Gavin writes that:

...But if we are to return all lands to the successors of the original
inhabitants we will have to evacuate North America and Australia for a
start, and maybe deport the Anglo-Saxons from Britain.

I don't think either the Israelis or the Diaspora Jews now scattered around
the world would appreciate Gavin's premise ---> conclusion, which is a bit
of a non sequitur.

Having been driven out of one's homeland so many times, and by so many
conquerors, and having suffered discrimination, humiliation, torture and
death in so many other countries to which they were driven, Israelis are not
demanding the return of all of the biblical lands, only a small sliver of
it, and the right to live in peace with their neighbors.  Is that so
difficult to understand?

Another statistic:  How many countries are eligible to have their
representative elected as Chairman of the UN?   Answer:  60+  (All but one).
How many countries are not eligible?  Answer:  One.  (Israel).

Most of my younger colleagues did not live through the days of the
occupation of Europe by the Nazis, nor of the bombing of Britain.  Should
the US have come to their defense?  Or should we instead have said, "No,
thanks.  We've read McEvedy and other historians.  Why should the Brits
occupy the Islands, or be entitled to quiet enjoyment of them?  After all,
others may have also occupied these lands in other epochs"

By buying into McEvedy's argument, one finds rationalization for
discriminatory and prejudicial behavior by abandoning the most fundamental
humane instincts of mankind.. namely those concerned with social justice and
equity.  There is no fault here.  However dastardly its consequences, it is
only natural.  In the Western world, Christians have seldom become the focus
of world-wide discrimination.  Western historians rationalize the past
deceitful actions of almost every nation in the Northern Hemisphere
vis-a-vis the Jewish people and the subsequent state of Israel, but they
cannot come close to the experience of being dragged out of bed by the
Gestapo, of being slaughtered along with the last 900 survivors of the
Jewish Civilization at Masada, of seeing your wife and daughter raped, your
town pillaged by Russian Cossacks, Polish armies, Arab armies, and then
being told to go live in still another country if you can survive long
enough to walk there.
Western historians cannot visualize the terror of the past.  They can come
no closer to the real world than their experiences will permit; e.g., as
witness perhaps to an occasional bomb being set off by the IRA.  They seem
able to rise to the defense of virtually every kind of discrimination
against virtually every identified race, nation, religion or sexual
preference, but they are unable to rise to the defense of those Jewish
people on the planet who know in their hearts that other holocausts are in
store for them, and that their only refuge is a State of their own, however
small and continually threatened that State might be.

Why do we find such difficulty in perceiving the historical and future
consequences of those actions we take against other groups, other states,
other peoples?  Is it because of our inability to place ourselves in a time
machine that might move backward and forward in time, exposing to our view
the sentiments of people in earlier eras, and the sentiments of people in
future eras that are shaped by the actions we take now?

An interesting problem for the social sciences, including cultural
anthropology is that of devising survey research instrumentation that might
enable valid comparisons to be drawn between a) the perceptions we presently
hold concerning the world/nation/city in which we live and b) the
perceptions that were held by those living centuries earlier concerning
their own circumstances.
It appears that, with respect, e.g., to a war between two entities,  we
presently see the targeting of a Palestinian house as an example of
incredible barbarism, and the military occupation of territory conquered
from an invading enemy  as an example of unprincipled Nazism.  Whereas, in
the 1940's we were as grateful for the bombing of Dresden as we were
saddened for the bombing of London, and when the Allied armies defeated the
Germans in Europe, we saw no problem in our own military occupation of
sizeable portions of Europe until such times as peace treaties could be
negotiated and formalized between the powers, the Soviets, and Japan.

But peace and war embrace only one dimension of our history and of our
understanding of the source of our contemporary values.  In 1930, our
dearest physical possessions consisted often of a 3 room apartment, bread on
the table, a radio, a job (any job), and three changes of clothes.  We
experienced warm, rich human relationships in those comparatively humble
times.. i.e., within our own in-group.

Today, the thought of existence without guaranteed employment, 32-hour
weeks, TV, restaurants,coffee-houses, medical care and retirement options
leave us miserable.  Are there methodologies that would enable us to
calibrate these kinds of cross-generational and cross-century sentiments?
And despite the rapid development of the psychological sciences, do we
really understand anything at all concerning the manner in which communities
adapt to their circumstances.... or the conditions of their life that causes
a triggering of hostile and discriminatory treatment of other communities,
other nations, and other people on their own block?

Paul Hoffman


----- Original Message -----
From: "gavin ross (IACR-RES)" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: some stats


>         A useful reference for this argument is the series of maps
produced by Colin McEvedy for the Penguin historical atlases, published
about 1968, and the subsequent Penguin Atlas of World Population History
(1978) by Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones.
>         The relative time in which the kingdoms of Israel and Judah
existed as independent entities was extremely small, say 200 years out of
4000, apart from some local autonomy around the first century AD.  The
Hebrews, along with other tribes, fought each other for control of the
fertile area of Palestine.  The more powerful civilisations of the Nile
valley and Mesopotamia were often able to control the area, as were the
Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Ottomans and British at later dates.
>         McEvedy doubts the validity of the population statistics given in
the Old Testament, on the grounds that the poverty of the environment would
in no way support more than a few hundred thousand in all of Palestine and
Trans-Jordan.  The Old Testament description of the invasion of Palestine by
Moses and Joshua makes for horrific reading, with orders for the total
destruction of any population that got in their way, men, women and
children, together with savage retribution for anyone who dared protest.
There is frequent reference to the slaughter of tens of thousands, which if
added up would require an unbelievably large resident population.  Perhaps
one should apply the same exaggeration factor as has been suggested to
explain the ages of the patriarchs (still begetting sons and daughters at
500 or older).
>         McEvedy makes interesting observations on the relationship between
geography and the frequency with which a piece of territory changes hands.
Politicians exploit religious and nationalistic sentiment to claim ownership
of desirable pieces of real estate, such as Greater Germany, Greater Serbia,
and other former war zones.  But if we are to return all lands to the
successors of the original inhabitants we will have to evacuate North
America and Australia for a start, and maybe deport the Anglo-Saxons from
Britain.
>
> Gavin Ross
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ray Thomas [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 22 July 2002 10:41
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: some stats
> >
> >
> > > Any sane person would have to say that waiting almost 2000 years
> > > for the return of your tiny homeland after it was seized by Romans,
> > > Ottomans and British reflects a certain degree of patience.
> >
> > Don't know whether those of us who don't have such a strong sense of
> > cultural identify feel envious or pitiful at this kind of
> > statement.   But I
> > am curious about the mechanisms by which this aspiration for
> > a seemingly
> > exclusive homeland have been maintained for 2000 years.
> >
> > The inculcation of this aspiration now appears to have
> > created one of the
> > most racist communities in the world, and the biggest threat
> > to world peace.
> > So it is really important to know if this inculcation is
> > being continued and
> > how it is being continued.
> >
> > Ray
> >
> > ******************************************************
> > Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
> > message will go only to the sender of this message.
> > If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
> > 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
> > to [log in to unmask]
> > *******************************************************
> >
>
> ******************************************************
> Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
> message will go only to the sender of this message.
> If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
> 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
> to [log in to unmask]
> *******************************************************

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************