From fork-admin@xent.com  Wed Oct  9 10:55:02 2002
Return-Path: <fork-admin@xent.com>
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.spamassassin.taint.org
Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 782C316F03
	for <jm@localhost>; Wed,  9 Oct 2002 10:52:48 +0100 (IST)
Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 09 Oct 2002 10:52:48 +0100 (IST)
Received: from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org
    (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g98IjTK29427 for <jm@jmason.org>;
    Tue, 8 Oct 2002 19:45:30 +0100
Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id 9CC582940A8; Tue,  8 Oct 2002 11:45:03 -0700 (PDT)
Delivered-To: fork@spamassassin.taint.org
Received: from localhost.localdomain (pm5-47.sba1.netlojix.net
    [207.71.222.47]) by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3767D29409A for
    <fork@xent.com>; Tue,  8 Oct 2002 11:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from dave@localhost) by maltesecat (8.8.7/8.8.7a) id LAA09633;
    Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:53:52 -0700
Message-Id: <200210081853.LAA09633@maltesecat>
To: fork@spamassassin.taint.org
Subject: Re: erratum [Re: no matter ...] & errors
In-Reply-To: Message from Owen Byrne <owen@permafrost.net> of
    "Mon, 07 Oct 2002 16:48:36 -0300."
    <3DA1E514.9080807@permafrost.net>
From: Dave Long <dl@silcom.com>
Sender: fork-admin@xent.com
Errors-To: fork-admin@xent.com
X-Beenthere: fork@spamassassin.taint.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:fork@spamassassin.taint.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>, <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork.xent.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>,
    <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://xent.com/pipermail/fork/>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 11:53:52 -0700



> I'm not sure what you mean by "let's you and him fight", but it is 
> important to remember that England was in control of Ireland
> for 300 years ...

Exactly -- "let's you and him fight" is a
way of dealing with troublesome populations
by moving them next to one another, so they
give each other, and not the Man, grief*.

So by my understanding (and, you all will
understand, with tongue firmly in cheek):

Ireland:  Irish?  Uppity barbarians overly
   fond of "risings".  Scots?  More uppity
   barbarians overly fond of "risings".
   Why not plonk down a bunch of the latter
   next to the former and kill two birds
   with one stone?

Israel:  Ex-ottomans?  Uppity barbarians
   (didn't they help kick out the Ottomans?)
   Zionists?  Uppity sorts who aren't happy
   with perfectly good land in Uganda.  Why
   not plonk down a bunch of the latter next
   to the former and kill two birds with one
   stone?

but not:

India: in which the muslims and hindus were
    originally intermixed to some degree,
    but Partioned due to their own conflict,
    not due to English resettlement policy.

Canada: in which the french and english were
    already established, and it was just the
    balance of power on the continent that
    determined events in the colonies.  The
    Acadians got resettled, but they don't
    seem to have been that good for picking
    fights with their neighbors, so no one
    had them plonked down next door.

-Dave

* this works best with a populace who,
given "one man, one vote", immediately
deduce "one less man, one less vote" --
eh, Magnan?


