 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] ieee org> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Treatment yes but never, I think, the justification that Africans were sub human
> so it didn't count.
I really think it was the other way around, tho. The only way you could
justify continued slavery was to say "It's not slavery, it's property
ownership." I don't think most people really thought they weren't human any
more than most religious people really believe in the promises of their
religion.
> Although the situation in Australia might have been
> different. Australian aboriginal weren't enslaved but they were persecuted
> relentlessly with organised Abo hunts.
I have read recently where they're still considered in some laws to not be
human. Probably for the same reasons - if they're human, you can't just take
land away without any justification under the law, and nobody is willing to
actually pass a law bigoted enough to just take it anyway.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:52:03 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> Treatment yes but never, I think, the justification that Africans were sub human
>> so it didn't count.
>
>I really think it was the other way around, tho. The only way you could
>justify continued slavery was to say "It's not slavery, it's property
>ownership." I don't think most people really thought they weren't human any
>more than most religious people really believe in the promises of their
>religion.
>
You are right (of course ;) it went from slavery to property but still holding
on to "slavery". That is one of the marvellous things about humanity, the
ability to believe two contradictory things at the same time.
>> Although the situation in Australia might have been
>> different. Australian aboriginal weren't enslaved but they were persecuted
>> relentlessly with organised Abo hunts.
>
>I have read recently where they're still considered in some laws to not be
>human. Probably for the same reasons - if they're human, you can't just take
>land away without any justification under the law, and nobody is willing to
>actually pass a law bigoted enough to just take it anyway.
Probably, I can imagine not all the laws were repealed especially when you don't
want to talk about it.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
>> I have read recently where they're still considered in some laws to not be
>> human.
> Probably, I can imagine not all the laws were repealed especially when you don't
> want to talk about it.
Well, I meant to say that those laws are still in force, at least from my
reading of the article.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I especially like the last paragraph:
>
> "One group of firefighters threatened to sue for discrimination if
> promotions were made based on the test results, and others said they
> would sue if the city ignored the results and denied promotions to
> candidates who did well."
>
> That is wrong in *so* many levels I cannot even count. This is what the
> world has become.
The firefighters that were denied promotion sued as a group
without knowing who had scored best on the tests. They didn't
know 100% that the firefighters with the best results were white,
all they really knew was that all the promotions went to
black rookies, and the test had been discarded.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> 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."
And instead of saying, "Let's not accord this power to the government,"
the usual suggestion is, "Let's have someone else be in power for a
while. Specifically, my gang."
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
