On 9/28/2006, "Kevin Tolley" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Though and the bottomline of my comparison with
>> the past is that if no conflict does occur won't it
>> be the first time, in the recorded history of
>> mankind, that mass migrations haven't caused some
>> conflict? So it would be interesting to see the
>> difference and perhaps again raide the question that
>> perhaps not all migrations really do cause conflicts
>> as they apparently do in some form or other.
>Of course it is not the first time mass migration has
>failed to cause conflict. Look at the Irish
>immigration into America. Their migration caused
>social tension and an unfortunate lingering
>predjudice, but there were no conflicts of the type
>you mean. That is to say the Irish immigrants and the
>Americans didn't hack at each other to solve the
>problem of living quarters and resources.
Yeah, but you hack to selectively define "Americans" at this stage of
the game. A lot of the incoming Irish, also went to the "West"--where
they ended up fighting various Native American groups, Mexicans, etc.
look at the death list for the AlamoSo, to make the blithe statement they
didn't come into conflict is an understatement.
Second, for the ones who came in the 1860s, both the Union and the
were also happy to harness them as soldiers...