On 07/10/09 15:03, Darren New wrote:
> Wait, worse than the Asians abused their positions of power? Worse than
> the africans abused their positions of power over other africans? Worse
> than the native americans in power over other native americans? Why are
> white people in power buying black slaves worse than the black people in
> power buying black slaves? Why is white people conquering India worse
> than Japan invading China?

	Well, I'd like to hear more about Japan and China. I know of the 
Nanjing Massacre, but then I also know of some events related to the 
British in India, which are often not mentioned. Like a more or less 
forced famine (I think over a million died).

	(Just tried looking it up - there were a bunch of famines under the 
British - some with a lot more dead, so I don't know which one was the 
"forced" one - basically the British insisted that the isles get their 
share of the food output from India, even though there was a shortage 
locally).

	I don't know too much about the British abuses in India, but I 
occasionally hear a lot of really nasty stories. It may be the case that 
their actions in India are considered "worse" because they were there 
longer than the Japanese were in China.

	In any case, it's rare that I hear a lot of "guilt" about the British 
in India. Certainly Indians occasionally bring it up. Maybe it's much 
more common across the Atlantic.

	As for slaves due to the whites vs (black on black) slavery (sorry, am 
too lazy to put it in a better form): I never liked discussions on 
slavery, because they often treat all slavery as equally bad, when 
that's far from the truth. The discussions should focus on the 
treatment, and not merely on the fact that they were slaves. Some "free" 
people have gotten much worse treatment than other slaves have.

	I have no idea if the English/Spanish slave trade was worse than the 
"domestic" slave trade within Africa - I don't know much about the 
latter. I believe the Spanish was much more brutal than the English, but 
we rarely hear about it, perhaps because the world doesn't speak Spanish.

> I strongly suspect it's because the white folks know their own history
> much better than they know the history of other cultures. Quick, without
> looking, what was going on in Africa and India during the medieval ages?
> Who were the power players?

	When's the medieval ages? I honestly don't know - sometimes I hear it 
in the context of about 1000. Other times more like 1500's. If you mean 
the former, I actually don't know much about Europe at that time 
either.<G> Vaguely know of the Crusades (had they begun by 1000?). I'm 
sure England existed, but that's all I know about them. Most of Spain 
was under Muslim rule. That's about it.

	If you mean 1500's, then India was probably mostly under the Moghuls. 
Africa is harder for me. Ottomans and/or other Muslims likely had most 
of North Africa. Mali was a big power around that time (Mansa Musa, 
etc). The rest, I don't know. But after all, Africa is a whole huge 
continent, you know. Then again, I may not know that much more about 
Europe. I know a number of the "nations", but I know little about who 
was more powerful, etc. I'm suspecting the French and English both had 
quite a bit of power. There was the Hapsburg (sp?) empire, and the 
Russian Empire. The Dutch were good at seafaring, and that's it.

	But yes, a lot of it is that the white folks know their history. The 
white folks are more or less the dominant power these days (the Chinese 
and Indians may have a few things to say about that soon). And so the 
white folks obsess about it. And again, the rest of the world obsesses 
about it because 1) they want to complain about those in power - 
frequently ignoring their own crimes and 2) the culture of (at least 
certain groups of) white folks can spread deep into the rest of the 
world - to the point that many of the young generation know much more 
about the history of parts of the historically white world and not as 
much about theirs. You know, stuff like Hollywood and English stories.

	Then again, a lot of the whites perhaps _are_ to blame that this is 
couched in terms of skin color, because that's how it is in their own 
narratives, and why should the rest of the world argue about it when 
those responsible seem to want to put it that way? Had the Japanese 
conquered the world over the past few centuries, perhaps they and the 
world would talk about the Japanese evils, but perhaps not in terms of 
skin color (although race may still be the focus).

	I'm somewhat rambling, but I think we shouldn't ignore the possible 
effects of the news reporting. When it comes to crimes and atrocities in 
today's world, the media (here in the US, at least - but I suspect it is 
a universal trend) has the most ridiculous "perspective". Two 
"atrocities" of a very comparable nature may occur - at times even 
during the same period. One will be blown way out of proportion, and 
another will barely be mentioned (or perhaps not at all mentioned in 
some outlets). I could easily give lots of examples.

	In the news if a white racist does something to an African American 
here in the US, it'll be big news. The reverse (which does happen) will 
often not be - unless some prominent media personality makes a fuss out 
of it. If some African Americans are seriously abused by Latinos (e.g. 
LA gang violence), it barely gets any press. If a white supremacist 
group did likewise, there'll be hell to pay.

	But then again, when a white young woman goes missing, it can dominate 
certain news outlets for a ridiculously long time. I've never seen 
anything close happen when an African American young woman goes missing. 
If a bomb goes off in Asia and kills some German citizens, it'll be big 
news. If another bomb goes off, kills as many, but no "Western" tourists 
were nearby, it's not anywhere near the front page.

	I could go on - might as well stop here. I guess my point is partially 
that while a lot of what you say is true (bias against whites on a lot 
of issues), there is still bias in favor of certain groups (including 
whites) on other issues. Both should be addressed.


-- 
BASIC isn't; C stands for Confusing...


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message