Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Carter and Cognitive Dissonance, charitably speaking.

While perusing the news and reading articles about Jimmy Carter's new book spouting the PLO party line verbatim, I had a sudden thought.

Am I the only person that has noticed that Jimmy Carter doesn't seem terribly concerned about America's land grab and apartheid against the Native American Indians? Where is his call to dismantle the reservations and give the millions of acres swindled from the Native Tribes back to them? Where is his call to return the Dakotas to the Sioux, or Florida to the Seminoles, or Tennessee to the Cherokee, or Kentucky to the Shawnee, and so on and so on?

And why not? What's the difference?

According to his reasoning, every nation that ever acquired land anywhere should now be required to give it back. So, where's his outrage against everybody else?

Why isn't Carter writing about Tibet, which was swallowed up by China in a brutal cultural genocide? Why isn't he insisting Tony Blair give Scotland and Wales their independence immediately? Why doesn't he tell Germany to break back into its original sovereign states? Hey, Carter - where's Prussia, my ancestor's homeland? It's not there, so why aren't you complaining about it?

You'll notice he isn't clamoring for the Catholic Church to give back all the land and property that they confiscated during earlier eras from religious and political dissenters who challenged the pope. Why not? Maybe it's just me, but "convert, leave, or die" seems a lot more like Apartheid than anything the state of Israel is doing. In fact, it sounds more like what the Muslims are doing. But I digress.

If every ethnic group who has lived in an area for a while is entitled to have their own country on this "historical" soil, why isn't he insisting northern Iraq be given to the Kurds as their own sovereign nation? Why isn't he clamoring for the independence and sovereignty of the Basque? Or the Inuit? Or the Taiwanese?

Or the Jews?

Oh, wait a minute. Sorry about that. Jews somehow don't qualify, never mind that the nation of Israel was certainly there first - as is well attested in Greek and Roman history, not to mention the Koran. Did somebody forget to tell him the Ottomans came later? Never mind, he obviously doesn't intend to let either facts or consistency get in the way of his agenda. I guess at his age he is too senile to realize his protest about so-called Israeli imperialism looks fairly stupid compared to the real and world-wide imperialism of Islam. Maybe he didn't catch the recent story about the Muslims taking over the Buddhist villages and holy sites and running the millenia-old Buddhist inhabitants out of their homes and shrines. I guess they were just "settlers" or something.

But logic has never been one Carter's strong points. After all, he once thought a little white rabbit was going to eat him. Apparently, class, lately he's been smoking the same dope, because his grasp of reality hasn't improved any.

And wouldn't it be great if the rest of us could do what he says the Arabs in Israel at the time of the partition should be able to do - "look, I know my birth certificate and passport says Syria (or Eqypt, or Jordan...), but I'm really from, umm, ah, Palestine - yeah, that's it - Palestine."

Senile. That must be it. No rational or coherent person can be so clearly biased and think no one is going to notice the inconsistencies of his position.

So why is anyone taking Carter seriously? Anyone?

No comments: