Is America (US) ready for a black president?

[S.A.M.]

The Indians are a terrible example of a society, I mean if you want to use India for an example, their caste system makes American racism and slavery look like a gift to Africans. In India, it's worse than slavery, people are born into permanent castes called untouchables, and no matter what they ever do, or their children every do, or their childrens children ever do, they are locked into that caste.

The caste system has not always existed in its present form. The structure of the caste system was based on work (Brahmins-scholars, Kshatriyas-warriors, Vaishnavs-tradespeople Shudras-unskilled) and only later on developed into the discriminatory system which we see today, largely due to the exploitation of the poor by the Brahmins. It was not a rigid, irreversible process as is commonly portrayed, nor were the Shudras completely exempt from society as indicated by Western Indologists.

The British hardly improved matters by selectively appeasing the rich and treating the poor as unpaid slaves. They were also the ones who lumped all the Indian religions as Hinduism and deepened class and caste differences just as they deepened the Hindu Muslim divide. Same thing they did in Sri Lanka with the Tamils and Sinhalese by forcing people to choose sides. Same thing they did in the Middle East by drawing arbitrary lines to form countries and enabling the formation of Israel. 200 years of indoctrination in India left a lot of scars. But I believe that as a a society we are going back to our Indian roots and casting off the effects of colonialism very fast.

During the colonial period, it served the interests of the British (and their European cohorts) to exaggerate the democratic character of their own societies while diminishing any socially redeeming features of society in India (and other colonized nations). Social divisions and inequities were a convenient tool in the arsenal of the colonizers. On the one hand, tremendous tactical gains could be achieved by playing off one community against the other. On the other hand, there were also enormous psychological benefits in creating the impression that India was a land rife with uniquely abhorrent social practices that only an enlightened foreigner could attempt to reform. India's social ills were discussed with a contemptuous cynicism and often with a willful intent to instill a sense of deep shame and inferiority.

Strong elements of such colonial imagery continue to dominate the landscape of Western Indology. A liberal, dynamic West embracing universal human values is posed against an obdurate and unchanging East clinging to odious social values and customs.

In India, caste and gender discrimination appear to become more pronounced with the advent of hereditary and authoritarian ruling dynasties, a powerful state bureaucracy, the growth of selective property rights, and the domination of Brahmins over the rural poor in agrahara villages. But this process was neither linear nor always irreversible. As old ruling dynasties were overthrown, previously existing caste equations and caste hierarchies were also challenged and modified.

In many parts of India this process may have taken several centuries to crystallize and caste rigidity may be a much more recent phenomenon than has been commonly portrayed. The impression that caste divisions were always strictly enforced, or that there were no challenges to caste rigidity does not seem to square with a dispassionate examination of the Indian historical record.

Social stratification was present in almost all traditional societies to different extent. The reality is hardly as black or white as is generally believed by people in the West. Oterwise India would not be representative of the largest democracy in the world today, representing all major religions.

 

[Baron Max]

But I believe that as a society we are going back to our Indian roots and casting off the effects of colonialism very fast.

I figured you'd find some way to place all of the blame on those horrid, terrible, nasty British tyrants!

India, the land of milk and honey.

Baron Max

 

[Prince_James]

Ayodhya:

Is there a reasoning for that or is it just innate?

I do not think someone culturally and physically distinct from me can look out for my interests primarily. I elect representatives to voice my view points and work for my interests in my local, state, and federal elections.

Also, what do physical features have to do with anything (or are you once again just referring to skin color i.e. innate preference once again)?

They reflect genetic and cultural differences.

 

[John99]

**** the casste system momma

 

[S.A.M.]

I figured you'd find some way to place all of the blame on those horrid, terrible, nasty British tyrants!

India, the land of milk and honey.

Baron Max

I both appreciate the good and acknowledge the bad aspects of colonialism. You don't think 200 years of oppression can have a negative impact?

Well then why are you guys are still struggling with affirmative action after how many years?

Its already working in India. We've had two Prime Ministers from the reserved castes. Do you see a black President anytime soon?

 

[Chatha]

Because human evolution is not moving at a quick enough pace. We evolve quickly physically because we mate based on physical properties. We evolve slowly mentally because often, the most intelligent, have the least amount of kids, or don't mate at all, or if they do, they mate with a complete moron.

It's not just mating patterns, it's also the lack of a dynamic culture. What role do women have in culture? Martha Stewert? Oprah? Women have a long long way before they have influence over culture. Women are just beginning to become fashion designers, and just beginning to culturally liberate themselves.

The youth, are culturally liberated, men and women in their 20s, these groups are not the ones who would refuse to vote for a female or black President. It's people who were born in the 1940s, or 1950s, or 1960s, generally those sorts of generations who were involved with the civil rights movement, and people who grew up during a time where the man was king of his castle, and where women were house maids, in this traditionalist culture, it's just how things were. The women were to stay home, cooking and cleaning, the man was go to go out, work, and make all the money. There was a time where women were not even allowed to go to college or vote!

Civilizations were built by men, fought and defended by men, the greatest thinkers are men. The worth of a man is unaccountable. What influence should women's role possibly be. Women don't do anything but sit on their behind, pump out a baby every now and then, and find something to complain about. If you take out men's influence in the society and adopt a Matriachal society, it will be a disaster, women wouldn't know what to do and its a matter of time before some of them adopt the "man" role. Not all women are this way, but some of them are lazy. I don't care if a woman becomes president, but its not going to change anything significantly. I also know white people are mentaly smarter than black people, you have a lot of thinking to do if you don't think so. Not all white societies became rich by domination and slave trade, which by the way was also practised in African states. Japan for instance managed to become a world class society right from its inception, without any domination, today Japan is 2-3 years ahead of any country on Earth. As a matter of fact Japan went through constant invasion by China and then America.


samcdkey,
Was colonialism also to be blamed for the seperation of Indian muslims which resulted in Pakistan?

 

[Billy T]

....There are people who believe God is a man....

Probably I have read too many of the Baron's posts, but this caused me to wonder: "How big is God's dick?"

Please someone start a poll to see what size is the common wisdom. I am too to do so. - Also that might get me baned, despite the failure of my earlier poll with that joking objective.

 

[MySpace]

Probably I have read too many of the Baron's posts, but this caused me to wonder: "How big is God's dick?"

.

it's humuour.

 

[MySpace]

We need David Palmer.

- N

what's his ideology?

 

[MySpace]

I think America is ready, if the democrats put Barack Obama, the republicans will put Condoleeza Rice..

 

[TimeTraveler]

samcdkey;1256172]The caste system has not always existed in its present form. The structure of the caste system was based on work (Brahmins-scholars, Kshatriyas-warriors, Vaishnavs-tradespeople Shudras-unskilled) and only later on developed into the discriminatory system which we see today, largely due to the exploitation of the poor by the Brahmins. It was not a rigid, irreversible process as is commonly portrayed, nor were the Shudras completely exempt from society as indicated by Western Indologists.

Why should I believe you? It goes aganist human nature. Humans like to hate other humans, and if theres a caste system, they prefer to focus their hatred on the defenseless lower castes. It's like this in every society, India as well. You owe me some evidence, so cite your sources.

The British hardly improved matters by selectively appeasing the rich and treating the poor as unpaid slaves. They were also the ones who lumped all the Indian religions as Hinduism and deepened class and caste differences just as they deepened the Hindu Muslim divide. Same thing they did in Sri Lanka with the Tamils and Sinhalese by forcing people to choose sides. Same thing they did in the Middle East by drawing arbitrary lines to form countries and enabling the formation of Israel. 200 years of indoctrination in India left a lot of scars. But I believe that as a a society we are going back to our Indian roots and casting off the effects of colonialism very fast.

You can blame the British for bullying Indians, but you can also blame India for not being more aggressive and conquering the British, it all depends on which perspective you look at the issue from. If you look at the issue from a perspective of dominance, then the Indians and all the other brown countries willingly or unwillingly submitted to the might of the British, this includes China. It seems, intelligence, hard work, or beauty of culture will not rescue a group of people from oppression and dominance. It seems the only way out, is to dominate everyone first, get the best weapons first, steal all the money and land first, and always be first at everything, including first to use force, first to enslave, etc.

This is what we might call a very primitive way of dealing with the environment, but it's a proven fact that if you dominate everything and everyone around you, you'll always be in control of every situation. The British simply stole the world first.
As a result of being first to steal the world, they got to shape the world, and this is why we speak English.

Social stratification was present in almost all traditional societies to different extent. The reality is hardly as black or white as is generally believed by people in the West. Oterwise India would not be representative of the largest democracy in the world today, representing all major religions.

It was not present in Native American society or Tribal African societies, only certain tribes had kings and queens, and Native Americans had chiefs. If you want to call this the same as a caste system go ahead, but I see this system more as the logical system of nature. Insects follow this system.

 

[TimeTraveler]

Probably I have read too many of the Baron's posts, but this caused me to wonder: "How big is God's dick?"

Please someone start a poll to see what size is the common wisdom. I am too to do so. - Also that might get me baned, despite the failure of my earlier poll with that joking objective.

Thats a really good question. You should ask the next person who calls God a he.

 

[TimeTraveler]

Chatha;1256273]Civilizations were built by men, fought and defended by men, the greatest thinkers are men. The worth of a man is unaccountable. What influence should women's role possibly be. Women don't do anything but sit on their behind, pump out a baby every now and then, and find something to complain about. If you take out men's influence in the society and adopt a Matriachal society, it will be a disaster, women wouldn't know what to do and its a matter of time before some of them adopt the "man" role.

You need to read your history. Matriarch society is just as natural. It's just as natural to have a Queen as it is to have a King, and sometimes a Matriarch is better for cultural growth. As much as you like to say men are good at builting, men are much better at destroying, look at all the wars, look at all the cultures and societies destroyed by men, look at what men do to other men.

Not all women are this way, but some of them are lazy. I don't care if a woman becomes president, but its not going to change anything significantly. I also know white people are mentaly smarter than black people, you have a lot of thinking to do if you don't think so. Not all white societies became rich by domination and slave trade, which by the way was also practised in African states. Japan for instance managed to become a world class society right from its inception, without any domination, today Japan is 2-3 years ahead of any country on Earth.

You know absolutely nothing about Asian history. Japan conquered or tried to conquer China many times. Japan did not built a society without dominance. Europe dominated the world and built an empire, and Japan attempted to do the same thing in Asia.

As a matter of fact Japan went through constant invasion by China and then America.

Japan invaded China first, Japan invaded America first. What history books are you reading?

Dominance is the only reason men rule the world, men rule by force, not by culture, not by communication skills, not by intellect, by force. If you look at how men have wars, do they talk their way through it? No, even in 2006 theres still bombs being dropped because groups of men disagree with other groups of men.

Yes women are likely to have wars too, never underestimate women, but we must admit, men are programmed from a young age to be warriors, and in the current world, we have a LOT of warriors, and we simply cannot afford to have more world wars. Do you remember world war 1? or world war 2? Those wars were caused by men, not women.

 

[Prince_James]

TimeTraveler:

Actually, matriarchy has never been practiced by any advanced civilization, nor have has there been historic evidence to suggest matriarchies are anything but an oddity, popping up now and then, and amounting to nothing.

 

[TimeTraveler]

I both appreciate the good and acknowledge the bad aspects of colonialism. You don't think 200 years of oppression can have a negative impact?

Well then why are you guys are still struggling with affirmative action after how many years?

Its already working in India. We've had two Prime Ministers from the reserved castes. Do you see a black President anytime soon?

It's really simple. We must admit, that when it comes to dominance intelligence, the ability to dominate groups of people, Europeans have the highest IQ.

If it were not the case, then the world would not be ruled by Europeans, but it is, so thats proof.

The problem is simple, being able to dominate the world does not mean you are able to take care of it.
At this point, if we are still fighting for control of the world and over who will dominate whom, and what, theres little to no hope for our planet.

 

[TimeTraveler]

TimeTraveler:

Actually, matriarchy has never been practiced by any advanced civilization, nor have has there been historic evidence to suggest matriarchies are anything but an oddity, popping up now and then, and amounting to nothing.

It has been practiced in Asia, and in African Tribes, and in Europe, and in Egypt, as well as the Amazon.. You need to learn more.

 

[Prince_James]

TimeTraveler:

Which Asian country and to what historical significance?

Which African tribes and to what historical significance?

Which European countries and to what historical significance? At most you can mention Boadicca and/or Joan of Arc, perhaps Queen Elizabeth I, and those were not "matriarchial cultures" (Celts, Franks, and Tudor English were certainly not matriarchies).

Egypt was never matriarchical. There were three female pharohs. Neferetti, some other dame, and Cleopatra.

And the Amazons are generally held to be ahistorical. Even so, they were barbarians that left virtually no impact on history if we are to believe Herodotus at face value.

 

[iam]

Civilizations were built by men, fought and defended by men, the greatest thinkers are men. The worth of a man is unaccountable. What influence should women's role possibly be. Women don't do anything but sit on their behind, pump out a baby every now and then, and find something to complain about. If you take out men's influence in the society and adopt a Matriachal society, it will be a disaster, women wouldn't know what to do and its a matter of time before some of them adopt the "man" role. Not all women are this way, but some of them are lazy. I don't care if a woman becomes president, but its not going to change anything significantly. I also know white people are mentaly smarter than black people, you have a lot of thinking to do if you don't think so. Not all white societies became rich by domination and slave trade, which by the way was also practised in African states. Japan for instance managed to become a world class society right from its inception, without any domination, today Japan is 2-3 years ahead of any country on Earth. As a matter of fact Japan went through constant invasion by China and then America.


samcdkey,
Was colonialism also to be blamed for the seperation of Indian muslims which resulted in Pakistan?

I thought you were intelligent but apparently not. Laziness has nothing to do with gender. There are as much lazy men as women. If you want to blame laziness on women then you are forgetting the role men have in contributing to this socalled laziness. Because women traditionally have stayed home and reared the young, it fosters nonaggressiveness or docility. What the hell do you want, what kind of a looney blames women for not conquering the world when she was taking care of your seed while your out doing the other????? Unless you'd like to trade places. God people are stupid.

 

[iam]

Actually it was the Goths, not the Muslims who attacked Rome, and it had little to do with immigration, it was more that Goth tribes, and other random tribes were constantly non stop attacking Rome, and getting better and better at it until Rome collapsed.



China would have been a world empire if it focused on military might and not on culture. China has/had a beautiful culture, but Europe ultimately won because while China built a wall, Europe was conquering the world by might.



We have to accept that not all cultures are equal. Some cultures are naturally destructive and some cultures are naturally constructive. We need to adopt the best features of all cultures and Americanize it, and intergrate it, instead of trying for this multi-culturalism, which just accepts the best and worst from all cultures. We need to stop accepting the worst aspects of any culture. We must accept the fact that some activities are simply unAmerican, and unacceptable.

Gosh, what brainpower. You are doing that genius, america is not multicultural because you are racist. What worst aspects of any culture are you accepting???? Your full of it. What activities are simply unAmerican and unacceptable that are so bad that you don't do yourself???? You have the worst aspects of your own culture hampering you.

 

[iam]

It's really simple. We must admit, that when it comes to dominance intelligence, the ability to dominate groups of people, Europeans have the highest IQ.

If it were not the case, then the world would not be ruled by Europeans, but it is, so thats proof.

The problem is simple, being able to dominate the world does not mean you are able to take care of it.
At this point, if we are still fighting for control of the world and over who will dominate whom, and what, theres little to no hope for our planet.

Really?? You know you can read a history book two ways. You can read it in boxed timeline fashion or you can read between the lines as well.

It was opportunity, timing, and the right recipe. You see the rise and fall throughout history. In the end, domination does not work. Its a short term advantage. Because the dominator has to represent what its dominating in the end. To lead is to eventually serve and you can only lead as long as you are the best at appropriating and producing what is demanded in the moment and then the baton is passed on to one or more. The desire to dominate over all is a twofold animal, to control is to have a measure of self-protection BUT if it is not really unifying as in representing the needs of everyone it tries to dominate it falls apart. We are all leaders.

True leadership works, not domination. And there can be more than one leader. The single egoistic desire to dominate is not a real qualification.