Creative Destruction

September 18, 2007

Indigenous Peoples Resolution

I recently learned about a resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 13. From the news report at the above link:

Despite strong objections from the United States and some of its allies, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution Thursday calling for the recognition of the world’s 370 million indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination and control over their lands and resources … An overwhelming majority of UN member countries endorsed the Declaration, with 143 voting in favor, 4 against, and 11 abstaining … The United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand stood alone in voting against the resolution. The nations that neither supported nor objected were Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russia, Samoa, and Ukraine.

The UN has a permanent forum on this issue, and numerous organizations exist for the primary purpose of promoting noninterference with indigenous peoples. (Manifest destiny has been invalidated, much like colonialism and empire building, but the same essential practices continue under the banners of “globalization” and “economic development.” Both terms read to the critical eye as euphemisms for theft and exploitation that has continued unabated for centuries, if not millennia.)

The first thing that stands out about the resolution is the small group of dissenting countries. What possible moral high ground can be claimed by the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand — each with its own unique indigenous culture (largely destroyed by now) — by insisting (by inference) that they should be able to remove “indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination and control over their lands and resources”? It’s like children saying “We want what we want, and those people are in the way, so they have no rights.”

The other strange thing is that my Google search revealed no report, now four days later, on any of the major media outlets (MSNBC, CNN, ABC News, WSJ, NYT, Fox News, etc.). The reports that do show up are all foreign news, small news aggregators, and a handful of blogs. It’s impossible to believe that these reporting omissions have no motivation.

31 Comments »

  1. Another way of looking at it is that the countries which still have an indigenous remnant, reject this approach, while the countries that exterminated THEIR predecessors centuries or millennia ago think it’s jolly. Now that I have diabetes, I am all in favor of banning soda pop. Celibates for abstinence-only education! We Germans are outstanding at teaching other cultures not to practice genocide.

    And so forth.

    Comment by Robert — September 18, 2007 @ 12:20 pm | Reply

  2. What exactly does “indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination and control over their lands and resources” mean?

    Also, where’s my right to self-determination?

    Comment by Brandon Berg — September 18, 2007 @ 12:30 pm | Reply

  3. Well, you’re not indigenous, Brandon. You’re one of those mysterious white people who appear out of thin air.

    Comment by Robert — September 18, 2007 @ 1:35 pm | Reply

  4. The four dissenting countries are far from the only countries with surviving indigenous peoples. Large parts of Africa, S. and Central America, Central Asia, and Indonesia have such cultures, plus many more peasant cultures scattered around the globe that aren’t far removed from indigenous cultures. True, some “fully developed” Western countries, such as France, have completely extinguished ways of life not centered around modern Western notions of capital and property. However, it’s still a wide world, and industrial civilization doesn’t yet hold sway over all of it.

    Brandon Berg asks:

    What exactly does “indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination and control over their lands and resources” mean?

    One simple answer is that peoples and cultures that lack formal institutions to recognize their land use and resource ownership — especially when they’re collective — should not be forcibly removed from their ancestral lands for failure to produce a title a Westerner would authenticate. Clearly, this doesn’t apply to those of us who grew up in cities and suburbs with some version of a traditional family unit contributing to the national economy.

    Comment by Brutus — September 18, 2007 @ 2:24 pm | Reply

  5. One simple answer is that peoples and cultures that lack formal institutions to recognize their land use and resource ownership — especially when they’re collective — should not be forcibly removed from their ancestral lands for failure to produce a title a Westerner would authenticate.

    So essentially, Western countries should not be able to introduce those institutions.

    Comment by Robert — September 18, 2007 @ 2:30 pm | Reply

  6. Correct. They don’t apply universally. No one owns the air; no one owns the earth; no one owns the water; no one owns the wildlife; etc. It’s difficult for Westerners to understand, but that’s the way it was for hundreds of thousands of years before we evolved those institutions.

    Comment by Brutus — September 18, 2007 @ 3:07 pm | Reply

  7. Yes. It was like that for hundreds of thousands of years.

    You are urging that we stop having progress so that people can go back to living in caves.

    Comment by Robert — September 18, 2007 @ 3:10 pm | Reply

  8. No, I’m advocating that we leave alone those who live in caves (or rain forests, or deserts, or highlands, etc.) and stop seizing their lands and resources. Kinda like the resolution says. Our progress should not depend on the destructions of others’ way of life.

    Comment by Brutus — September 18, 2007 @ 4:43 pm | Reply

  9. “Their land and resources”?

    Didn’t you just finish saying that nobody owns these things?

    Comment by Robert — September 18, 2007 @ 4:48 pm | Reply

  10. Our progress should not depend on the destructions of others’ way of life.

    This is like “be nice to everyone” – a sentiment that on first examination seems bulletproof. But applied at anything other than a completely superficial level, it isn’t a survivable philosophy.

    I agree that we should not go around bullying people and taking their property away when we have no pressing need to. If that’s really what’s motivating an interest in a resolution like this one, then by all means let’s talk about how to reduce bullying and theft in the world. I suggest institutions that create, preserve and protect property rights.

    But it is very difficult for me to see how a technological race can exist in a diverse universe without implicitly destroying lifeways. Further, this destruction is by no means always destructive in net outcomes; check the blog title again. Yes, the lifeways of 10 million indigenous people were destroyed when Europeans settled the Americas – and a half-billion people now live in their stead (including a fair number of descendants of the indigenous people).

    Any decent person has sympathy for groups overwhelmed by a cultural wave, and sympathy for the individuals whose lives become unmoored. Yet the same decent person can also have a hard time positing that it would be preferable to replace downtown Manhattan with a hunting camp. It’s not nice that functionally superior cultures tend to displace their less impressive competitors, but it’s also something that seems irretrievably tied up in having a good culture to begin with.

    Comment by Robert — September 18, 2007 @ 8:25 pm | Reply

  11. Robert wrote:

    It’s not nice that functionally superior cultures tend to displace their less impressive competitors, but it’s also something that seems irretrievably tied up in having a good culture to begin with.

    That’s the crux, isn’t it? Functionally superior Western cultures aren’t very nice; they’re downright nasty to their competitors. But I don’t see how functional superiority goes with having a good culture. Better at violent oppression and theft doesn’t make for good culture. You’re also right that a technologically advanced culture (your word was actually race, but it’s the wrong word) must implicitly destroy lifeways. It destroys a lot more beside that, in fact. The term we’ve appropriated for this blog, creative destruction, has its roots in a paranoid mindset of the early Cold War era and refers to a style of full-spectrum dominance, or total war, or dog-eat-dog irrational fear. Of course, it’s cloaked in American jingoism. Hardly the mark of a good culture.

    You’re also right that I erred saying that no one can own something and then saying they own it. It’s a pointer to the contradiction of terms inherent in our ways of contruing things. The UN resolution is a step toward recognizing this and not forcing one lifeway on all others, which has broad support. But it is so anathema to the way we Americans think that many of us can’t see it, and of course, I slipped into the wrong nomenclature due to an insidious habit of mind.

    Comment by Brutus — September 18, 2007 @ 9:24 pm | Reply

  12. Hmn…Manifest Destiny may have been invalidated, but I thought this “self-determination” crockery went out of fashion after the hammered the last nail into Woodrow Wilson’s coffin.

    self-determination? What does that mean in practice? Who is the “self”? How is it “determined”?

    Two quick points:
    1. None of this matters anyway, because the UN’s resolutions never have and never will have the force of law
    2. Even if we ignore (1), this so called elevation of the indigenous peoples will not occur as a result of “self-determination”, but rather as a result of whatever ideology has gripped the folks voting at the UN. In other words, it’s as much a phenomenon among the elite as “Manifest Destiny” was.

    Comment by Adam Gurri — September 19, 2007 @ 9:32 am | Reply

  13. Adam, your comment is so incoherent I can barely figure out what you’re trying to say. Give me half a day and I’ll respond.

    Comment by Brutus — September 19, 2007 @ 10:24 am | Reply

  14. Functionally superior Western cultures aren’t very nice; they’re downright nasty to their competitors.

    In absolute terms, I guess you could say that, depending on what standard you used. But in general the less functional a culture is, the nastier, both internally and externally.

    But I don’t see how functional superiority goes with having a good culture. Better at violent oppression and theft doesn’t make for good culture.

    No, but lower death rates do. And even though functionally superior cultures tend to be better at violent oppression, this is mitigated considerably by the fact that they tend to be less inclined towards it.

    The term we’ve appropriated for this blog, creative destruction, has its roots in a paranoid mindset of the early Cold War era and refers to a style of full-spectrum dominance, or total war, or dog-eat-dog irrational fear.

    Uh…no.

    Comment by Brandon Berg — September 20, 2007 @ 1:17 am | Reply

  15. None of this matters anyway, because the UN’s resolutions never have and never will have the force of law

    Then why did the dissenting countries vote against it? It would be nice to think that they did so because they recognized that the resolution was just a symbolic act to calm everyone’s consciences and they wanted to only sign on to things that would make a real difference, but that interpretation is unlikely. More likely, they didn’t want to give even the slightest, tiniest chance that their indigenous populations might be able to make a claim for the return of some of what has been stolen from them.

    Yet the same decent person can also have a hard time positing that it would be preferable to replace downtown Manhattan with a hunting camp

    Hey, Manhattan is what it always was: a vacation spot. No one really lives here you know. And the cons are just the same. As the Dutch were conned into buying New Amsterdam from people who didn’t own it so current New Amsterdamers attempt to con people into buying the Brooklyn Bridge, Statue of Liberty, etc. The Manhattans would be proud if the Brits hadn’t finished them off.

    True, some “fully developed” Western countries, such as France, have completely extinguished ways of life not centered around modern Western notions of capital and property

    Ever heard of the Romini? They’re still around. And what about outside the Hexagon? I’m pretty sure Arawaks and Caribs still live on Guadalupe and Martinique (though whether any of them continue to live “traditional” livestyles is not clear to me.)

    Comment by Dianne — September 20, 2007 @ 10:10 am | Reply

  16. Brandon Berg wrote:

    In absolute terms, I guess you could say that, depending on what standard you used. But in general the less functional a culture is, the nastier, both internally and externally.

    In absolute terms relative to varying standards you say? I think you need some support for your assertions. Some of the most high-functioning cultures (German, Japan, Russia) were responsible for some serious nastiness last century. True, so were places like Burma (now Myanmar), Cambodia, and Afghanistan. However, those less-functional cultures didn’t export their nastiness the way that, say, the U.S. has.

    No, but lower death rates do. And even though functionally superior cultures tend to be better at violent oppression, this is mitigated considerably by the fact that they tend to be less inclined towards it.

    Fact of life (lower death rates) does not equate to quality of life. Also, I don’t agree that colonial empires, either historically or currently, are less inclined toward violent oppression. They simply have institutions to create the impression that violent oppression is beneficent and high minded. The U.S. has a long history of intervention in other countries, and a great deal of it is very, very nasty. But it’s kept out of sight, which is to say, covert.

    Uh…no.

    Your citation is from 1942. Mine is from 2001. I think mine’s a bit more current, considering it followed on the heels of a certain terrorist attack that changed our thinking and redefined the era.

    Comment by Brutus — September 20, 2007 @ 1:08 pm | Reply

  17. OK, it took me another day to get to this. So sue me.

    Adam Gurri wrote:

    Hmn…Manifest Destiny may have been invalidated, but I thought this “self-determination” crockery went out of fashion after the[y] hammered the last nail into Woodrow Wilson’s coffin.

    Apparently the idea of self-determination is gaining legitimacy again. The times, they be a’changin’.

    [S]elf-determination? What does that mean in practice? Who is the “self”? How is it “determined”?

    Adam appears to be asking me to define “is,” among other things. Without consulting a dictionary, I’d say that self-determination is the right of people — indigenous people in the case of the UN resolution — to decide for themselves how to live rather than having others’ decisions forced upon them.

    None of this matters anyway, because the UN’s resolutions never have and never will have the force of law

    So noble idealism breaks again upon the crucible of pragmatism? I’ve written about this before. Let me ask, though: Where do laws come from? Don’t they proceed from policy and resolution and consensus? Consider how so much of the world has conceded (or arrived at a consensus) that indigenous peoples shouldn’t be trampled upon anymore by supposedly superior cultures, I’d say that laws restricting corporations and states from removing others’ self-determination may eventually appear. Obviously, empire-building countries like the U.S. and Canada (and their corporations) aren’t yet ready to foreswear gobbling up what they want from vulnerable cultures. Perhaps some other country will at some point step in a tell us to knock it off, presumably with some force behind their statement and the moral high ground of a UN resolution.

    Even if we ignore (1), this so called elevation of the indigenous peoples will not occur as a result of “self-determination”, but rather as a result of whatever ideology has gripped the folks voting at the UN. In other words, it’s as much a phenomenon among the elite as “Manifest Destiny” was.

    Are you saying that an ideology is just an ideology? Does that somehow suggest they’re all equivalent? You have to explain yourself, because I’m just grasping at straws on this one.

    Comment by Brutus — September 20, 2007 @ 1:26 pm | Reply

  18. Where do laws come from? Don’t they proceed from policy and resolution and consensus?

    No. They proceed from the point of a gun.

    Policy &c are useful tools for the ministerial side of law. But law is ultimately based on force.

    Comment by Robert — September 20, 2007 @ 2:23 pm | Reply

  19. No. They proceed from the point of a gun.

    Cynical. That seems to me to imply that the only charge one can really level against any group of people is that they didn’t use enough force or used it poorly. After all, if the only source of law is the point of a gun, then did, for example, the 9/11 terrorists do anything wrong besides not gather adequate force before trying to destroy the US?

    Comment by Dianne — September 20, 2007 @ 4:31 pm | Reply

  20. The question is not one of right or wrong, moral or immoral. The question is, from where does law originate. The answer is force. This is not cynicism; it is the baseline reality. Your morals and your sense of right and wrong will greatly inform and illuminate what kinds of laws you choose to have, but the underlying structure of law itself is, of necessity and by definition, predicated on force.

    Comment by Robert — September 20, 2007 @ 6:45 pm | Reply

  21. [S]elf-determination? What does that mean in practice? Who is the “self”? How is it “determined”?

    Adam appears to be asking me to define “is,” among other things. Without consulting a dictionary, I’d say that self-determination is the right of people — indigenous people in the case of the UN resolution — to decide for themselves how to live rather than having others’ decisions forced upon them.

    And worlds collide.

    To what extent to we regard the “self” as reflecting an individual rather than a group? If an indigenous group asserts its control over “resources,” including slaves, and a slave seeks assistance in escaping his captors? If an indigenous group seeks control over resources, including human sacrifices, and the next person in line for this honor seeks help escaping her group? If an indigenous group seeks control over its own members to enforce their religion, and a non-believer seeks help escaping his persecutors?

    If an indigenous group seeks control over its own resources, including the right to fish all the rare species in their lake to extinction? The right to pump all the water out of the aquifer that supplies other people, too?

    As others have remarked, the very idea of “self-determination” is just another parochial Western conceit. If Indigenous Group A traditionally engaged in violent conquest of other peoples and lands, by what right would we Westerners impose our ideas of “self-determination” on them by forcing them to respect the autonomy of Indigenous Group B? By what right would we force “self-determination” on them by refraining from conquering them?

    And what if Indigenous Group A seeks to exercise their traditional right to evolve, to change? What if they want to set up plants emitting sulfur dioxide without limit? What if they want to develop non-traditional patterns of trade, such as selling uranium to Al Quida?

    As Bob says, I see little harm with saying “Respect indigenous peoples, their lands and their resources” when nothing is at stake. If that’s what the UN resolution means, fine. But once you start placing respect for indigenous groups in conflict with other goals, I must confess that my love of all things indigenous takes a back seat to many other concerns.

    In particular, I value autonomy. Every time another Native American or Amish person discovers that she can support herself in the capitalist economy, the power the Elders exercised over her is diminished, and arguably the group’s social cohesion is reduced. Whether or not you think this is a bad thing depends heavily on whether you regard the person getting the job as an individual or as a stock character in some emotional drama.

    From an anthropological perspective, there is no right or wrong. And there is no neutral. There is conflict. I don’t go looking for a fight, but if there is no way of reconciling competing values, I frankly want my values to prevail. If that means one less human sacrifice, I guess I’ll have to live with that.

    Comment by nobody.really — September 20, 2007 @ 6:55 pm | Reply

  22. Some of the most high-functioning cultures (German, Japan, Russia) were responsible for some serious nastiness last century.

    Russia has always been functionally mediocre at best. And yes, there have been a few spectacular bloodbaths instigated by otherwise high-functioning countries like Germany and Japan, but deaths due to the aggression of high-functioning countries probably number fewer than 100 million in the 20th century, which is…what…5% of the people who’ve lived in those countries during that time period? Far too many, granted, but it’s less than was typical of the low-level tribal warfare that characterized many pre-modern cultures, and the contrast is especially striking when you consider that the bulk of these deaths come from a single outlier event (World War II), and that we haven’t had a war of even remotely comparable magnitude in over 60 years. By and large, the modern-day first world is characterized by a historically anomalous lack of nastiness.

    And note that within first-world nations, much of the nastiness is concentrated in dysfunctional subcultures.

    True, so were places like Burma (now Myanmar), Cambodia, and Afghanistan. However, those less-functional cultures didn’t export their nastiness the way that, say, the U.S. has.

    Sure, but mostly because they couldn’t.

    Fact of life (lower death rates) does not equate to quality of life.

    I guess in principle life could be nasty, brutish, and long, but it rarely works out that way in practice. The same things that tend to make life short (disease, famine, violence, etc.) also tend to make it unpleasant. And longevity itself is not entirely undesirable.

    Your citation is from 1942. Mine is from 2001. I think mine’s a bit more current…

    And Schumpeter’s is more established. Of the first twenty hits for “creative destruction” on Google, three are this blog, two refer to Ledeen’s article, and 15 refer to Schumpetrian creative destruction. I’m about 95% certain that’s what Adam had in mind when he named the blog, but he’s probably still around, so there’s no need to speculate.

    I’d say that self-determination is the right of people — indigenous people in the case of the UN resolution — to decide for themselves how to live rather than having others’ decisions forced upon them.

    To actually implement that would require us to invade and establish libetarianism. Left to their own devices, it’s pretty much guaranteed that indigenous (and not-so-indigenous) people will gang up and force their decisions on dissenting minorities. What you really mean, I think, is that they should be allowed to do that without interference.

    Comment by Brandon Berg — September 21, 2007 @ 3:56 am | Reply

  23. Dianne:
    Then why did the dissenting countries vote against it?

    Here’s an explanation from the US delegate. I haven’t read it in full and as such have no opinion on it.

    That seems to me to imply that the only charge one can really level against any group of people is that they didn’t use enough force or used it poorly.

    No. Robert said that law proceeds from the point of a gun, not that right and wrong do. The two are largely independent of one another.

    Comment by Brandon Berg — September 21, 2007 @ 4:01 am | Reply

  24. Brandon: Thanks for the link. I read it and it read like a stinking pile of crap to me.

    Comment by Dianne — September 21, 2007 @ 1:39 pm | Reply

  25. As the International law expert here, I believe that Robert means that only laws who are preceeded by enforcement have any breath to them; others are just words on a page.

    As a reminder, the UN does not enact laws, they enact resolutions. It is up to member states of the UN to act upon the resolution and conduct legal and reasonable enforcement.

    For example, tomorrow, if the Russians, the Chinese and the Japanese want to unite and declare the US for violating the resolution, they are in their right to do so. The resolution applies over the country of every member once it passes. Irak voted against the resolutions condemning it. The US nevertheless used these resolutions to invade Irak.

    There are many secondary uses of resolutions, they are indicative of intent and can be used to support a position in the absence of legislative intent.

    Just to make myself clear, the cited resolution is important, it already applies over this country and these minorities were given rights that while not recognized or enforceable in courts by these groups, can be used by other nations for purely partisan reasons to invade us.

    I would say this resolution is a serious problem… Maybe not now, but who knows…

    Comment by Vilon — September 21, 2007 @ 5:53 pm | Reply

  26. So if Vilon’s remarks are taken as true, it would seem that Robert, in conflating motivation with implementation, has simply dressed up the inane old justification “might makes right,” which ironically leaves the U.S. vulnerable should any other country (or group of countries) wish to invade us by invoking the UN resolution as a launching point.

    Comment by Brutus — September 23, 2007 @ 8:42 pm | Reply

  27. which ironically leaves the U.S. vulnerable should any other country (or group of countries) wish to invade us by invoking the UN resolution as a launching point

    Brutus, you’re talking about a situation where the US has made the world so mad that we’re being invaded and conquered – and you’re concerned that in the scenario of having the world at war with us, our vulnerability is that there’s a UN resolution the invaders can cite as legal cover?

    Comment by Robert — September 23, 2007 @ 9:45 pm | Reply

  28. For some reason I can’t seem to get beyond the urge to respond to Robert’s force and law origination argument. What stops me from moving on and fully enjoying this discussion is the feeling I keep getting that Robert and possibly others who may not have followed the imbedded counterargument for nonviolence in his statements fail to see that the dominant argument assumed by all, that the enforcers are invariably the law originators, is only a half truth. Fortunately, his same statements imply the other half of the truth. Is there no one here who is older than I and has lived through the 1960s as an adult with the understanding of how often history reveals that force of will is greater than brute force for originating laws? Shall we overcome? We shall!

    Comment by presentpeace — September 26, 2007 @ 2:41 am | Reply

  29. presentpeace, nice to see you again. i’ve missed your peaceful presence. i monitor the situation in burma hourly.

    as for robert’s “gun” reference, i suggest not taking it too literally (not talking about you, presentpeace). someone else mentioned the use of airplanes on sept. 11, 2001. airplanes were not guns per se, but they were used as weapons. those of us who majored in english in college cannot help but transfer the utility of guns to airplanes.

    as for being older than you, presentpeace, i am afraid i was not even a zygote back in the 1960s, but this does not prevent me from studying history so that i won’t repeat it. so many folks are ignorant of history or fail to learn from its lessons.

    Comment by greywhitie — September 26, 2007 @ 11:15 am | Reply

  30. “Is there no one here who is older than I and has lived through the 1960s as an adult with the understanding of how often history reveals that force of will is greater than brute force for originating laws? Shall we overcome? We shall!’

    Greater than brute force? I am probably older than you, so I remember that Southerners were well aware that a President had deployed federal troops once already in Arkansas (God bless him for it) to enforce a civil rights ruling, and it could easily happen again. Southerners had seen quite a high level of force directed aginst them to destroy (privatized) slavery in the first place, and the socialized slavery black people were living under could easily justify more of that. You are not really trying to argue that Bull Connors and Lester Maddox and thier ilk were won over by choruses of Kumbaya, are you?

    Comment by Jim — October 5, 2007 @ 6:21 pm | Reply

  31. No, I’m not arguing that at all. My argument is based on seeing the forest, rather than the trees when it comes to human evolution. I do see your point…and agree that sometimes brute force is the only way to defeat a brute enforcer. But brute force has its time and place. It must be the last resort of a just people. Sadly, that is too often not the case about how it’s meted out. I want to make my argument clearer by asking you a question or two: What would our multicultural landscape be like today without the nonviolent resistence of the 1960s and the corresponding images of blacks being hosed and beaten and offered up to attack dogs? Without those glaringly obvious pictures of injustice being broadcast into people’s homes, if blacks fought back instead in those images and, thus, reinforced that old stereotype that they are inferior brutes, (the implication of which is that they must be contained and controlled) would we have easily cleared our heads, dusted off our moral compasses as a nation and done the right thing?

    Let’s expand our discussion to include our role in WWII. Many say it’s the last just war that we’ve been in. There was a clear victim and a clear victimizer in that war. It was a no brainer. Our mission was to stop the tyrany and ethnic cleansing. We did. Just in case you think I’m not seeing the big picture, which concerns when to use violence, I’ll make my position clearer. I am also not arguing that people who are being exterminated should go quietly into that not-so-good night. Self-defense is a necessary biological imperative. My point here is one of human social evolution.

    The waters in the mideast are murky because both sides have commited innumerable atrocities against each other for what seems like forever. As a result, we as onlookers don’t have a clear picture of who’s right or wrong. We just have intensity of emotion and plenty of rage and reaction to watch on TV.

    Let’s just say that two men represent what’s going on there. They begin a dialogue which quickly escalates to a screaming match. Pretty soon they will come to blows, unless one man calms down and redirects his efforts in a more Aikido-like fashion that allows him to use the energy of the opponent to produce anything from a clear victory for himself to a more desireable win-win situation.

    While my mideast example is quite simplistic, granted, it still poses the question: What would happen if one group decided to fight a different way?

    Comment by presentpeace — October 8, 2007 @ 6:05 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: