine example of stereotyping.Thanks for dodging the issue of the conservative mindset in America. Apparently you're too inept or afraid to address the role of conservative Christians in American politics."You can tell by how proud he was about going to war and killing people."

Unless you have evidence that he killed noncombatants, he did nothing wrong.Estimates of noncombatant deaths in the Iraq war range from 100,000 to 1 million or more. It doesn't matter if Mendoza personally killed a single noncombatant if he was "proud" of those deaths. Someone who's a true Christian, or merely a moral person, would've been shocked and horrified at that death toll, not "proud."

Jesus loves a good war?"Jesus must be rolling in his grave at the thought of taking credit for millions of deaths."

Could you specify these 'millions'?Yes, although they should be obvious. World War II: 42-70 million dead. World War I: 15-25 million dead. Vietnam War: 2.5-5 million dead. Korean War: 2.5-3.5 million dead. Etc. (Source: Wikipedia.)

Obviously, the US wasn't directly responsible for any wartime deaths until it entered these wars. Even when it entered the wars, it obviously didn't do all the killing. But that's not the point.

The point is whether you celebrate people killed in war, as Zembiec did. Or whether you mourn them, as Jesus did. Zembiec's talk of saving and rescuing people is double-speak for glorifying war. To him, all American wars are good and anyone who opposes them is a naysayer and a coward.

Yes, some American wars are necessary, although Vietnam and Iraq sure as hell weren't. Even you agreed that WW I wasn't necessary. But Zembiec didn't distinguish between good and bad wars. He's promoting mindless, "love it or leave it" patriotism and you seem to agree with him. If so, you're as mindless as he is.

Any questions? Alas, you've lost another debate. Better luck next time, chum.

For more on the subject, see The Last Refuge of a Scoundrel and Patriotism Means Asking Questions.

Educating Stephen about Obama

In response to a posting in June, reader Stephen wrote:Quick question how does an Obama supporter like Rob feel about this?

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html

How do you feel about Obama dehumanizing and denying equality to a minority? I guess that's the sorta change you and his sheep like moronic following voted for. If you need I'll be in the kitchen cooking a batch of 'told you so'.Since Stephen's personal attack was irrelevant to the posting, I deleted it. But I thought I'd take this opportunity to put him in his place once again.

Wow, Stephen, you really don't get the idea of staying on topic, do you? Thanks for demonstrating why I have to ban comments occasionally. It's because people like you think you can hijack this blog with your own agenda.

Pandering politician

I've already criticized Obama several times when it comes to Natives. I guess you missed those times? You miss a lot, don't you?

To answer your question, I think Obama is a typical pandering politician. I've said so many times in political discussions, starting when he was a candidate. Both personally and professionally, he's a mild intellectual who likes to test the waters before taking a plunge.

I always figured Obama for a middle-of-the-roader who wouldn't do anything too controversial. That's why I'm laughing at you conservatives who think he's a Soviet-style "socialist." His "cautiousness" hasn't surprised me a bit.

Therefore, you can say "I told you so" all you want. It won't faze me unless you catch me in a contradiction, which you haven't done. You "told me so" that I was right to think Obama a panderer two years ago...thanks!

Rob vs. Obama

In case you're as clueless as you seem, the positions I take are the logical ones supported by facts and evidence. I voted for Obama because his positions are similar to mine, not the other way around. When he deviates from my positions, he's the one who's wrong, not me.

Here are three issues where Obama has backtracked on his promises. Where my positions continue to be the right ones:

A Bad Call on Gay Rights

The Rank Dishonesty of the Obama Administration  [detaining suspects indefinitely]

Obama’s Make-or-Break Summer  [financial regulation]

You gotta love the intellectual dishonesty of conservatives like Stephen. When Obama does what they want, do they say, "Wow, he's turning out to be a better president than I expected"? No. These goosesteppers can't bring themselves to say anything good about him. Instead they fabricate scare stories about Obama's "fake birth certificate" or his "plan to take away our guns."

That's the difference between me and you, buddy. I'll criticize "my" people and my colleagues--whites, liberals, Indians--if they deserve it. You apparently won't. If you've ever said anything negative about your Anglo and Irish ancestors, I must've missed it. You only excuse and defend them.

The right choice

I'm still glad I voted for Obama. Pandering to the center is a lot better than pandering to the far right, as Bush and McCain did. As far as I'm concerned, there hasn't been a single instance where McCain would've made a better decision than Obama. I'm confident the country made the right choice.

McCain told us how he would've handled the Iranian protests, for instance. "Bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb Iran!" Is that your solution too, Stephen?

On gay marriage, indefinite imprisonment, and financial regulation, do you think McCain would've taken a better (more liberal) position? I don't. Obama continues to be a better choice than McCain on these issues despite his moral cowardice cautiousness.

Incidentally, calling the 53% of Americans who voted for Obama "sheep" shows what an out-of-touch elitist you are. No wonder you're so defensive about your white privilege. Apparently Obama is a threat to your power, your manhood, or something.

Are you as afraid of blacks, Latinos, and other minorities as you are of Muslims? Do you agree with writer Russell Bates that Obama has a "black agenda"? Look out, Stephen, the brown-skins are coming!

Below:  My impression of Stephen's impression of Obama.

Educating Stephen about Islam

In Armenian and Indian Genocides, reader Stephen made a bunch of false or misleading claims about Islam. As usual with Stephen's rants, these comments were almost totally unrelated to the subject at hand. If you ask me, he posted them primarily to demonstrate his holier-than-thou attitude to the world.

His main source of info seems to be the ultra-conservative TheReligionofPeace.com. I could go down the list of this site's claims and rebut them in detail, but they're irrelevant to the genocide issue. But here are a few quick 'n' dirty points:

The Qur'an doesn't say women are equal to men? Neither does the Bible.

Islam hasn't tolerated other religions? Neither has Christianity.

The 1,400 years of Muslim crimes aren't much different from the 2,000 years of Christian crimes. They tell us little or nothing about what Muslims or Christians believe today.

Islamic law is as complex and varied as the common law it's been compared to. Here, learn something about it:
There is tremendous variety in the interpretation and implementation of Islamic Law in Muslim societies today. Liberal movements within Islam have questioned the relevance and applicability of sharia from a variety of perspectives; Islamic feminism brings multiple points of view to the discussion. Some of the largest Muslim countries, including Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan, have largely secular constitutions and laws, with only a few Islamic Law provisions in family law. Turkey has a constitution that is officially strongly secular.

That slavery, terrorism, and totalitarianism may occur under Islam is equally true of Christianity.

In case you're as clueless as you seem, most Christian lands were ruled by monarchs and dictators for 1,800 of their 2,000 years. Most Islamic lands have been ruled by monarchs and dictators for only 1,400 years. In another 400 years, we can compare the average Islamic nation with the average Christian nation of the year 1800.

"The Qur'an only contains what is presented as the literal words of Allah"? Many Christians believe every word of the Bible literally comes from God.

As for your selective quoting of verses from the Qur'an, it's almost worthless as evidence. I might consider it relevant if you tallied the violent passages in the Qur'an and the Bible and expressed them as percentages of the whole. Until then, don't bother telling us what you think the Qur'an says.

After you tell us how much of each book is violent, tell us what percentage of Muslims believe the Qur'an literally and what percentage believe it figuratively. Because many Christians and Muslims don't take their scriptures literally, you know. If 1.3 billion Muslims think and act peacefully even when the Qur'an tells them not to, I'd say Islam is peaceful by definition.

In conclusion, if your point was that Islam is as barbaric as Christianity, I'll agree. If your point is that Islam is worse, I can only conclude you're ignorant about the countless examples of rape, slavery, murder, warfare, totalitarianism, conquest, and genocide instigated by Christians. So which is it?

More nonsense from Stephen

Some responses to your ridiculous claims about Muslims:Here's the thing; I'm talking about Islam not muslims in generalUh-huh, sure you are.

So what are you saying? That you understand Islam better than 1.3 billion Muslims? That 1.3 billion Muslims don't realize they practice a "religion of hate"? Or what, exactly?

Since Muslims believe in Islam, the distinction you've made is worthless. How can Muslims be "good" if they sincerely believe in a religion that's "bad"? And if Muslims are "good" even though Islam is "bad," doesn't that prove the religion is harmless? Yes, it does.I think the movie the departed is stupid but I don't think departed fans in general are stupid, catch my drift?Yep, you're trying to dissemble about your prejudice so you won't look as bigoted as you really are. At this point, I think we all understand how you try to mask your "white pride" arguments as common sense.

If fans continue to claim The Departed is good even after you've informed them it's stupid, bad, and causes real-world harm, how are you attacking the movie but not the fans? Whether you realize it or not, you're implying they're evil for tolerating an evil religion. And you're certainly implying they're stupid and ignorant for practicing Islam, which is an insult in its own right.

That you're too cowardly to state your views upfront is consistent with your cowardly refusal to sign your full name. Luckily, I'm here to spell out the implications of your views for you.

9/11 worse than Inquisition?Except that in at least one year more people were killed by Islamic terrorists (which is supported by their twisted book) than the Spanish inquisition.It's stupid and statistically invalid to compare events in the 1500s and in 2001 without considering the base populations. It's stupid, period, to limit Christian crimes to the Inquisition. Not when Christians were responsible for the two greatest examples of genocide in history.

More to the point, your claim is apparently false on the face of it. Here, learn about the Inquisition:

How many people were tortured to death during the Spanish Inquisition?Death tolls are given by historians such as Will Durant, who, in The Reformation (1957), cites Juan Antonio Llorente, General Secretary of the Inquisition from 1789 to 1801, as estimating that 31,912 people were executed from 1480-1808. He also cites Hernando de Pulgar, a secretary to Queen Isabella, as estimating 2,000 people were burned before 1490. Philip Schaff in his History of the Christian Church gave a number of 8,800 people burned in the 18 years of Torquemada. Matthew White, in reviewing these and other figures, gives a median number of deaths at 32,000, with around 9,000 under Torquemada. R. J. Rummel describes similar figures as realistic, though he cites some historians who give figures of up to 135,000 people killed under Torquemada. This number includes 125,000 asserted to have died in prison due to poor conditions, leaving 10,000 sentenced to death. (Death rates in medieval and early modern prisons were generally very high, thanks in part to inadequate sanitary conditions and a poor diet.) There are no death toll figures available for the massacres of 1391, 1468 or 1473. These numbers will likely never be known.Maybe you meant to say that Christian soldiers have killed more civilians in Iraq than Christian torturers killed during the Inquisition. If so, you'd be correct, finally.

Jesus trumps God?Also Jesus clearly rejected the old testament teachings (ie let he who is without sin cast the first stone).You can't "clearly reject" the word of God. The Old Testament is still part of the Bible and many Christians still believe it. Having both books in one volume sends a mixed message at best. It lets Christians pick and choose whether they believe the word of God or the word of Jesus. They're free to make up their own religion based on their selective reading of both testaments.

Homosexuality is a good example of this. The Old Testament condemns men lying with men, but Jesus said all you need is love. He didn't say one word about homosexuality, yet many Christians believe homosexuality is a sin. How can that be if Jesus's command to love thy neighbors is the final word?Well it is barbaric, what else do you call a religion that preaches bigotry, allows slavery (slavery existed openly in Saudi Arabia until the 1960s), tells people to kill homosexuals etc?"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." --Leviticus 20:13.

I call it Christianity. What do you call it?Except that the teachings of Christ don't support such actions (Islam does)"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword." --Jesus, quoted in Matthew 10:34.

Are you really as ignorant as you sound? Christians have used the Bible to justify 2,000 years of crimes against humanity. If you're too stupid to understand how Christian theologians and politicians have applied their religion to the real world...well, the rest of us aren't.and while it was horrible the deaths in Bosnia and Kosovo are dwarfed by the Armenian and Darfur genocides.Which in turn are dwarfed by the Christian-based genocides I mentioned above. Sorry, bud...you lose the battle of the genocides. And you lose the debate.

Conclusion

What a surprise your comments were...not. The person who defends his white ancestors against charges of genocide is also bigoted against Muslims. The only real surprise is that I haven't caught you telling us how superior Western civilization is to Native civilizations. Maybe I just haven't been paying enough attention to your racist comments.

For more on the subject, see Kill Those Towelheads! and Brotherly Love, American Style.

Below:  Islam...



and Christianity.

Educating Stephen about Israel's occupation

In "Two Peoples--One Struggle" reader Stephen ranted about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:Your posts indicate that you know next to nothing about it, not to mention the nonsense you spewed about Islam.Says the religious bigot. Besides Muslims, are there any other groups of people you feel self-righteously superior to?

In a previous posting, I told you some of what I know about the Palestinians. I laughed uproariously at your use of WorldNetDaily.com as a source of "information."

Now I'll tell you some of what I know about Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Maybe you won't sound so ignorant the next time you open your mouth.

Status of territories captured by Israel--OccupiedIn their decisions on the separation barrier, the International Court of Justice and Supreme Court of Israel have both ruled that the West Bank is occupied. The US State Department also considers the West Bank and Gaza Strip occupied.

The ICJ outlined the legal rationale for the supporters of this view in its advisory opinion of 9 July 2004. It noted:

...under customary international law as reflected (...) in Article 42 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 (hereinafter “the Hague Regulations of 1907”), territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.
On the application of the fourth Geneva Convention, the Court noted:

...for the purpose of determining the scope of application of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it should be recalled that under common Article 2 of the four Conventions of 12 August 1949:

“In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance."

(...) the Court notes that, according to the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that Convention is applicable when two conditions are fulfilled: that there exists an armed conflict (whether or not a state of war has been recognized); and that the conflict has arisen between two contracting parties. (...) The object of the second paragraph of Article 2 is not to restrict the scope of application of the Convention, as defined by the first paragraph, by excluding therefrom territories not falling under the sovereignty of one of the contracting parties. It is directed simply to making it clear that, even if occupation effected during the conflict met no armed resistance, the Convention is still applicable.
In its June 2005 ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Gaza disengagement, the Israeli High Court determined that "Judea and Samaria" [West Bank] and the Gaza area are lands seized during warfare, and are not part of Israel.""Occupied" vs. "Disputed" territoriesAppropriateness of disputed

With respect to the West Bank, Israel itself argues that it "has valid claims to title in this territory." It does not, however, identify these claims, their bases, or their extent (except to imply by use of "in this territory" rather than "over this territory" that these claims do not encompass the entire West Bank)

Use of "disputed" instead of "occupied" arguably implies the existence of contending territorial claims against some part of the West Bank, or against the West Bank as a whole. Israel makes no specific territorial claim on any part of the West Bank, however: wherever an Israeli solder leaves a footprint in the West Bank, no specific Israeli territorial claim of the area within that footprint is in evidence. Nor can Israel point at any specific site where such affirmative and incompatible territorial claims exist as might normally bring the term "disputed territory" to mind (i.e. a site within the claimed boundaries of more than one nation). The term "disputed" may not apply here as conventionally understood, or may be more suitably applied to the status of the West Bank than to the territory of the West Bank itself.

Further, the applicability of "disputed" here appears not to preclude the correctness of "occupied"

The international consensus, excepting the U.S. in some cases, is that

The annexation of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are illegal and not recognized by international law

The West Bank and Gaza are "occupied," because:

o They were captured by force of arms and against the will of their populations.

o The residents in these areas were stateless.

o Israel has put the territories under military rather than civilian administration, creating a de facto state of occupation.

If you want to challenge my sources, go ahead. Edit the Wikipedia entries and correct what you consider the mistakes. Watch how fast people correct your "corrections." That's because Wikipedia, unlike your source, tries to be fair and balanced.

Deconstructing Stephen's claimshttp://www.ujc.org/page.aspx?id=78861

MYTH

"Israel "occupies" the West Bank."

The more accurate description of the territories in Judea and Samaria is "disputed" territories.Most of the world calls the territories "occupied." Israel and its American supporters dispute this and calls the territories "disputed." And...so? Is there any particular reason we should accept the views of a tiny minority over those of the vast majority? No.

Even the Israeli High Court agrees that "Judea and Samaria" [West Bank] and the Gaza area are lands seized during warfare, and are not part of Israel." Do you have anything to say to that?

If most of the world preferred the term "disputed" to "occupied," you might have a point. But most of the world prefers "occupied" to "disputed." Your claim is stupid semantics at best, false or misleading rubbish at worst.In fact, most other disputed territories around the world are not referred to as being occupied by the party that controls them.Yes, occupiers such as Israel rarely admit that their occupations violate international law. And people accused of crimes rarely admit they're guilty. So the hell what?This is true, for example, of the hotly contested region of Kashmir.The problem with this example is that there's no consensus about Kashmir. There is a consensus about Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Hence the UN resolutions and "road maps" calling for the return of these territories.

In short, the status of Israel's occupied territories isn't "hotly disputed" by anyone except Israel. Therefore, the word "occupied" is more appropriate than "disputed."Occupation typically refers to foreign control of an area that was under the previous sovereignty of another state.That's because most territory is typically under someone's sovereign control. And not because it's a requirement of the definition of "occupation."

Conquest = self-defense?!It is also important to distinguish the acquisition of territory in a war of conquest as opposed to a war of self-defense. A nation that attacks another and then retains the territory it conquers is an occupier. One that gains territory in the course of defending itself is not in the same category.Israel's war of self-defense ended when it regained control of its fixed borders. When it overstepped those borders, it turned legitimate self-defense into an illegitimate invasion and occupation.

Anything else you need to know? Next time, do some research on something other than your rabidly right-wing websites. Then you'll learn there are plenty of arguments you've missed. Anyone who thinks there's a clearcut answer to any aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is even stupider than he seems.

Here's a clue, bright boy: If you don't want to look like a total intellectual fraud, present both sides of the issue next time. Don't waste my time telling me how much smarter you are when you're too prejudiced to acknowledge the "occupation" controversy. I'm willing to note both sides because I'm interested in the truth. Other than sheer stupidity, what's your excuse for your ideological blindness?

For more on the subject, see The Indian-Palestinian Connection.

P.S. I've disabled comments on this and the previous posting because of your obvious penchant for inundating me with irrelevant arguments. As I told you before, you're not cluttering my blog with your insults and attacks. If you have something to say, start your own blog and post your rebuttal there. Or e-mail your comments and I'll consider whether they're relevant to my mission.

You know, the mission I stated at the top of the blog? The one you're apparently too stupid to understand? Yes, the intersection of Native America and pop culture...that mission.

Educating Stephen about Palestinians

In "Two Peoples--One Struggle" reader Stephen wrote:Interesting how you whine on and on about Israel and the US and yet you seem to have no problem with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba etc.Actually, I rarely post items about Israel. And I don't whine about them--unlike your frequent whining about how you and your white relatives are as persecuted as minorities.

But let's get to the point. Are you really so stupid that you haven't noticed the theme of this blog? Even though it's staring you in front of your face every time you visit the page? It's the intersection of Native American and pop culture, dumbass--not the comprehensive reporting of racism, oppression, and terrorism around the world.

I post items on Israel only when they have a Native connection, dumbass. How many articles on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, etc. have a Native connection, and how many of them have I omitted? Go ahead and answer these questions, dumbass. Put up or shut up.

Stephen cites WNDAnd the 'Palestian people' fairy tale which you spout is a myth:

http://www.masada2000.org/been-had.html

The fact simply is that there are no Palestinians. These people are Arabs like all other Arabs, and they happen to live in a region called Palestine. They are not a separate people.Dumbass Stephen thinks I'm spouting a "fairy tale" simply because I've used the word "Palestinians" (not "Palestians"...duh). This makes me akin to the vast majority of the world--including every recent US president, lawmaker, and diplomat. Yeah, it's a shame I'm as "ignorant" as the world's leaders...not.

Because I've used a word commonly found in political negotiations, the media, and the dictionary, Stephen concludes I'm ignorant:Your posts indicate that you know next to nothing about it.He seeks to inform me with an article by Sharon Nader Sloan posted at WorldNetDaily.com. For those who don't know it, World Net Daily is a far-right "news" site that makes Fox News look moderate. Here's some info on it from Wikipedia:The website's Commentary page features editorials from the site's founder, Joseph Farah and other social conservative authors such as Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, David Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Chuck Norris.

In March 2006 Republican Colorado State Representative Jim Welker was criticized for forwarding a WorldNetDaily commentary by Jesse Lee Peterson. Congressmen criticized Welker for uncritically sending a copy of the article by email, which included the statements "President Bush is not to blame for the rampant immorality of blacks" and accused "welfare-pampered blacks" of waiting for the federal government to save them from Hurricane Katrina.

On September 13, 2001, WND published a commentary by Anthony C. LoBaido regarding the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington two days earlier. In his column, LoBaido outlined what he regarded as the moral depravity of America in general and New York in particular, asking whether, "God (has) raised up Shiite Islam as a sword against America."

A commentary by Canadian evangelical Tristan Emmanuel decried so called "Anglo-Saxon self-hatred" in Canada and the United States, and used "warring factions" of third world immigrants as a base against multiculturalism in order to suggest a whites-only immigration policy for North America.

During the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign, and in the weeks following Barack Obama's election as president of the United States, WorldNetDaily posted numerous articles that advanced conspiracy theories about his citizenship status, alleging he is not constitutionally eligible to be president because he is not a natural-born citizen and that his Hawaiian birth certificate is a forgery

In a February 10, 2009, column, Janet Porter further alleged that President Obama was acting as a mole for the Soviet Union. Porter suggested that Obama was raised as an atheist and Communist and was subsequently trained by Soviet agents during the early 1990s.Now you know what Dumbass Stephen considers "objective reporting." That alone should be enough to discredit anything he says.

On to the Palestinian "myth"

But wait...there's more. Here's how much of an idiot you are, Stephen:

I didn't say anything about the history of Palestine or the Palestinians in the previous posting. Your stupid mistake if you can't read or understand plain English. So you've invented a straw-man argument to accomplish your usual goal: trying to bolster your pathetic ego by proving yourself superior to me.

It doesn't matter if the Palestinian quest for sovereignty is only a century or two old. In that time we've seen the birth of a couple hundred countries in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Islands. Few of the peoples forming these countries had a national self-identity or desire for nationhood until recently. They were inspired by the anti-colonialist movements of the 20th century to seek everyone's birthright: the right of self-rule.

This point also encompasses the Indian nations in the United States and Canada. Although they had an inherent right to govern themselves, I doubt many of them considered themselves nations akin to Great Britain, Russia, or China. Now they do.

Since you think I'm ignorant, you can read some of what I know about Palestinians below. Maybe you won't sound so ignorant the next time you open your mouth.

Palestinian nationalismWalid Khalidi writes that Palestinians in Ottoman times were "[a]cutely aware of the distinctiveness of Palestinian history ..." and that "[a]lthough proud of their Arab heritage and ancestry, the Palestinians considered themselves to be descended not only from Arab conquerors of the seventh century but also from indigenous peoples who had lived in the country since time immemorial, including the ancient Hebrews and the Canaanites before them."

Baruch Kimmerling and Joel S. Migdal consider the 1834 revolt of the Arabs in Palestine as constituting the first formative event of the Palestinian people. Under the Ottomans, Palestine's Arab population mostly saw themselves as Ottoman subjects. In the 1830s however, Palestine was occupied by the Egyptian vassal of the Ottomans, Muhammad Ali and his son Ibrahim Pasha. The revolt was precipitated by popular resistance against heavy demands for conscripts, as peasants were well aware that conscription was little more than a death sentence. Starting in May 1834 the rebels took many cities, among them Jerusalem, Hebron and Nablus. In response, Ibrahim Pasha sent in an army, finally defeating the last rebels on 4 August in Hebron. Nevertheless, Benny Morris argues that the Arabs in Palestine remained part of a larger Pan-Islamist or Pan-Arab national movement.

Rashid Khalidi argues that the modern national identity of Palestinians has its roots in nationalist discourses that emerged among the peoples of the Ottoman empire in the late 19th century, and which sharpened following the demarcation of modern nation-state boundaries in the Middle East after World War I. Khalidi also states that although the challenge posed by Zionism played a role in shaping this identity, that "it is a serious mistake to suggest that Palestinian identity emerged mainly as a response to Zionism."

Historian James L. Gelvin argues that Palestinian nationalism was a direct reaction to Zionism. In his book The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War he states that "Palestinian nationalism emerged during the interwar period in response to Zionist immigration and settlement." Gelvin argues that this fact does not make the Palestinian identity any less legitimate:

"The fact that Palestinian nationalism developed later than Zionism and indeed in response to it does not in any way diminish the legitimacy of Palestinian nationalism or make it less valid than Zionism. All nationalisms arise in opposition to some "other." Why else would there be the need to specify who you are? And all nationalisms are defined by what they oppose."Any questions on how much better I understand the Palestinian issue than you do, Stephen? If so, you know where to reach me.

For more on the subject, see The Indian-Palestinian Connection.

Below:  Palestinians dress as (stereotypical) Indians because they both seek their sovereign rights.

Educating Stephen about white privilege

In Samoans Riot Over "Sambo" Poster, reader Stephen complained about my mention of white privilege. Here's my response:

First, let's note that you didn't have anything specific to say about my claim re the Sambo poster. You attacked the concept of white privilege in general because you can't stand anything that makes "your" people look bad.

As I've said before, it's amazing how defensive you are about being white. You're not dumb enough to try to defend genocide, boarding schools, or mascots in this blog, but you deny or excuse most other charges of racism against whites. Especially charges against the Irish, Scots-Irish, or whoever it is you consider your ancestors.

Some specific problems with your response:

Whites are privileged nowA. It implies that caucasians in general are privileged; the whites who are piss poor and reviled as 'rednecks 'white trash' or 'racists' are not exactly rolling in priviledged. However there's no denying that a White elite exists.a) Whites in general are privileged. Even poor whites have advantages over minorities. Especially equally poor minorities.

If you disagree, show us some evidence to the contrary. For instance, evidence that minorities dominate significant institutions in our society. Hint: Sports and music don't count unless minorities are the owners, not merely the players.

But whatever you do, spare us your inability to deal with generalizations and start making an actual case. In other words, put up or shut up. If you can't support your case with facts and evidence, give up and admit you've lost another debate.

Whites have always been privilegedB. It implies that Whites have a history of being privileged; I wouldn't say the Jews or Armenians have had a free ride.b) Whites in general do have a history of being privileged. Not all whites, bright boy, but whites in general. If you still don't understand what a generalization is, let me know and I'll explain it to you.

In large part we're talking about white Anglo-Saxons. You know, the whites who have dominated many institutions throughout America's history? The whites who have made up a majority of America's whites?

In recent years, other white people--Irish, Italian, Greek, Polish, Jewish, Armenian, et al.--have joined WASPs among the privileged. But blacks, Latinos, and other minorities are still on the outside looking in. To simplify it for you, white skins have power, brown skins don't.

But so what if the makeup of the white elite has changed somewhat over the years? What hasn't changed is that the elite are still white. Hence the phrase "white privilege" rather than "Anglo-Saxon privilege"...duh.

The concept dates to 1935, at leastC. The term comes from the domestic terrorist org the weather underground, is it really wise to use terms coined by idiotic rich kids who thought they could change the world with pipe bombs?c) For starters, Wikipedia saysThe Weathermen were outspoken advocates of the critical concepts that later came to be known as “white privilege” and identity politics.So you're probably wrong about the origin of the phrase. If you disagree, cite and quote your evidence.

More important, who cares who came up with the phrase? If you read the Wikipedia entry, you'd know the concept goes back at least to W. E. B. Du Bois and his 1935 book Black Reconstruction in America. It wouldn't surprise me if intellectuals have discussed and debated the concept since the Reconstruction Era.

In short, your third point is wrong and irrelevant to boot. No one cares where the term comes from if it accurately describes a problem. Which it does.

Affirmative action?D. Affirmative action isn't actually insignificant.d) Did someone say affirmative action is insignificant? Did anyone even mention affirmative action? No.

I don't get your point here. If I had to guess, I'd say you're going to tell us how your poor white relatives are losing jobs to people who don't deserve them. In other words, a typical racist rant that blames the "problems" of whites on minorities.

Did I guess right? If not, please fill us in. Clarify your unclear point so we know what you're talking about.

I trust you have better arguments than these about the so-called "cliche" or "myth" of white privilege. So far your arguments look pretty shallow to me. If you think you can do better, try disputing the 281,000 hits you get when you Google "white privilege." Good luck...you'll need it.

Blog titles

Finally, that you've criticized me for putting my name in the title of blog postings is a joke. Here's why your criticism is stupid:

First, it's my blog, so why would I need to put my name in the title to get attention? I get attention from every posting whether my name is in it or not.

Second, I've done it a couple dozen times, so it's nothing new. When you pick on any one posting, you're only revealing your ignorance of this blog's history.

Third, I'll put anyone's name in the title if it reflects what the posting is about. This posting is about how you bitch and moan every time I generalize about whites--even if my statements are generally true.

For more on the subject, see my posting on systemic racism.

Below:  An example of white privilege in action. (Hint: This is a mock picture that depicts a valid point. See if you can figure it out so I don't have to spell it out for you.)