Ok, I'll take the soapbox briefly myself:
| Stepping on a pseudo-revolutionary soapbox for a moment, the "Roman" genocide
| of the Irish looks like normal political expansion to me. Not to say that it
Of sorts. Only some cultures have the predisposition to large-scale
military conquest and brutality.
| isn't wrong and tragic. A dominant culture either assimilates or destroys that
| which it fears. It's still going on, from Sarajevo to Vanilla Ice. The main
Only some cultures have the predisposition to be dominating in this way.
It has much more to do with conflicts of interests and latent militant
tendencies than "fear".
One mustn't idly use the example of Sarajevo, since this mess is the result
of dominant powers (ie, the West) arbitrarily splitting up ethnic groupings
in WW II without the consideration of those involved.
| "crime" of the Irish is that they never got the chance to be dominant.
What do you mean? They were dominant in Ireland for a hell of a long time.
Their broad culture, Celtic, was dominant throughout the islands as well as
the continent. But while it had "raids" and looting ('Ta\in's) as dominant
activities, imperialist expansion was simply not part of its ideology. It
was not a large-scale, centralist culture, such as Roman or Anglo-Norman.
| Honestly, if they were given that chance, I'd bet we could read about a long
| and bloody history of the Irish persecuting the English and whomever else was
| within reach.
Quite the contrary. This is my point. You are projecting your own
culture and history onto people for whom these concepts are alien, imported
by their current oppressors.
| In fact, didn't I read something about the Tuatha De Dannan
| kicking out some race that was already in Ireland when they came?
In _mythology_, the Tuatha gained control over Ireland, and in their turn
"split" Ireland between themselves and the Milesians. Don't get your history
and mythology confused.
| Ultimately, we have to reach further than common racial ancestry to bring
| peace to Northern Ireland and the rest of the world. It all sounds like
| cliches by now, but we've got to rely on our common human ancestry to get past
| our diversities of color, class, and creed.
Cliche, yes, absolutely, and oversimplified in misunderstanding the nature
Respecting our common humanity would mean allowing other cultures and
societies to exist in their own way in their own lands. This is anethema
to technocratic-industrial society, which is fueled by expansion, growth,
opening "new markets", gaining control over other people's resources and
protecting its' "way of life" (as Bush admitted during the Gulf War).
Our diversities of colour, class and creed are what make us human, rather
than being identically moulded widgets from an assembly line, which is
what modern industrial society would rather have us be, for maximising
consumption of standardised products and for making us interchangable
cogs in its' machine.
If we all have so much in common, why is it so necessary for major
Western powers to have *their* own language, culture, and ideology dominant
over everybody else's, to the exclusion of everyone elses?