 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> While many white men feel marginalised by these things, one must
> consider the very real notion that, for much of recorded history, males
> in general (and white males in the Western societies) *have* abused
> their positions of power,
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?
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?
And, interestingly enough, when you look around the world today, where do
you see the *most* civil rights? What countries are the ones where people
are *shocked* by abuses rather than saying "we really should get them to
change that"?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> americans to schools who did better than the asians, or something like
>
> This is a new one for me.
Honestly, I was trying to make it not all about blacks. :-) Lots of people
think there should be rules against immigrant asians taking spots that
residents should have, too, regardless of qualifications. Same thing,
different type of discrimination.
> I haven't followed this, but my colleague, who did his undergrad in
> UC Berkeley, states that the UC system removed affirmative action in the
> 90's and have not reinstated it since.
Yeah. Before then, there was lots of back and forth, and lots of failed
initiatives and such. Not unlike the whole gay marriage thing nowadays.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> 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?
AFAIK there have been and even still are many atrocities committed by
many African countries (or at least some of their inhabitants) towards
their neighboring countries, based on what can basically be called pure
racism (in other words, the people on the other country are of the "wrong"
race, and thus are despised if not even abused). The most prominent case
of this was the Rwandan genocide where between half and one million people
were killed (which sadly most western people don't even remember anymore!)
However, AFAIK, this is just the most prominent case and the tip of the
iceberg.
The Rwandan genocide is completely in par with the nazi holocaust. However,
which one of these two is better remembered?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Austin wrote:
> I recently read a story on CNN
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/09/philly.pool/index.html
>
> The story is about how a group of black kids were 'expelled' from a pool
> because of race.
>
>
> An interesting quote is:
> "He said two other day-care centers, neither of which included minority
> children, had previously been similarly disinvited."
>
> So, two groups of kids had been 'disinvited' with no loud complaining.
> As soon as the exact thing happens to a racial minority, it becomes a
> problem.
>
> I don't know if the action was racially motivated or not - I'm not
> judging that. But it is amazing how people jump to say this is racially
> motivated.
>
> Just look at the quote:
> "But Duesler told two Philadelphia television stations that the children
> had changed "the complexion" and "atmosphere" of the club."
>
> While I can see how this could be a racially charged statement, it could
> easily apply to ANY group of people and not be racially charged.
>
>
> Even with the bias of the article I can see plenty of evidence that the
> incident may not have been racially motivated.
>
>
> I guess people should be sensitive to things like this because it was
> such a big problem in the past, and continues to be problem today. But
> at times it seems that it goes a little too far.
>
> I wish people would take the time to understand the facts before passing
> judgment. IMHO much in this article points towards people making snap
> judgments without taking time to try to understand what really happened.
> Black group - kicked out by white people - something must be wrong.
>
Actually, got a better one for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqbL9-HzxH4
Didn't know that Italians and Irish where "different species"... Even
the women in the room asked him if he wasn't suffering from a mental
disorder himself, and given that his is Fox News... lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
"Because the White Man is 'civilised'." (and should know better) wink
wink. Also see below.
> 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?
Exactly. So much focus is on the whites now primarily because the
British Empire was so expansive and is pretty darn recent. So people
learn about that.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/10/09 15:36, Warp wrote:
> The Rwandan genocide is completely in par with the nazi holocaust. However,
> which one of these two is better remembered?
Well, perhaps as importantly people should notice (and later, remember)
what went on in the Democratic Republic of Congo over the last 10-12
years. It's the deadliest conflict since WWII. I think the latest
estimate is over 5 million excess deaths (i.e. violent deaths and also
including deaths due to malnutrition, etc that are estimated wouldn't
have happened in the absence of the conflict).
I could say a few more things about it, but I'd rather people just look
it up. I don't actually know the details of the players and the history
of the conflict. Some (a lot?) of it is actually a spillover from the
Rwandan genocide (i.e. Hutus and Tutsis). But it goes beyond that.
If you do look it up, then the one thing to notice is the "rape
epidemic" there - it may well be remembered for that alone.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/10/09 14:49, Warp wrote:
>> This is a new one for me. My Asian colleague keeps pointing out
>> that they're never the beneficiaries of affirmative action (which
>> he is against).
>
> A cynic could say that Asians might not be "colored enough" to get
> special treatment...
A lot of Indians are more colored than Hispanics.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think affirmative action simply did not apply
to Asians. Nor do I see why it should have - the whole premise of
affirmative action did not apply to them, because statistically
speaking, they do better than whites in academics (in the US - Europe
may be a whole other story).
The University of California system's undergrads are 37% Asian. They
comprise only 12% of the population in California. Countrywide they're
5% of the population. Yet at Stanford they have 24% representation, and
27% at MIT. They have more than 10% of the student population in many of
the country's top universities:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/world/americas/07iht-asians.4125275.html
We were actually discussing this a few days ago with my friend from
Berkeley. Another colleague joked that the UC system should reinstate
affirmative action so that more whites could get in.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp a écrit :
> (Another dogma is that only white people can commit racist acts, and
> only non-white people can be victims of racism. It's impossible for a
> black person to commit a racist act, for instance.)
However black people can and often are accused of antisemitic acts, at
least around here. In fact there has been a tendency in the French news
and politics to assume antisemitism any time a Jew is involved in a
violence outbreak.
--
Vincent
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> To multiculturalists racism, ethnicism, xenofobia, islamofobia and
>> basically everything is "racism". It's an umbrella term for everything
>> related to how white men behave towards non-white people.
>
> While many white men feel marginalised by these things, one must
> consider the very real notion that, for much of recorded history, males
> in general (and white males in the Western societies) *have* abused
> their positions of power, causing what is effectively a kneejerk
> reaction once that reaction is acknowledged as even slightly valid, and
> growing as acceptance of it spreads.
Over the course of history, just about everyone in a position of power
has abused that position. The reason for the selective focus is that in
recent history, whites have been the ones in power. Replacing the white
guy with something non-white appears to have no effect on the rate of abuse.
Men have historically predominated in politics because in the early
days, and not-so-early days, political questions were frequently solved
by brute force. Men have more of that. Now that women are becoming
more plentiful in politics (and in government in general), they are
showing themselves to be every bit as likely to abuse whatever powers
they have as men are.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
