|
|
Post by littlepea on Nov 30, 2005 16:30:55 GMT -5
No it means that the European (the more civilized person according to you) crimes against humanity has set Africans back in national development by 100's of years. The European (the more civilized people) also set the Native Americans back by more than 10,000 years. i couldn't say whether either of those is the main reason or not in each case, but i'm glad you agree that black people are not naturally barbaric - at least that's something ... ok, so what? you could be right that whites have killed more people than any other race but it's completely incidental, it has nothing to do with the colour of their skin - what is the significance of this statistic if you're not trying to say that white people are therefore naturally more violent than other races? and do you realise that you have offended people on here with your apparently racist comments, whether you intended to or not? that is a very foolish way to approach sensitive issues like racism - not everyone has the same standards as you do (from this thread it seems that no-one does, in fact  ) so you can't expect other people to be as insensitive to what you say just because you aren't bothered about it. if i burnt a union jack in front of the queen (which i would, given the chance) i couldn't possibly expect her to take no offence simply because i take no offence - despite the fact that we are both british citizens - could i? |
|
|
|
Post by cenk on Nov 30, 2005 17:04:25 GMT -5
you could be right that whites have killed more people than any other race but it's completely incidental, it has nothing to do with the colour of their skin - what is the significance of this statistic if you're not trying to say that white people are therefore naturally more violent than other races? I am just stating my opinion you or anyone else didnt have to respond to it. OK dont try and kid yourelse. I dont think the Genocide of the Native Americans was incidental. I dont think Hitlers murders where incidental. I dont think the Aryan, Stalin murders were incidental. I dont think the slave trade was incidental. I say white people have caused more death and destruction to this world. period. That is totally incidental  . Why am I OK to admit the truth rather than deluding yourself(teancum/sue). Facts cant be buried. Or be revised by biased historians over 100 years after the events. I have clearly hit the nerve of some denialists here. You cant compare that with what I said. |
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Nov 30, 2005 17:29:29 GMT -5
Was it just by chance that 90 some odd percent of people in Israel got gas masks and/or home filtration systems back after Desert Storm round one?
Who was it that was the aggressor during that conflict?
Was Sadam’s murdering the Kurds a nice thing to do?
Is there one good reason why a person’s race makes them more inclined to kill?
And the slave trade my very poorly informed friend was well integrated into African coulter long before the white man wanted cheap labor for his plantations. Feel free to take a world history class at some point it might help.
Cortez and his trip through South America was one of the most destructive events for natives. Do you really think that a group on men who are sailing to the far ends of the earth to explore and conquer are going to make sure they bring a sick guy along and hope that that illness would kill off the locals?
Yes it is true that the a lot of guys in the USA killed off a lot of the Native Americans do you really think that the natives had never fought a war before? Did this 1.5 million people you say where slaughtered live in perfect peace with each other until the white man came along?
And you think I don’t have a clue? Get real. The white guy is not perfect that is a given, but to try and distort history to justify your raciest views is wrong
|
|
moonchain
Guide
It raises a fever of intense apathy.
Posts: 595
|
Post by moonchain on Nov 30, 2005 18:13:27 GMT -5
Oh I see your good at twisting it back to me. I am not racist against whites because I'm part white, I dont take offence. Oriental is what I call people from China, Japan, Korea, etc.... I have a South Korean housemate at my uni and I have refered to his people as oriental and then asked him if he took offence and he said no. Also I have never heard that using the word oriental is racist. Also my ancestors were more oriental than white if that counts . a) You can be racist against whatever you are part of. Or even fully. If I adopted your attitude towards whites, I would very much be considered racist, even though my background is utterly "Aryan". The fact that you are not fully white just makes it more believeable that you *can* take a racist stand, prefering your asian blood (or some other aspect) over your white blood (which you indicated you "hate" in another thread). b) I guess that's fine for some asians, but if you call an asian "oriental" here in America, you'll get flack for it. I recommend you watch some of Margaret Cho's (a comedian and political activist) tirades about racism using terminology. A rug is oriental, a person is asian. Hm.. seems to me that many of the Indians they killed weren't Muslim, but Hindu. Even if many were "Aryan" Hindu-Indians, that doesn't make a lick of difference since it was still Muslims killing them. They aren't technically "their own people" when you consider the years of difference from nationality and religion. There's "unbiased evidence" and then there's "unbiased evidence presented to prove a biased point." That's like Christians presenting all of the current stories of Muslims self-destructing in public places to "prove" that all Muslims are evil. You are the one who made the statement that "the white race is the most evil." Its a racist statement and you can't change that fact purely by presenting contextual evidence and ignoring the more peaceful aspects of modern or even historical white culture. Although, it has been said before that you can't prove a negative, so any evidence we show of how the whites weren't directly related in certain things (like the deaths of many Native Americans *not* by the hands of others, but by disease - excluding small pox blankets) or those thousands that have protested both the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts. You know something? Blood is blood. It doesn't matter what the races are, the question remains, what are YOU doing to make the world a more tolerant place? From what I've seen of you: zilch. |
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Nov 30, 2005 18:18:23 GMT -5
cenk, somewhere you mentioned on here something about calling people with Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc. 'oriental'. I know it seems there are people here who don't like political correctness, but I was once told by a teacher that calling these people 'Oriental' was not correct. I was told that's what you call products from these areas and that the proper way to refer to people from China, Korea and the surrounding areas is 'Asian'. But I have a feeling you know that already. I have, however, observed that people who have occupied a certain area for some time may think themselves a bit more highly than the minorities around them (minorites being those significantly less in number in the same area). I don't believe it is intentional and it is easy sometimes to take certain actions from the majority as intentionally hurtful to the minority. But I think it is due to the fact that the minority group does not have as powerful as a voice and therefore, it is easy for their needs to be overlooked. So to answer the question I don't believe so. But the chances that the minority group is looked down upon and mistreated are much greater when the only voices being heard are the majority. Who wants to listen to the few who are unlikely to make a significant impact on society? Tidbit-I've always grown up with people of all sorts of backgrounds and ethniciy (what the hell is race anyway?) My best friend growing up is Vietnamese. My other best friend is Portuguese and she grew up in Brazil for a while. |
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Nov 30, 2005 18:25:15 GMT -5
You know folks... perhaps it would be a good idea if we close this one? I mean, I don't even expect this discussion to go that well. Discussing ethnicity and culture is a hot issue, apparently. Not just in the U.S. (where it is no secret that it is a really really hot issue), but in areas around the world. (But so is religion, yet we can manage discussing religion, but not culture?). If you think it should be reopened, feel free to try to convince me.  Otherwise, perhaps it is best to disuss such things amongst yourselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Dec 1, 2005 16:20:18 GMT -5
Re-opened upon request...
|
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 1, 2005 17:51:09 GMT -5
It’s open yay!!
I think the reason why we are so much nicer with religion than some other areas is that it is very personal and there is much less fact to throw around.
I also know that no matter how “right I am” on religion that will not matter in a conversation. Political stuff tends to be a bit different.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Dec 1, 2005 18:53:35 GMT -5
This is exactly what I wanted to say, but didn't have time to post--so thanks for your speedy reply moonchain. Actually I think you said it better. |
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Dec 1, 2005 19:23:37 GMT -5
I am just stating my opinion you or anyone else didnt have to respond to it. really? i thought you were only stating facts that we can't dispute ... i keep asking and you keep avoiding the question: so what if white people have caused more death and destruction than any other race? it might be true, but what are you bringing it up for? it's only a statistic, it doesn't mean anything on its own, you must be trying to say something by it - the only reason you can possibly bring it up is to try and say that white people are therefore naturally more violent than other races, which is simply illogical. there's far too many differences between the way the european nations developed compared to nations in other parts of the world to automatically make the connection that it's to do with skin-colour. you really are a fool, aren't you? i'm not denying the facts (i wouldn't know where to begin when it comes to facts on this issue), i'm denying the connection that you seem to be making since i can't see why you'd bring up this statistic other than to imply that white people are naturally more violent than other races. what you really meant to say was "i don't understand the connection" but your response is very revealing nonetheless. the point i was making was that just because you take no pride in something that belongs to you (your genes - or, in my case, my nationality), this doesn't give you the right to spout intolerant drivel about it when other people will obviously take offence (just like i can't burn a union jack in front of the queen and expect her not to be offended). the only difference between the two scenarios is that i would fully expect the queen to take offence - in fact that's one of the reasons i'd do it in the first place - whereas you seem to think we shouldn't take offence to what you've said. just tell me why you are making such a big deal out of this, cenk. are you trying to say that white people are naturally more violent than other races or are you just attention seeking or what? even if you answer those questions, that still will not excuse your general tone and intolerance displayed throughout this thread (and in other threads too, of course) - just give me an explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by cenk on Dec 2, 2005 7:21:45 GMT -5
Was it just by chance that 90 some odd percent of people in Israel got gas masks and/or home filtration systems back after Desert Storm round one? Who was it that was the aggressor during that conflict? Was Sadam’s murdering the Kurds a nice thing to do? There is no proof that Iraq gasses Israel. Please, present me some evidence that Iraq gassed Israelis. I think you are confused with Saddam gassing the Kurds. All there has been between Iraq and Israel is back in the early 1980's when Russians built a nuclear power plant in Iraq, Israelis destroyed it. Why dont you mention what the Israelis are doing? Have you heard of their Apartheid Racist Wall of Shame? I am not phuking saying that it is to do with their race. I am just of the opinion that White people have caused more death on this planet than anyone else. Please feel free to rebut me. Yes slavery was built into their culture. That doesn't give the White man the go ahead to take them as slaves and on a massive scale. Dont you mean free labour? Do you think that the slaves where paid? You really are delusional. Sex is built into some peoples cultures does that give me the right to rape that person? You can take your defence of slavery and shove it where the sun dont shine. No better still why dont you say what you just said to me and say it to an African American. Columbus and Cortez where worse than Hitler. The white man borught nothing to the Native Americans except death, destruction, racism and slavery as well as setting their population size back by 10,000 years. There is actually one recorded case that the was intent to infect the native Americans. I can show it to you. Whats that got to do with anything? In their wars they never expelled each other 1000's of miles away from their ancient homeland for some 10,000+ years (haven't you heard of the trail of tears) and they never exterminated each other others tribes. You obviously completely misunderstood what I meant - now why doesn't that suprise me at all? The 1.5 million people I talk of were Iraqi civilians that died because of impossed sanctions by the USA. Do you have any idea what a sanction is? That means that USA prohibited vital medicines and other things from entering Iraq so when a baby has a illness that could be easily treated, it couldn't because the medicine that would have very easily treated that illness was not allowed into the country. If you dont like my opinion that not my problem. Which is really why you are so keen to respond and try and shift the blame. |
|
|
|
Post by cenk on Dec 2, 2005 7:36:55 GMT -5
a) You can be racist against whatever you are part of. Or even fully. If I adopted your attitude towards whites, I would very much be considered racist, even though my background is utterly "Aryan". The fact that you are not fully white just makes it more believeable that you *can* take a racist stand, prefering your asian blood (or some other aspect) over your white blood (which you indicated you "hate" in another thread). b) I guess that's fine for some asians, but if you call an asian "oriental" here in America, you'll get flack for it. I recommend you watch some of Margaret Cho's (a comedian and political activist) tirades about racism using terminology. A rug is oriental, a person is asian. How could you be racist against yourself? Thats absurd. Also I am not even saying that I hate white people. I am just stating my opinion that the white man has caused more death than anyone else. I have come to a stage where I dont give a damn what blood I have in me. I am White with a tinge of yellowish. Well here in the UK Asians are normally refer to Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis I dont know if thats because they've hijacked the word? So the Aryan Muslim killed the Ayran Hindu. May I remind you it was on a smaller scale than the Aryan-Hindu invasion, genocide and colonisation of India. The Aryan-Hindu invaded India the slaughtered the original inhabitants and pushed them down south. (Havent you read my post on the Ayran invasion of India?) Also the Hindus put the caste system in place in India. Which can basically be summarised as follows: Light is good, you'll have a better life, better jobs you be the cream of the crop and dark is bad, you'll have shyte jobs and a crap life - also if you dream of even touching a lighter person it will result in your death. Based on your research which out of the three races have caused more death. The Afrocoids, Caucasians or Mongoliods??? I have come to the conclusion that it was the Caucasians. OK. You do some research and come to your own conclusions. Also you seem forget certain parts of your own history. www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/aboutbuffalo/bisonnativeamericans.htmlInfluenced by forces discussed above, the U.S. government pursued a policy to eradicate the buffalo and thereby extinguish the Indians' very sustenance, forcing them onto reservations. The following speech, recounted by John Cook--a buffalo hunter, was delivered by General Phil Sheridan to the Texas legislature in 1875. The legislature, as the story goes, was discussing a bill to protect the buffalo when the General took the floor in opposition: These men have done more in the last two years, and will do more in the next year, to settle the vexed Indian question, than the entire regular army has done in the last forty years. They are destroying the Indians' commissary. And it is a well known fact that an army losing its base of supplies is placed at a great disadvantage. Send them powder and lead, if you will; but for a lasting peace, let them kill, skin, and sell until the buffaloes are exterminated. Then your prairies can be covered with speckled cattle (Cook, 164). This testimony, spoken by an Army leader in the Indian wars, spells it out: The buffalo and the Indian were obstructing the march of civilization. Kill the buffalo and not only would the Indian wars be won, but the vast tracks of public land would be opened for cattle. BY KILLING THE BUFFALO, YOU KILL THE INDIAN.There are no stories at all of the White man helping the Native Indians. No wait the only stories are in the last half of the 1800's, too little too late. The best Native American is a dead Native American - that was the attitude. Read about the encomienda and hacienda. But the label of Genocide can be given if there was intent to destroy the Native Americans over the 500 years. From what I've read I'd say it was most definately Genocide. You can call all Muslims evil if you want. I am not saying that all white people are evil. I am just of the opinion that White man has killed more people than Black or "Asian" people have. If you interprete that as meaning that White people are the most evil "race" then thats your problem. |
|
|
|
Post by cenk on Dec 2, 2005 7:55:56 GMT -5
really? i thought you were only stating facts that we can't dispute ... No really you can dispute it. Based on your research which one out of the 3 "races" I mention in the above post caused more death on this planet? Why does it annoy you that I bring it up. It sounds like you just cant stomack it. I'm saying white people have caused more death than anyone else. I accept it. Why cant you? OK. What should I say the White European has caused more death and destruction on this planet than anyone else? Why dont you make a list of the "three races" and list the number of of people from other races that they killed. I do take pride in my background, I just dont know what nations all my ancestors belong to. I only take offence in one thing when people denigrade my religion because my religion is important to me.Hey I just stated my opinion which is up for debate. The reaction from you, teancum, sue and moonchain speak volumes. I've had someone trying to justify slavery, someone placing the blame on my *evil* religion and someone who trys to place the blame of the deaths caused by US imposed sanctions on the Iraqis themselves. This is a forum, a place to voice your opinion. Thats all I did. It was interesting to see (justification in some) peoples reactions. |
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Dec 2, 2005 10:50:04 GMT -5
Yes slavery was built into their culture. That doesn't give the White man the go ahead to take them as slaves and on a massive scale. Dont you mean free labour? Do you think that the slaves where paid? You really are delusional. Sex is built into some peoples cultures does that give me the right to rape that person? You can take your defence of slavery and shove it where the sun dont shine. No better still why dont you say what you just said to me and say it to an African American. Actually, what teancum said was partially right. At least the part with the slavery. Although I did hear from one source that the slavery in Africa was a bit different than the one practiced in other areas. Supposedly, slaves were more like servants who ere treated quite well. As for the capturing and bringing the African people to be slaves in the New World; the Europeans didn't do the capturing. The African people had wars between the tribes (which looking at any continent, that's normal). The Europeans had convinced the Afrians to capture people from other tribes and bring them back to them. Their reward was better fighting equipment. But nevertheless, it must be understood that such a history is never to be taken lightly. It was a history in which people's lives were on the line. There is absolutley nothing to be proud of. The only way to learn from history, is to get the truth from it. At times, the truth hurts. At times we may feel ashamed of our pasts and our truths, but it must be faced if we wish to move forward and "get over it". But don't mistake what I've meant in saying, "get over it". People still experience the results of the negativity of the past today... and in many ways. In essence, slavery was somewhat of a genocide. The Africans were completely banned from praciting their religion and cultural customs. Just as the Native Americans were. In some ways, it's still like that. Certain people aren't allowed to work in places if they wear certain things resembling their culture if it isn't European in nature. For example, I spoke with a professor who told me how she felt bad for her student when the basketall team told her that she couldn't wear her hair a certain way. And the style she wore it would not have been a distraction to her playing as it was kept up and out of her face. Another thing is with men and long hair. Although it seems to be more accepted, certain Native American tribes believed that cutting the hair was like cutting into the soul. Similar beliefs with dreads. Keeping the hair long represented spiritual growth. It is still considered unaccpetable for men to wear their hair long or for people to wear their dreads. There are still organizations running around such as KKK, skinheads and Neo-Nazis that feel threatened by the presence of anyone not like them. So the African and Native American people were forced during and even after slavery to build up their own culture from scratch. After slavery, people were still being treated like filth. All this stuff is not long ago... AT ALL. There is a lot of work to be done. I don't think people are asking for too much. It's not like African Americans are asking for the 40 acres and mule that was supposed to be doled out for over 400 years of free "service", like how there are some Jews who are asking for money from the results of the Holocaust. No more blame game. It's really time to move forward and get on with life. Perhaps people are too afriad to learn the truth about the past becuase they are afraid that there will be countless groups that will get angry and rise up. Believe me, if it hasn't happend by now, then it most likely won't. |
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Dec 2, 2005 13:36:32 GMT -5
While no mainstream historian denies that death and suffering were unjustly inflicted by a number of Europeans upon a great many American natives, many argue that genocide, which is a crime of intent, was not the intent of European colonization. Historian Stafford Poole wrote: "There are other terms to describe what happened in the Western Hemisphere, but genocide is not one of them. It is a good propaganda term in an age where slogans and shouting have replaced reflection and learning, but to use it in this context is to cheapen both the word itself and the appalling experiences of Jews and Armenians, to mention but two of the major victims of this century."19 Therefore, most mainstream scholars tend not to use the term "genocide" to describe the overall depopulation of American natives. However, a number of historians, rather than seeing the whole history of European colonization as one long act of genocide, do cite specific wars and campaigns which were arguably genocidal in intent and effect. Usually included among these are the Pequot War and campaigns waged against tribes in California starting in the 1850s. Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoplesI guess referring to the deaths of the Native American's as "genocide" is not as clear-cut as one might think. Cenk: As ambitiously didactic as you are about the white race causing most of the death and destruction on this planet, it seems to me that you should also be fully aware that all of your statements about such have been since recorded history. Nobody really knows what kind of death and destruction occured before our written history--since the first man carved the first weapon from stone. This alone completely refutes your allegations towards the white race as having "caused more death and destruction on this planet than anyone else". Also--the example I gave about "Islam" being "evil" was used to demonstrate a point--that was not meant to be taken literally or express my own views--and you are fully aware of that.  |
|
) so you can't expect other people to be as insensitive to what you say just because you aren't bothered about it.
.
