demagogue on 14/11/2007 at 06:49
Of course, the sad but convenient trick to that coup was that Native Americans never "owned" the land. It didn't occur to them that people could own land, and courts didn't know what to do or how to enforce invisible property rights when they started suing to get it back, esp when it was always like four different groups in every case, all suing for the same piece of land, each with their own "authentic original title", and they have to pick somebody ...
What about Switzerland's native population? ;)
Thirith on 14/11/2007 at 13:13
demagogue: Thing is, Switzerland's native population probably didn't know that much about the deals with Nazi Germany. The banks did, and certain members of the government, most likely.
I would never absolve WW2 Switzerland of its guilt, and I do think that the country handled its historical responsibility very badly until the early '90s, but the issue requires more understanding and, well, more intelligence than G Freeman has brought to the discussion so far. The issue of culpability is fiendishly complex, and it's not helped by an undifferentiated understanding or by tarring the whole of present-day Switzerland with the same brush.
demagogue on 14/11/2007 at 18:08
Yes, of course.
Sorry ... by "What about Switzerland's native population?" I was making a stupid joke to lighten the post, completely different from how you were reading it. I meant the native population before the Swiss arrived ... which is absurd, of course, (the Swiss are the native population) hence the smilie, isn't that convenient.
Ok, maybe a little more explanation. Like, dealing with an indigenous population that's different from the general population is difficult for every country that has that issue (US, Canada, Central and South America, Japan, China, Russia, Israel, North Africa ...). So the joke is like it's easy for countries that don't have an indigenous population (like most European countries?) to say so casually that we handled it awfully (which of course, we did). But the stupid part of it, of course, is that I was making that point obliquely by referring to Switzerland's indigenous population before the Swiss arrived -> That's stupid, it doesn't have one -> well, isn't that convenient -> oh, I see what you did there... That's sort of the point that makes it a dumb joke. I was trying to re-tit-for-tat your original tit-for-tat, keeping it entirely on the subject of indigenous populations, nothing to do with WWII.
It was a swipe, but not a serious one because it was so absurd and not that biting. The winky-smilie was a good natured one to show it wasn't serious. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't taking it in the direction you interpreted it to mean at all (talking about the general population 60 years ago), which would have been a low blow to Swiss today, as you say, and makes that winky-smilie look incredibly cynical.
By the way, I lived in Geneva in 2003 and loved the people there, as well as the many Swiss friends I have in New York. I wouldn't say terrible things like you thought. Sorry about the confusion. :)
Thirith on 14/11/2007 at 18:22
Thanks. :) I did think you probably were making a joke, but I wasn't quite sure which joke that was - and with G Freeman around, I thought I'd rather specify and come across as dense and/or humourless but contextualise certain things for him.
