Porajmos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Roma, i.e., gypsies, were also targeted by the Nazis in WWII. There are estimates of up to 2 million of them killed. The Roma are a traditionally a countryless people persecuted all over the place throughout history. Even today they're still persecuted. I find ...
| |||||||
 |
| Register to Post a Reply |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
12-13-2006, 03:57 PM
| #1 | ||||
| Common Sense Conservative  Realist 
| Why didn't the Roma get their own country after the holocaust? Porajmos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Roma, i.e., gypsies, were also targeted by the Nazis in WWII. There are estimates of up to 2 million of them killed. The Roma are a traditionally a countryless people persecuted all over the place throughout history. Even today they're still persecuted. I find it odd that their history so closely matches the Jews, yet after an almost identical experience to the Jews during WWII, the Roma got nothing, not even world wide recognition, while the Jews got their own country, museums around the world, and laws all over the West outlawing denial of what happened to them. Why? | ||||
     |
|
12-13-2006, 03:59 PM
| #2 | ||||
| Banned  Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| They didn't want one?  If they had a country, they woudn't be gypsies. I suspect they are gypsies cause they liked the life. | ||||
| |
|
12-13-2006, 04:00 PM
| #3 | ||||
| Friend to all.  Socialist Maryland
| Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo 
Apparently the cutoff for your own country is 4 million + killed. Also, Jews had money...gypsies are usually broke so they have zero political and monetary influence. | ||||
| |
|
12-13-2006, 04:03 PM
| #4 | ||||
| Common Sense Conservative Realist
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz Gypsy is a pejorative term for Roma. Roma denotes an ethnicity, not a lifestyle. They have homes and settle in various countries.
| ||||
| |
|
12-13-2006, 04:08 PM
| #5 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo Ok. That still doesn't change their chosen lifestyle. If the Roma wanted to live like gypsies, then surely they wouldn't want a specific country of their own, would they? Therefore, it wouldn't be necessary to give them their own country, would it?
| ||||
| |
|
12-13-2006, 04:10 PM
| #6 | ||||
| Friend to all. Socialist Maryland
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz
Why is it necessary to GIVE ANYBODY a country? The Cherokee wanted their own country and they were pretty much denied. | ||||
| |
|
12-13-2006, 04:11 PM
| #7 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster  Realist
| Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo Did they ask?
| ||||
| |
|
12-13-2006, 04:12 PM
| #8 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by Donkey® Why is it necessary to give ANYBODY their land back? Why is it necessary to do anything at all in the world?
The Cherokee wanted their own country?!! I had no idea. The point is, history is history, Israel is a country, and that's the way it is. Are you gonna be mad forever that the British gave Israel some of their British land? | ||||
| |
|
12-13-2006, 04:13 PM
| #9 | ||||
| Friend to all. Socialist Maryland
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz
I am not mad at all about it. I am very understanding of the Muslim hate for Israel though. I don't coddle Israel's ballz constantly when shit hits the fan. | ||||
| |
|
12-13-2006, 04:19 PM
| #10 | ||||
| Keep Cool With Coolidge! Populist San Jose, California
| Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo One reason is because the Jews commanded substantial economic and other forms of societal influence (particularly in the U.S., Britain, and the Soviet Union) on a level the Gypsies have never even come close to accomplishing anywhere. As it so happens, the USA, UK, and USSR were the three primary victors in the European Theater, thus Jews were well-positioned to take advantage of the defeat of the Nazis. Many of FDR's and Stalin's principal advisors were Jewish, after all.
Another reason is that the Zionist movement had begun colonizing the then-Ottoman Province of Palestine as early as the 1870s, if not before, thus there was already a substantial population of Jews in Palestine, many of whom had family connections to the Jews of Europe (and North America). And then, of course, there's the reason that no one really wants to mention, but I will anyway: The Nazis were hardly alone in their opinion of the Gypsies. Pretty much everyone in Europe hated (and still hates) them (and there weren't many in America, so they had few champions in Washigton), only most weren't willing to kill them over it, like the Nazis were. But no one would have wanted to give them a state. While few would say so, many people were of the opinion that 2 million fewer Gypsies in Europe was sort of a good thing, even if they didn't care for the manner in which the Nazis brought that fate about. I happen to share the opinion, which one would find nearly universal throughout Europe even today, that a Gypsy state would have been doomed to poverty, chaos, and failure, and would have served as an incubator for organized crime throughout the rest of Europe. Not surprisingly, no one saw much reason to make that come about. | ||||
| |
|
12-13-2006, 04:24 PM
| #11 | ||||
| Member  Independent
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz Right, the same argument could be made about a VARIETY of countries, many of which became countries under circumstances similar to, or different than Israel. Just because it's more recent doens't mean calling it into question is more valid.
| ||||
| |
|
12-13-2006, 04:24 PM
| #12 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by dpakman91 Yeah I never understood any of this...
| ||||
| |
|
12-13-2006, 04:38 PM
| #13 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz Main reason right here...
One reason is because the Jews commanded substantial economic and other forms of societal influence (particularly in the U.S., Britain, and the Soviet Union) ...they had better lobbyists. Oh, and the israelis were given britain's land, not palestine's land. Britain kicked some ass and took it. Then they decided to let the UN figure out how to handle it, but it was still Britain's land. All this "giving land back" bullshit is just that, bullshit. Britain gave it land it had conquered. The palestinians have been pissed and fighting about it ever since. The end. | ||||
| |
|
12-13-2006, 04:39 PM
| #14 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by 7960 No, I mean I never understood why the fact that it happens only decades ago instead of centuries ago (land acquired by another people/country and kept as their own) make it less significant.
| ||||
| |
|
12-13-2006, 05:09 PM
| #15 | ||||
| Common Sense Conservative Realist
| Originally Posted by dpakman91 Sure it does. Call it a law of the world if you want, but the longer a border has existed, the less likely that people will question it.
It probably has to do with the way that borders are formed in the first place-- through force. Basically, people draw lines, everyone fights over those lines, and the winner gets to redraw or keep the lines to his liking. As such, if someone has just recently drawn the lines, you're still going to have people fighting over where exactly to draw them, and people will question those lines because they'll see them as tentative...only after the fighting is over can people be assured of some sort of stability. At that point they'll see the lines as permanent and stop questioning them. In other words, countries which are newly formed are necessarily tentative experiments, and it's only natural that people will question them. | ||||
| |
|
12-13-2006, 05:20 PM
| #16 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo This post 100% justifies the israelis kicking the snot out of the palestinians and expanding to take up all of gaza, judea, samaria, etc
 | ||||
| |
|
12-13-2006, 05:57 PM
| #17 | ||||
| Common Sense Conservative Realist
| Originally Posted by 7960 Yes, it does. I think the newer a border, the more it can justifiably be questioned. In the case of Israel, it's all up in the air because it's so new, which is why I reject the claim that people should "just accept" Israel as a country or that its comparable to countries which have existed for much longer. Of course, this could also allow for Israel to redraw borders in its favor. But Israel would never do that...I think we've all seen things don't go very well for Israel when they occupy land, although they do a fine job of capturing it in the first place.
| ||||
| |
|
12-13-2006, 06:07 PM
| #18 | ||||
| Friend to all. Socialist Maryland
| Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo
If all things were a little more fair and Israel didn't have the US backing their every move...I think that would be a different story. | ||||
| |
|
12-13-2006, 06:09 PM
| #19 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by Donkey® the US wasn't backing their every move when they originally kicked the snot out of the palestinians
| ||||
| |
|
12-13-2006, 06:35 PM
| #20 | |||
| Friend to all. Socialist Maryland
|
