--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Arif Samad
<fHoiberg@y...> wrote:
> There was such a hue and cry over the AMAZ enclaves
> over the last two weeks or so that I probably should
> have e-mailed earlier. But I am lazy and here is what
> I want to say. If it seems like I am trying to say
> Mike is wrong, it is only because I believe he had the
> last word and this subject deserves a cloudiness that
> a last word does not provide. Both sides argued with
> a certainty that I don't think the subject deserved.
> To me, unless two countries say so AND shows it so on
> their maps, the existence or non-existence of an
> enclave is somewhere in the middle.
fresh armenian map
http://www.gov.am/enversion/regional_7/regional.htm
azeri testimonies you may have missed
http://www.travel-images.com/az-agstafa.html
http://bisnis.doc.gov/bisnis/country/981203az.htm
a clave that is no longer functioning or dysfunctioning as a clave
is in fact no longer a clave but a former clave
no one has yet been able to give a single example of a clave that
has come back from the dead
& that is because it would go against nature for one to do so
such places are holdouts & pockets & backwaters by definition
& once the plug is pulled on them they dont fill up again as a rule
& indeed it would be crazy to try to restore them
when everyone & everything is striving to fix or eliminate their ill
effects
if at all possible
& when they stop performing as claves it surely means they dont
exist as claves any more
but as something else
That means I am
> not willing to say that the enclaves exist but neither
> does it surely mean they don't exist. It is even
> suggested that the Berlin enclaves were not true
> enclaves and somewhat validly so as Germanies and
> Berlins were zones and not countries until reunited.
> I still considered them enclaves but it wouldn't be
> wrong to think they wre not. I think Mike is putting
> way too much insistence on what is his vision to the
> exclusion of all others on the subject of its
> existence.
> I especially thought the idea that it didn't exist in
> certain recent maps means it doesn't exist anymore
> glaringly wrong.
wait my friend
that was not my idea
but a misrepresentation of my idea
given so repeatedly that you even believe i am insisting on it now
& so no wonder you think my mind is clouded
yikes
but werent you yourself just pleading for cloudiness
so it is you who are cloudy here
isnt it
by your own wish & choice
i seem clear enough to me tho
as i desire to be
& i am not insisting too much but just enough to give you the
proof you yourself are asking for
American and Western European maps
> have clouded Mike and almost everybody else's mind on
> the subject that what maps draw are imaginary lines
> and not statements of facts. These lines can be
> imagined by different countries according to their own
> thought. I have seen enclaves appear and disappear
> from Bangladeshi maps two or three times knowing full
> well that they did exist. Just because it didn't show
> up on a map does not mean it didn't exist. I wouldn't
> be surprised if such uncertain boundary mapping was
> the norm instead of the exception outside the Western
> countries.
> Much more valid is the point that the enclaves
> disppeared in the heat of war. However, we should not
> also take that as gospel. Many countries have taken
> over areas that were later identified as not belonging
> to them.
this last point is true
but again
it has never been true of claves so far as we know
once they fall apart
they just arent worth the effort to reconstruct
only a clavophile who thinks they are so cute & precious would
even entertain such a preposterous thought
& the following comments are really not applicable to the
situation at hand
which involves claves in particular
rather than borders in general
Most countries still do not agree to make
> Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel even though de
> facto it has been the capital since taken over in a
> war. Taiwan still exist in many eyes but not de jure
> so. For a long time, Western Sahara was seen as part
> of Morocco in many maps and was de facto so until it
> reverted back in existence later.
> We should not however discount Mike's contention that
> in many cases not hearing about a certain geographic
> object may mean it may be going out of existence.
just a suggestion of the obvious rather than any contention
& after all
my circumspection has already proved to be fully justified
> Geographers can be notoriously slow at moments,
> especially involving colonial fragments that the AMAZ
> enclaves kind of are. I will give the example of
> Junagadh. This fragment of Pakistan existed in
> Pakistani maps for quite a long time after Pakistan
> and India became independent. In truth, they didn't
> exist and after the war in 1965, it was formalized to
> be so. There is a good chance a similar thing may be
> happening in AMAZ.
ok so now you seem to want to agree with me after all
notwithstanding the 1993 & 2001 azeri map stamps to the
contrary depicting the status quo ante 1990
well i can accept that
i have never thought much of propaganda map stamps anyway
as evidence of anything
let alone as the basis for resurrecting a dead clave
for these are not matters of opinion but matters of practical fact
> In conclusion, whether an enclave exists or not exist
> is really a person's decision unless there really is
> no evidence the other way. Most enclaves over time in
> history probably have been thought about enclaves by
> some, but most likely not everybody.
> Arif
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail