Occupation

[3boys4us]

The other thread made me think about occupation and how it works - or does it? I have been racking my brain for successfully occupied nations (I guess besides Japan - although I'm not sure how that worked out). Let's not talk about Israel and the Palestinians but I would be interested in Northern Ireland and GB and others.

Does occupation work or does it create a more fervent type of nationalism?

[dh2Carmen]

In some ways, Belgium has worked out its history of occupation.

But as a concept, occupation is rooted in arrogance and violence (enforcement). Don't know why countries and their people can't be left alone.

I'll never agree with 'it's human nature to dominate!' rhetoric.

It would be helpful if less persons looked at the Bible, maybe, as a roadmap for domination and pillage justified by a Deity.

[merpk]

Germany was occupied post-WWII. That had a happy ending. As did Japan.

Well, reasonably happy, IYKWIM.

[Arduinna]

[i][i]
It would be helpful if less persons looked at the Bible, maybe, as a roadmap for domination and pillage justified by a Deity.

Oh I couldn't agree more with that sentiment.

[kama'aina mama]

hhmm... I wonder if the deciding factor has something to do with the length and purpose of occupation. "We are going to occupy you for this finite period, help you rebuild your infrastructure, make sure the old naughtiness doesn't crop up again and then be on our way." as opposed to "We are going to occupy you indefinitely, export your resources for our own use/benefit and do our best to utterly disenfranchise you." Aside from length and purpose I think the level of cultural respect is key. The Romans did well for a very long time because they generally said, 'sure, fine... your language, your traditions.... whatever. Pay your taxes and don't act up and we'll get along just fine.' Other occupiers have been far more bent on either wiping out the people who already live on the land they have decided to control or bending them to the occupiers will far past what most people will bear.

[TiredX2]

It's hard to even look back and decide which countries were "occupied". For example, was the South "occupied" after the Civil War? Was the US "occupied" by Europeons? How about much of Latin America? I guess it often comes down to how much of the previous social structure is left intact. I wonder exactly what the plan is in Iraq--- is this a US occupation, or is the US just looking to set up a puppet govt, meaning occupation can never end?

Kay

[merpk]

Oops, forgot one ... Lebanon, occupied by Syria since 1976. With the UN resolutions demanding an end to the occupation, to boot.

[DaryLLL]

Shoot, look at history, all the way back in the mists of time to the first well documented area, ancient Egypt. It seems to me, ever since patriarchy (spurred by the discovery of agriculture and animal husbandry causing men to want more land for same) began, with its war/mountain/volcano/pyramid/sun gods, "occupation" has been rampant. Altho I would call it dominance and exploitation, pillage and rape.

It's just been one long party of whose weapons were bigger and harder and who could drum up the biggest army through taxation and draft of the poor working slobs.

cynically yours--

[sadie_sabot]

Occupation "works" if the occupier is a lot stronger than the occupied. In the case of the USA, it worked quite well for the occupier--to the point that we hardly remember that the occupied exist, or that what we consider our land is actually stolen.

[TiredX2]

Occupation "works" if the occupier is a lot stronger than the occupied. In the case of the USA, it worked quite well for the occupier--to the point that we hardly remember that the occupied exist, or that what we consider our land is actually stolen.

Thank you so much for stating that so concisely. I was trying to get to that point before, but I seem to have the verbal skills of a drunk poodle.

In historical context, we generally only consider unsuccesful occupations. We don't generally consider the occupation of the south, or texas, or the west... (or the ne for the matter) to be an occupation at this point, rather nation expansion. do we consider taiwan or hong kong a succesful occupation? how about australia? i can't see iraq being an american province 100 years from now, but what will it be...?

kay

[3boys4us]

There are lots of good points here - I never considered for instance the US as successfully occupied nation by Europeans but I guess it could be so. Nor did I think of ancient Rome's long occupation of just about every European crevice.

I guess then I wonder when does occupation become acceptable? For instance when do we consider the US to be properly "settled" by the Europeans? Or when should we consider Germany (post WWII) to be a success? I mean after all now Germany has a tentative relationship with the US.

I seem to thinking "aloud" sorry.