History of the Holocaust

[S.A.M.]

India doesn't have the other Abrahamic religion telling them how retrograde they are, Sam.

Your second point was a bit of a advertisement and a non sequitur.

Huh? You do know that we have Syrian Christians for as long as Jews and Muslims since 1400 plus years? My second point was now that Jews no longer speak and look different [plus there is the whole holocaust guilt], its the other "non-assimilating" immigrants that have them getting their right wings flapping. If you read the old antisemitic propaganda and compare it with what is said about Muslims today by "muslim with a small m" groups, you'd be surprised how often you could substitute the evil Jews with the evil muslims and see the same ole ethnocentrism at work.

But you already know that.

 

[GeoffP]

Huh? You do know that we have Syrian Christians for as long as Jews and Muslims since 1400 plus years?

There are some left, true.

My second point was now that Jews no longer speak and look different [plus there is the whole holocaust guilt]

In the Middle East? So why do they keep getting abused? This doesn't seem to fit with your premise. Or do you mean India? And anyway: are they a threat to you if they don't completely assimilate? Should I be worried about people walking down the street who don't have the same culture or religion or language or clothing that I do? Or is it rather if they want to impose that on me and my family that I should be concerned? It's not a trivial question, Sam. I don't mind the non-assimilators: it makes life interesting. It's when and if they want to assimilate me that I wonder, depending on their physical/political interest in doing so.

If you read the old antisemitic propaganda and compare it with what is said about Muslims today by "muslim with a small m" groups, you'd be surprised how often you could substitute the evil Jews with the evil muslims and see the same ole ethnocentrism at work.

But you already know that.

Oblique libel aside: which parallel are the "small m" types using and what exactly are they saying? Precisely how does it link to the sentiment generated against Jews in the early 20th century?

 

[S.A.M.]

You're the one living on colonised land, you tell me

Me, I'm a Muslim minority citizen who speaks the local lingo.

 

[GeoffP]

:shrug: Islam (capital I) colonized India too, Sam. There was chaos and death done there enough for any history book.

And, too, you were here for quite some time. So you can hardly say you're not complicit.

And, then again, my wife and family also give me a free ticket, cheap a point as that may be. Thanks for your concern, although I notice you dodged the points again.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yeah and note that 800 years after Islam "colonised" India, I, a Muslim minority member speak Marathi.

So tell me again. Who assimilated? You or your wife?

 

[GeoffP]

Yeah and note that 800 years after Islam "colonised" India, I, a Muslim minority member speak Marathi.

Great. And in Pakistan, the majority religion is...

Go on. Which is it? It was pretty majority, but not so majority a few years back.

So tell me again. Who assimilated? You or your wife?

Her, clearly. But now: what are you going to do about your having lived over here all that time? Don't you think recompensation is in order?

Or you could just tell me how the "small m" squad is making arguments in parallel with anti-Semitic propaganda of the early 20th century.

 

[S.A.M.]

Great. And in Pakistan, the majority religion is...

Go on. Which is it? It was pretty majority, but not so majority a few years back.

It was, actually, why do you think it was partiotioned like that? Because thats where most of the Muslims were, both my maternal and paternal grandparents included. Our families were split across the border. Many are still "there".

Her, clearly. But now: what are you going to do about your having lived over here all that time? Don't you think recompensation is in order?

You mean having converted? I don't know. What does your wife pay?

Or you could just tell me how the "small m" squad is making arguments in parallel with anti-Semitic propaganda of the early 20th century.

Well for one thing, they have this thing against Yiddish speaking Jews Arabic speaking Muslims who won't assimilate. Maybe you could give those Jews Muslims some pointers how you did it after immigrating to native American lands?

 

[quadraphonics]

You're the one living on colonised land,

There are no people who don't live on colonized land.

 

[S.A.M.]

There are no people who don't live on colonized land.

Indeed. I live on an island the Portuguese gave to the English as a wedding present. But my ancestors were like the flora and fauna here. They just lived on the land that other people were taking and giving away. Fortunately there was no lobby or we'd be on reservations lobbing rockets at GeoffP

 

[quadraphonics]

But my ancestors were like the flora and fauna here.

No. Your ancestors came from somewhere else. Humans are not indigenous to India. And unless you're from an isolated island somewhere, it's extremely unlikely that your ancestors were the first people to colonize India.

 

[S.A.M.]

No. Your ancestors came from somewhere else. Humans are not indigenous to India. And unless you're from an isolated island somewhere, it's extremely unlikely that your ancestors were the first people to colonize India.

Why? Who was there before us? Who did we displace, in your opinion? How does this apply to GeoffP and his assimilated native American wife? Or the Yiddish villages in Poland? According to your inevitable inequity and "genocide for peace" program how does the Holocaust qualify?

 

[quadraphonics]

Why? Who was there before us? Who did we displace, in your opinion?

The people who were already there. Modern Indians are descended from numerous waves of massive immigration that displaced existing populations.

http://www.ebc.ee/EVOLUTSIOON/publications/Bamshad2001.pdf

How does this apply to GeoffP and his assimilated native American wife? Or the Yiddish villages in Poland?

It implies that the rhetorical sledgehammer you use to assert your supremacy to others - indigenousness - is a myth.

Let's recall that the definition of "indigenous people" is simply "been there long enough we don't know where exactly they came from."

And that's fine, so long as people don't try to assert some kind of moral legitimacy on that basis. Which is exactly what you are in the habit of doing.

According to your inevitable equity and "genocide for peace" program how does the Holocaust qualify?

Equilateral transcription applicability assertion leverages instantiations of historical teleological moralisms beneath metaphysical reuptake computations, asshat. War criminal!

 

[iceaura]

There are many nomadic tribes with no homelands. The Roma for example, they rotate between certain limited known lands

? So as you observe, the Rom have - or had - a homeland, in the immediately relevant past. They come from somewhere, and could be dispossessed of that.

As with most tribes. But not (for centuries) the Jews until (maybe) recently, or the Scotch-Irish. It's just a side observation, which may shed some light on why the rednecks in the US seem to feel a common cause with the Israelis and Boers and Australians and other dispossessed, kicked around people who dug in their heels somewhere.

Meanwhile, the Scotch-Irish have never been a nomadic people. And their state-building efforts, once opportunity presented itself, have been remarkably effective so far.

But my ancestors were like the flora and fauna here.

Much of the flora and fauna there colonized the place - as did your ancestors. And mine, in my place, a few centuries more recently.

Why? Who was there before us?

So your culture does not even remember, let alone honor, its victims?

 

[S.A.M.]

The people who were already there. Modern Indians are descended from numerous waves of massive immigration that displaced existing populations.

http://www.ebc.ee/EVOLUTSIOON/publications/Bamshad2001.pdf



It implies that the rhetorical sledgehammer you use to assert your supremacy to others - indigenousness - is a myth.

Let's recall that the definition of "indigenous people" is simply "been there long enough we don't know where exactly they came from."

And that's fine, so long as people don't try to assert some kind of moral legitimacy on that basis. Which is exactly what you are in the habit of doing.



Equilateral transcription applicability assertion leverages instantiations of historical teleological moralisms beneath metaphysical reuptake computations, asshat. War criminal!

All good, but I'm part Pashtun, part Gujarati [low caste, so presumably one of the displaced natives], first generation born in Mumbai. We immigrated legally and speak the local lingo. Now Geoff on the other hand, lives in native America with his native American assimilated wife. Capische?

Anyway I don't really give a shit. I just like to hear Geoff defending Yiddih speaking Jews in Poland and haranguing against Arabic speaking Muslims in Europe, while talking about Palestinians who had their rights diluted by "Arab" blood, all while he lives in America with his native American wife who has been "assimilated" by colonisers and with his five mixed race children [apparently all with diluted rights to their native American ancestry]

? So as you observe, the Rom have - or had - a homeland, in the immediately relevant past. They come from somewhere, and could be dispossessed of that.

I believe they are Indian banjaras, not sure anyone has displaced them they still come here.

As with most tribes. But not (for centuries) the Jews until (maybe) recently, or the Scotch-Irish.

Meanwhile, the Scotch-Irish have never been a nomadic people. And their state-building efforts, once opportunity presented itself, have been remarkably effective so far.

Are the Scotch Irish indigenous?

Much of the flora and fauna there colonized the place - as did your ancestors. And mine, in my place, a few centuries more recently.
So your culture does not even remember, let alone honor, its victims?

Nope, we don't have any lasting reservations. :shrug:

 

[iceaura]

Are the Scotch Irish indigenous?

They are in Ulster. Probably take a century or two, in Kentucky.

part Pashtun, part Gujarati [low caste, so presumably one of the displaced natives]

Presumably not. Your ancestors wiped them out quite thoroughly, by appearances - you don't even know who they were.

 

[quadraphonics]

All good, but I'm part Pashtun, part Gujarati [low caste, so presumably one of the displaced natives], first generation born in Mumbai.

So?

We immigrated legally and speak the local lingo.

So did Geoff.

Now Geoff on the other hand, lives in native America with his native American assimilated wife.

And?

How do you square these assertions of permanent genetic entitlement to specific tracts of land with your assertion that borders and divisions between people are artificial, harmful constructs that must be eliminated in order to attain peace?

Aren't all humans indigenous to Africa and so, ultimately, all equally entitled to the rest of the world?

Anyway I don't really give a shit.

Doesn't seem like it.

 

[S.A.M.]

They are in Ulster. Probably take a century or two, in Kentucky.
Presumably not. Your ancestors wiped them out quite thoroughly, by appearances - you don't even know who they were.

Hey, my dad was the first to marry out of his low caste community. We can trace his family back quite a bit. Probably the Pashtun side as well. Too bad my diluted blood probably deprives me of any future reparations to the low caste natives.

How do you square these assertions of permanent genetic entitlement to specific tracts of land with your assertion that borders and divisions between people are artificial, harmful constructs that must be eliminated in order to attain peace?

Aren't all humans indigenous to Africa and so, ultimately, all equally entitled to the rest of the world?

I don't. Read my post, I like to see Geoff's cognitive dissonance at work. Is that wicked? :mufc:

 

[GeoffP]

It was, actually, why do you think it was partiotioned like that? Because thats where most of the Muslims were, both my maternal and paternal grandparents included.

But not in the percentage that it is now, I'm fairly certain.

You mean having converted?

You converted?

What does your wife pay?

Nothing, of course: she's an inheritor. Oh, but I see: you're trying to decide what your rate of responsibility should be? The same as anyone else's, I expect.

Well for one thing, they have this thing against Yiddish speaking Jews Arabic speaking Muslims who won't assimilate. Maybe you could give those Jews Muslims some pointers how you did it after immigrating to native American lands?

Again, kind of a non sequitur. Could you answer the initial question?: Why do Jewish people keep getting abused by other Abrahamic types, Sam? And in which society do they "no longer speak and look different"? India? The US? Pakistan? Europe? And if they do: then what? You're implying that by looking and being different, they draw unwanted attention. You feel they bring it on themselves? So how does this notion fit with your idea of cultural panheterogeneity? If everyone you are in contact with is different, will that stop the violence and conflict you imply is the end result of transitory monocultural societies? Which nations do not fit into the latter category? So many questions.

 

[GeoffP]

I don't. Read my post, I like to see Geoff's cognitive dissonance at work. Is that wicked?

Kind of idiotic, actually. But I merely explain. :shrug:

 

[S.A.M.]

Why do Jewish people keep getting abused by other Abrahamic types, Sam?

They don't. The native Americans weren't Jews, neither were the gypsies, Aboriginals, Tasmanians, Africans or coolies. Nor are the Muslim immigrants in Europe.

The problem is something else entirely in my opinion. You might want to consider why I speak Marathi and your wife speaks English.