Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Oexmelin]

Coincidence? Probably not.

And by probably, I mean certainly.

[Grey Fox]

Fuck that noise, Raz.

[grumbler]

Fair enough.  Have those missiles been used in Russia?

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Shadow

Like I said - thank you to the USA for it's continued support of Ukraine.  I know there's voices inside of the US that want to just abandon the place (*sough* Trump *cough*).  That support is immensely important to the continued existence of a free and independent Ukraine.

But the "don't let Ukraine lose" vs "let Ukraine win" is a very real sentiment.

The UK and France relaxed their restrictions on the use of their weapons on Russian soil fairly recently, and the US has also relaxed its rules (though not to the geographic extent of the UK and French relaxations).  All of those nations still have some limits on the use of their weapons on Russian targets.

[Razgovory]

Coincidence? Probably not.

And by probably, I mean certainly.

And yet the decedents of the Settler-Colonialists rule in Quebec while the indigenous live on reservations.  White supremacy reigns.

[Grey Fox]

While not Quebec, Ontario has a new reservation because first nations members asks for it. Reservations are, apparently, not all that bad.

[Barrister]

Coincidence? Probably not.

And by probably, I mean certainly.

Oex, this is well outside of my comfort zone of historical knowledge, but if you'd like to expand I'd be all ears.

On the other hand you certainly don't need to give me a lesson on your hard-earned professional knwoeldge either.

[Oexmelin]

I have little time this week but, in a nutshell, a lot of treaty-writing comes about from ongoing and persistent conflict over land use - when you lessen those conflicts, you lessen the necessity of a formal agreement - at least, of a formal agreement that takes on European forms. 

The St. Lawrence River Valley was, by the time of settlement in the early 17th c., a no man's land. That meant settling the Valley avoided most conflicts over exclusive land use that often led to treaties. The core of French settlement in New France rarely went beyond the St. Lawrence River Valley, with few exceptions (Bay of Fundy, Cape Breton Island, Illinois Country, Louisiana). It is no coincidence either that the colony with the most intensive land use - Louisiana - in an area densely populated by Indigenous people, bred conflicts of extermination (the Natchez Wars).

Indigenous people who later resettled in the St. Lawrence Valley were (mostly) Catholic converts, which the French called the "Domicilies" ("settled"): the land they occupy now followed practices of land ownership closer to the seigneurial system than treaties. It took the British Conquest to renegotiate a settlement with the former Domicilies - these agreements now are usually (not always) considered as treaty-equivalent. 

Second, the French Indigenous people far more as allies, and needed alliances made up of a multiplicity of nations. This meant that the French rarely *sought* to establish exclusive use of land; that the smaller number of French settlers outside of the St. Lawrence River Valley rarely produced conflict; and that the forms of French-Indigenous alliances took the shape of constant, on-going diplomacy that was a hybrid of French and Indigenous practices. To simplify too much: you don't bring up territory (and limiting territory), a contentious topic, to the very people you need, and the people you need to agree to host a handful of soldiers and traders, and to the people you need to be mobile, in order to continue to supply the fur trade.

Third, there may be an argument to be made that the French understood better their own reliance on Indigenous alliances than the British did - and a certain vacuity of imperial claims, mostly manufactured for European courts. When Governor Vaudreuil learned that the peace of Utrecht claimed the Haudenosaunee as subjects of the British Crown, he basically wrote that someone should inform the Haudenosaunee, and that he'd like to witness first hand the fate of the person sent to do so...

 

[crazy canuck]

That also explains why there are few historic treaties in B.C.

They were made to secure the land around Victoria.  In time there was a large increase of people, including Americans, coming into the territory, and the governor of then colony decided that treaties were no longer necessary because the cooperation of the indigenous populations was not an imperative.

[Barrister]

I have little time this week but, in a nutshell, a lot of treaty-writing comes about from ongoing and persistent conflict over land use - when you lessen those conflicts, you lessen the necessity of a formal agreement - at least, of a formal agreement that takes on European forms. 

The St. Lawrence River Valley was, by the time of settlement in the early 17th c., a no man's land. That meant settling the Valley avoided most conflicts over exclusive land use that often led to treaties. The core of French settlement in New France rarely went beyond the St. Lawrence River Valley, with few exceptions (Bay of Fundy, Cape Breton Island, Illinois Country, Louisiana). It is no coincidence either that the colony with the most intensive land use - Louisiana - in an area densely populated by Indigenous people, bred conflicts of extermination (the Natchez Wars).

Indigenous people who later resettled in the St. Lawrence Valley were (mostly) Catholic converts, which the French called the "Domicilies" ("settled"): the land they occupy now followed practices of land ownership closer to the seigneurial system than treaties. It took the British Conquest to renegotiate a settlement with the former Domicilies - these agreements now are usually (not always) considered as treaty-equivalent. 

Second, the French Indigenous people far more as allies, and needed alliances made up of a multiplicity of nations. This meant that the French rarely *sought* to establish exclusive use of land; that the smaller number of French settlers outside of the St. Lawrence River Valley rarely produced conflict; and that the forms of French-Indigenous alliances took the shape of constant, on-going diplomacy that was a hybrid of French and Indigenous practices. To simplify too much: you don't bring up territory (and limiting territory), a contentious topic, to the very people you need, and the people you need to agree to host a handful of soldiers and traders, and to the people you need to be mobile, in order to continue to supply the fur trade.

Third, there may be an argument to be made that the French understood better their own reliance on Indigenous alliances than the British did - and a certain vacuity of imperial claims, mostly manufactured for European courts. When Governor Vaudreuil learned that the peace of Utrecht claimed the Haudenosaunee as subjects of the British Crown, he basically wrote that someone should inform the Haudenosaunee, and that he'd like to witness first hand the fate of the person sent to do so...

 

Dyakuyu.

[Valmy]

Coincidence? Probably not.

And by probably, I mean certainly.

And yet the decedents of the Settler-Colonialists rule in Quebec while the indigenous live on reservations.  White supremacy reigns.

I don't understand where you are going with this.

Are you under the impression that Israel is in fact a settler-colonialist state with the intention to commit genocide and/or ethnic cleansing complete with stealing other people's property because Israel considers them savages? And if you are under that impression you think that because Viper comes from a Western Hemisphere country that formed from a settler-colonialist situation, to some extent anyway, he would be hypocritical to have a problem with that occurring right now in the 21st century?

Because I don't really think living in Texas means I have to not have a problem with every genocidal and ethnic cleansing effort that happens from here until the end time.

[Razgovory]

I would say it's hypocritical to oppose the existence of one settler-colonist country and while being okay with living in one.

[garbon]

I would say it's hypocritical to oppose the existence of one settler-colonist country and while being okay with living in one.

One can't really do much about historical dead vs what one can do with ongoing conflicts.

[Barrister]

Because I don't really think living in Texas means I have to not have a problem with every genocidal and ethnic cleansing effort that happens from here until the end time.

History is so complicated, isn't it.

Take Texas (and which, like New France, is not a topic I'm an expert on).

A lot of morally dubious things happened, but hardly black-and-white evil either.  But as a citizen of Texas in the Year of our Lord 2024, who is trying to do his best to live a moral life and raise his kids right - what exactly are you supposed to do about it?  Give all your money to blacks in reparations to slavery?  Give your house to some Mexican family?  Move back to Europe to give Austin back to the First Nations?

[garbon]

Because I don't really think living in Texas means I have to not have a problem with every genocidal and ethnic cleansing effort that happens from here until the end time.

History is so complicated, isn't it.

Take Texas (and which, like New France, is not a topic I'm an expert on).

A lot of morally dubious things happened, but hardly black-and-white evil either.  But as a citizen of Texas in the Year of our Lord 2024, who is trying to do his best to live a moral life and raise his kids right - what exactly are you supposed to do about it?  Give all your money to blacks in reparations to slavery?  Give your house to some Mexican family?  Move back to Europe to give Austin back to the First Nations?

Give money to blacks? That's the terminology we be using now? Maybe use black people.

[Barrister]

Because I don't really think living in Texas means I have to not have a problem with every genocidal and ethnic cleansing effort that happens from here until the end time.

History is so complicated, isn't it.

Take Texas (and which, like New France, is not a topic I'm an expert on).

A lot of morally dubious things happened, but hardly black-and-white evil either.  But as a citizen of Texas in the Year of our Lord 2024, who is trying to do his best to live a moral life and raise his kids right - what exactly are you supposed to do about it?  Give all your money to blacks in reparations to slavery?  Give your house to some Mexican family?  Move back to Europe to give Austin back to the First Nations?

Give money to blacks? That's the terminology we be using now? Maybe use black people.

You-re right, I mis-spoke.

Apparently the terminology is "Black" with a capitol B.

I apologize and I promise to do better in the future.