History's losers need to move on

By

Laina Farhat—Holzman writes an interesting column in the Santa Cruz Sentinel on the resurgence of "losers" in the realm of activism today. She eschews the terms "victim" and "victimology" in commenting on the way in which losers seek to wrap themselves in a righteous crusade for redress. Groups she names include Southern whites re—enacting the Civil War, Native Americans, Serbs, Arans, and of course Mexican seeking return of American lands.

The Southern whites seem a stretch to me (does any sane Southern person seriously contemplate another secession?), and the avoidance of the victimology factor is perplexing. But she makes an excellent point which has long bothered me:

Ultra—nationalists in Mexico regard the American Southwest as once theirs, and they believe that they should — and can — take it back. The danger here is what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The native Indians in Mexico can make the same case about the loss of their lands to the Spanish. And among the Indians themselves — what about those tribes that were conquered by the Aztecs? Redressing the cases of losers in history has no end.

Yes, indeed. In fact some of the tribes inhabiting what is today the United States were about as oppressed by the Aztecs as one can get: supplying human sacrifice victims. The Aztec empire was one of the cruelest and most unjust known to history. Claiming to be its rightful heir is not necessarily smart.

Hat tip: Parmalee Taff

Thomas Lifson   5 1 06

Laina Farhat—Holzman writes an interesting column in the Santa Cruz Sentinel on the resurgence of "losers" in the realm of activism today. She eschews the terms "victim" and "victimology" in commenting on the way in which losers seek to wrap themselves in a righteous crusade for redress. Groups she names include Southern whites re—enacting the Civil War, Native Americans, Serbs, Arans, and of course Mexican seeking return of American lands.

The Southern whites seem a stretch to me (does any sane Southern person seriously contemplate another secession?), and the avoidance of the victimology factor is perplexing. But she makes an excellent point which has long bothered me:

Ultra—nationalists in Mexico regard the American Southwest as once theirs, and they believe that they should — and can — take it back. The danger here is what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The native Indians in Mexico can make the same case about the loss of their lands to the Spanish. And among the Indians themselves — what about those tribes that were conquered by the Aztecs? Redressing the cases of losers in history has no end.

Yes, indeed. In fact some of the tribes inhabiting what is today the United States were about as oppressed by the Aztecs as one can get: supplying human sacrifice victims. The Aztec empire was one of the cruelest and most unjust known to history. Claiming to be its rightful heir is not necessarily smart.

Hat tip: Parmalee Taff

Thomas Lifson   5 1 06