-=> Quoting Ron McDermott to Michael Martinez <=-
 CB> Do you have any reason to  believe they are trying to "buffer the 
 CB> onslaught of being overrun by powerful industrial countries" other 
 CB> than YOUR projections? 
 
 MM>Read Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States.  It gives
 MM>a lot of examples, starting from 1492.
 RM> For Africa?
 
It talks about U.S. relationships around the world, from 1492 to today.
 MM>I don't.  I consider it rude, offensive, and uncalled for to impose our
 MM>standards on other cultures.  There's many Cherokee, Navajo and Pueblo
 MM>Indians where I live to testify to the same.
 RM> Rude yes...  What you're espousing means status quo; no 
 RM> growth... Would we be better off if the Native American 
 RM> culture had been unimpacted?  Certainly THEY might have
 RM> been better off - HOW would that happen?  It means no
 RM> expansion of population to the Americas, because once that
 RM> happened, the impact on the culture was inevitable.  Was
 RM> the expansion fair - no; was the expansion inevitable -
 RM> probably yes.  As the planet becomes more and more crowded,
 RM> a culture that embraces wide areas of open land, and a
 RM> predominately hunter approach to life is going to have to
 RM> give way.  Not because it is fair or right, but simply 
 RM> because OTHER men will covet the land and what the land
 RM> offers....
 
I really don't understand your point there.  You're saying it's not
fair, but then you're trying to gloss it over.  That's just
white-washing the issue.  You can't avoid the fact that we have decimated
the Indian populations, all in the name of "glory and civilization".  Well,
if that's glory and civilization, then I don't think civilization is
an admirable goal.
 CB> There have been others before Illich who have dreamed of Utopian 
 
 MM>I don't think Illich dreams of a utopia at all.  He advocates a greater
 MM>degree of fairness, entirely plausible and do-able, and I say would be
 MM>very appealing to most people if they were media-detoxified and given
 MM>the chance to hear about it.
 RM> It may appeal to some, but as you describe it, it is not
 RM> a reasonable way to run a technological, population-dense
 RM> society...
 
Actually, if people were given the chance to hear it, it would work 
fine.  It's common-sense, it's fair, reasonable.  You're brain-washed.
You think THIS is the only way (look around us) to run a population-
dense society.  That's cuz that's the only choice you're given.  It's
not only the ONLY choice, but it's embellished and given a nice packaging
and made to sound appealing.  We're the "best country in the world".  We've
got the "most opportunities" etc etc..  This is just glossing over to
keep certain groups of people rich and in power.  Yes, in our own country
this is true.
 RM> It's clear you're not talking about the same thing... Please
 RM> provide YOUR definition of "poverty".  I consider it to be a
 RM> financial lacking which goes beyond (below) what the majority
 RM> of people enjoy.
You're going to have to define "financial".  Already, see how this
is a modern exercise?
Now if the majority of people have very
 RM> little, then poverty doesn't really exist.  This, it seems,
 RM> is what YOU'RE talking about.
Naw, I think the Indians had a lot, Mexicans have a lot. 
-michael
--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR]
---------------