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

John VanSickle wrote:
> 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.

"Power corrupts.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:32:30 -0400, Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
>> 
>>> I do remember way back in high school physics that we discussed the term
>>> jerry-rig.  Our teacher reasoned that 'jerry' was a racial slur and
>>> shouldn't be used.  So he suggested that 'billy-rig' was a better term -
>>> referring to West Virginia hill billys.  Since we were in Virginia, it
>>> was a better term than 'jerry-rig'
>> 
>> I think that your teacher may have been confusing jerry-rigged with jerry-built
>> which is a slur against a certain English Jerry. Jerry-rigged is from WW2 and
>> applied to Allied equipment repaired using German parts.
>
>yes, you are right - I was referring to what he reasoned.
>

So I reasoned, too.

>> To be honest, I have heard one phrase used by American oilmen that was a racial

>> 
>
>I've heard of that term - and I've never used it myself.  Tho, if I see 
>something really well built I may use it ;-)
>

You take your life in your hands, methinks ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:42:48 -0500, Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:

>	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).
>

I question that figure try 10 million or more than 40 million during the 200
years of British rule.

>	(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 think that the food came to Britian. More likely it was sent to other
colonies.
 
I was reading recently about the English starving the Irish into submission
during the 16th Century. So it was a method that was tried and tested.
Although in our ancestors defence (ha!) I don't think that it was really racist
more a class thing. They treated the Indian rulers with more respect than they
did their own poor people. 


>	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.
>
That may be more to do with the people that go there. The Indians and Pakistanis
that settle in the UK tell different stories.

>	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.
>

Yes indentured servants, orphans and single mothers under the care of certain
Christian churches, crofters, mill workers, in fact all poor people. Everyone
who was powerless in fact.

>	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.

Ask any Jamaican they suffered under both. But African and European slavery
pales into insignificance when compared to the American idea. I don't believe
that slaves in the rest of the world were considered animals, sub-human or just
children at best.

>> 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?
>
Islam and Arabs

>	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.

11th to 15th century

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 07/11/09 10:25, Stephen wrote:
> I question that figure try 10 million or more than 40 million during the 200
> years of British rule.

	Due to famines, or overall?

> I don't think that the food came to Britian. More likely it was sent to other
> colonies.

	Could be.

> I was reading recently about the English starving the Irish into submission
> during the 16th Century. So it was a method that was tried and tested.
> Although in our ancestors defence (ha!) I don't think that it was really racist
> more a class thing. They treated the Indian rulers with more respect than they
> did their own poor people.

	I think what people classify as racism is more often than not  other 
prejudices. The proper words for each just aren't as trendy as racism.

>> 	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.
>>
> That may be more to do with the people that go there. The Indians and Pakistanis
> that settle in the UK tell different stories.

	What I meant is I don't see many white people talk about the guilt of 
the British Empire (as in, I was wondering why Darren brought it up).

> Ask any Jamaican they suffered under both. But African and European slavery
> pales into insignificance when compared to the American idea. I don't believe
> that slaves in the rest of the world were considered animals, sub-human or just
> children at best.

	When you say "American", wasn't that more or less the same as when they 
were under the English? I believe the English got rid of it earlier and 
treated them more humanely earlier than the US did, but if we were to go 
back to the mid-1700's, wasn't the treatment by the English more or less 
the same as what you're referring to as American?

>>> 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?
> Islam and Arabs

	Mostly only in North Africa and the East coast of Africa. What about 
the rest of the continent?


-- 
Computer Lie #1: You'll never use all that disk space.


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

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:56:03 -0500, Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:

>On 07/11/09 10:25, Stephen wrote:
>> I question that figure try 10 million or more than 40 million during the 200
>> years of British rule.
>
>	Due to famines, or overall?
>

Just famines

>> I don't think that the food came to Britian. More likely it was sent to other
>> colonies.
>
>	Could be.
>

I suspect so as 40 or 50 years ago rice was considered quite exotic in Britain,
not a staple food. It is also dangerous to ship for as I'm sure you know when it
gets wet it expands and will not release its water.

>
>	I think what people classify as racism is more often than not  other 
>prejudices. The proper words for each just aren't as trendy as racism.
>

I agree.

>>> 	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.
>>>
>> That may be more to do with the people that go there. The Indians and Pakistanis
>> that settle in the UK tell different stories.
>
>	What I meant is I don't see many white people talk about the guilt of 
>the British Empire (as in, I was wondering why Darren brought it up).
>

We are well aware of it although lots of things are forgotten. Have you heard of
The Great Hedge of India? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hedge_of_India
Another glorious episode of the British Empire.

>> Ask any Jamaican they suffered under both. But African and European slavery
>> pales into insignificance when compared to the American idea. I don't believe
>> that slaves in the rest of the world were considered animals, sub-human or just
>> children at best.
>
>	When you say "American", wasn't that more or less the same as when they 
>were under the English? I believe the English got rid of it earlier and 
>treated them more humanely earlier than the US did, but if we were to go 
>back to the mid-1700's, wasn't the treatment by the English more or less 
>the same as what you're referring to as American?
>

Treatment yes but never, I think, the justification that Africans were sub human
so it didn't count. Although the situation in Australia might have been
different. Australian aboriginal weren't enslaved but they were persecuted
relentlessly with organised Abo hunts.

>>>> 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?
>> Islam and Arabs
>
>	Mostly only in North Africa and the East coast of Africa. What about 
>the rest of the continent?

I don't know, you said not to look it up. I only know of Shaka the Zula leader.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message