Islamophobia, xenophobia and anti-semitism In the west

[mountainhare]

S.A.M:

South Africa is another example of a Western civilisation stepping in and taking over the indigenous people and resources and subverting them while refusing to assimilate or contribute. Also an example of a people becoming the second class citizens in their own country.

There you go.

Was Rhodesia the 'bread basket of Africa' PRIOR to Western interference? What were the education standards of the native youth like prior to Western colonisation? Did they have roads, hospitals, universities, electrical, running water?

What sort of historical revisionism have you employed in order for you to claim that the British didn't contribute to Rhodesia?

 

[S.A.M.]

S.A.M:


More like, did they survive their barbarian neighbours (such as the Goths), and rival empires (such as the Ottoman's) once the Roman Empire fell? Romans almost always allowed conquered peoples to retain their local laws and religious beliefs. There are notable exceptions to the rule, such as Judea and the Carthaganians, who were essentially wiped out or expelled. But that's what you get for continually stirring the pot, even after Rome offers to allow your to practice your local laws and religion, as long as you 'Render unto Caesar...'.

And it's not as if the Persians didn't beat up on the Jews. Also note that Jewish culture in India is virtually non-existant. Acting as though Eastern empires were multicultural utopias, whereas Western empires unanimously enforced the 'Conform or die' policy, is just racist stereotyping.

Jewish culture in India is nonexistent?

Well we have the honor of being the one country they did not need to run away from and probably the only place in the world where they assimilated.

Persia had the second largest and one of the oldest Jewish community. If they were beat up before Israel was formed they had a strange way of showing it.

I still can't get a handle on the language and culture of the Roman conquests. The Germanic tribes came later (Saxons esp) so what was the culture of pre-Roman Europe?

 

[S.A.M.]

S.A.M:


Was Rhodesia the 'bread basket of Africa' PRIOR to Western interference? What were the education standards of the native youth like prior to Western colonisation? Did they have roads, hospitals, universities, electrical, running water?

What sort of historical revisionism have you employed in order for you to claim that the British didn't contribute to Rhodesia?

Were the indigenous people ruling their country at this time? Was their language, culture and customs paramount? I'm talking xenophobia.

Did the white invasion contribute to the existing culture or did it suppress it?

 

[mountainhare]

S.A.M:

What is the status of Aborigines in Australia. You don't have to go further than that to see xenophobia.

We have anti-discrimination legislation in place to protect our poor innocent natives, as well as government funded bodies to represent their interests, and all sorts of handouts for anyone who has a drop of aboriginal blood.

What is the status of the Adivasis and Untouchables in India, S.A.M?

 

[S.A.M.]

S.A.M:


We have anti-discrimination legislation in place to protect our poor innocent natives, as well as government funded bodies to represent their interests, and all sorts of handouts for anyone who has a drop of aboriginal blood.

What is the status of the Adivasis and Untouchables in India, S.A.M?

There you go mountainhare.

You need anti-discrimination legislation. Invaders vs natives? And whose culture dominates?

Pretty good, we just had a Dalit woman Chief Minister elected. This was after we've already had a Dalit President and a Dalit Prime Minister.

 

[w1z4rd]

South Africa is another example of a Western civilisation stepping in and taking over the indigenous people and resources and subverting them while refusing to assimilate or contribute. Also an example of a people becoming the second class citizens in their own country.

You show your ignorance again. First off... South Africa did not have native bantu tribes in most of it when white settlers first arrived at the Southern tip. The bantu tribes had not yet migrated that far south by the time Europeans arrived. The original inhabitants were a group of people called the "Khoi San" .. or as some may refer to them, "the bushmen". The Khoi San and the current Bantu are as similar as someone from Japan and someone from Turkey. Ie.. not really.

When the white settlers migrate northwards they came into contact with the bantu isiXhosa tribes (who had being pushed out of their lands by the Zulu tribes) and 9 frontier wars were fought as the cultures clashed. Of which the result was two homelands, the Ciskei and the Transkei being formed. These were then trashed by the Xhosa corruption and were later incorporated into South Africa at out first free and democratic elections (something people in the middle east still need to learn about).

However, yes, Apartheid and its racism was a fuck up.. but we got over it. We changed regimes PEACEFULLY and still do so to this day. Nice thing about South Africa.. is EVERYONE of age can vote. Not just the men (unlike some middle eastern countries).

I would like to point out that both the bantu tribes and european settlers were responsible for the decline of the khoi san population, and that it WAS MUSLIM slave traders (Zanzibar) there were responsible for the most slavery on the east coast of africa.

So sorry if your reasoning appears fucked to me Sam... because it is. All you have shown is you have no idea about the specifics of what you are talking about.

You also seem to have no clue on how social development evolves. We take the best from each culture (which is why I love my chinese food and South African Biltong)... and we try get over the bad things (Tiananmen Square and Apartheid).

All humans are equally capable of great acts of evil are great acts of kindness. Making it a race issue just makes you a racist.

 

[mountainhare]

S.A.M:

Well we have the honor of being the one country they did not need to run away from and probably the only place in the world where they assimilated.

You do realize that you just shot yourself in the foot, right? In a truly multicultural society, no assimilation is necessary.

Were the indigenous people ruling their country at this time?

Of course not. Were the indigenous people ruling their country under Persian rule? Ottoman rule? Islamic rule? The reason why it's called an empire is because lands are annexed and (ultimately) administrated, usually against the will of the indigenous population, by the occupying power.

And that's the point, S.A.M. When the UK administered South Rhodesia, it flourished. When the reins of control were given back to the natives, it flopped. The success of Rhodesia as a bread basket is directly attributable to the occupying white colonialists. That is a fact you cannot deny, not matter how much it may conflict with you 'Non-white good, white bad' axiom.

Was their language, culture and customs paramount?

Nope. But then, 'their language, culture and customs' weren't paramount in the Persia, Ottoman, and Islamic empires. They weren't paramount when the Qin dynasty pretty much exterminated rival dynasties and mass slaughtered scholars, either.

I'm talking xenophobia.

What empire places the culture of its conquered territories and protectorates over that of its own? Rome is an exception, simply because it's territories were so vast, it was far easier to allow its conquered peoples to retain local laws and religion with little Roman interference.

 

[mountainhare]

S.A.M:

There you go mountainhare.

You need anti-discrimination legislation.

The fact that anti-discrimination legislation exists demonstrates that there is no institutionalised racism or xenophobia in Australia.

And may I just take a second to remind you of the legislation that madanthony pointed out in a previous thread, where it was deemed illegal for upper castes in India to force 'The Untouchables' to eat faecal matter. 'There you go, SAM. Your country needs anti-shit eating legislation.'

Invaders vs natives?

You can't invade empty land.

And whose culture dominates?

Anglo-Saxon culture dominates in Anglo-Saxon civilisation. But even if it was a typical 'invader vs natives' scenario, the invader culture would dominate. Otherwise there would be no point in invading, hmm?

Pretty good, we just had a Dalit woman Chief Minister elected. This was after we've already had a Dalit President and a Dalit Prime Minister.

Because legislation requires that Dalit's have representation in your government simply for being Dalit, not due to merit? And why? Can't non-Dalit politicians be expected to consider the best interests of the lower castes?

 

[S.A.M.]

S.A.M:


You do realize that you just shot yourself in the foot, right? In a truly multicultural society, no assimilation is necessary.

Indian assimilation is not like western assimilation, see the Jews, Persians, Syrian Christians. Any demographic that has immigrated into the country.

Of course not. Were the indigenous people ruling their country under Persian rule? Ottoman rule? Islamic rule? The reason why it's called an empire is because lands are annexed and (ultimately) administrated, usually against the will of the indigenous population, by the occupying power.

Uh yes, they were, the Arabs gradually gave way to the Persians who gave way to the Mongols and Ottomans. The system of governance was decentralised. Every province was ruled by its own people.

And that's the point, S.A.M. When the UK administered South Rhodesia, it flourished. When the reins of control were given back to the natives, it flopped. The success of Rhodesia as a bread basket is directly attributable to the occupying white colonialists. That is a fact you cannot deny, not matter how much it may conflict with you 'Non-white good, white bad' axiom.

Again, this is a topic on xenophobia, what was the status of natives vis a vis the foreigners?

Nope. But then, 'their language, culture and customs' weren't paramount in the Persia, Ottoman, and Islamic empires. They weren't paramount when the Qin dynasty pretty much exterminated rival dynasties and mass slaughtered scholars, either.

They are significant to the people today. Compare the Persians who fought the Romans and Byzantines but survived Arab, Mongol and Ottoman rule and still maintained their Farsi identity.

What empire places the culture of its conquered territories and protectorates over that of its own? Rome is an exception, simply because it's territories were so vast, it was far easier to allow its conquered peoples to retain local laws and religion with little Roman interference

Consider the Mongols or Ottomans. Except for their insistence on a single official language (not their own btw) they barely interfered with the culture of the people they ruled over for 600 years. And yet, their impact in terms of cultural contribution is felt throughout their empire.

 

[S.A.M.]

S.A.M:


The fact that anti-discrimination legislation exists demonstrates that there is no institutionalised racism or xenophobia in Australia.

And may I just take a second to remind you of the legislation that madanthony pointed out in a previous thread, where it was deemed illegal for upper castes in India to force 'The Untouchables' to eat faecal matter. 'There you go, SAM. Your country needs anti-shit eating legislation.'

This is Australia right? Where indigenous natives who lived for what 70,000 years were converted to a colony? And reeducated that they should bring up their children as the Great Whitey Chief thinks best? Stolen Generation Australia?

You can't invade empty land.

So Rhodesia has no natives.

Anglo-Saxon culture dominates in Anglo-Saxon civilisation. But even if it was a typical 'invader vs natives' scenario, the invader culture would dominate. Otherwise there would be no point in invading, hmm?

Someone should tell the Mongols, did you know their culture is entirely Persian?

Because legislation requires that Dalit's have representation in your government simply for being Dalit, not due to merit? And why? Can't non-Dalit politicians be expected to consider the best interests of the lower castes?

But they are still elected by the Single Representative Vote.

 

[S.A.M.]

Here for example is a snapshot of the Iranians in Mumbai

You say to me Iranian and I have grown up with these guys.

Their bun maska (buttered bun) and brun pav has been my breakfast all my life.

Before:

Now they are more "westernised"

http://iranichaimumbai.blogspot.com/2007/11/bombay-to-sonapur-hai-2-britannia-cafe.html

 

[angrybellsprout]

I'd suggest that you abandon all of the technology that the white man introduced into India. Go back to the way things were before the evil white man showed up. Use whatever technology you were using back in the 17th century, and enjoy your 'culture' and keep your xenophobia to yourself.

 

[w1z4rd]

So Rhodesia has no natives.

Well Zimbabwe has two major african tribes. The Shona and the Matebele. The Matabele are an off break of the Zulu and were formed when Mzilikazi lead his Impi away from Zululand and into current day Zimbabwe.

Ian Smith hated the Matabele because they were potent warriors... the Shona less so.. and it was thanks to the work of the Matabele that there was a government change.

Mugabe took over... and now Mugabe is from the Shona tribe. One of the first things he did was kill 200 000 Matabele... which he blamed on the Europeans... kinda like what he is currently doing.

So your point?

Oh, and the Muslims behind most of the slave trade on the East Coast of Africa... are suspected to be from Iran.

 

[S.A.M.]

Well Zimbabwe has two major african tribes. The Shona and the Matebele. The Matabele are an off break of the Zulu and were formed when Mzilikazi lead his Impi away from Zululand and into current day Zimbabwe.

Ian Smith hated the Matabele because they were potent warriors... the Shona less so.. and it was thanks to the work of the Matabele that there was a government change.

Mugabe took over... and now Mugabe is from the Shona tribe. One of the first things he did was kill 200 000 Matabele... which he blamed on the Europeans... kinda like what he is currently doing.

So your point?

You missed it.

 

[angrybellsprout]

Why bother trying to argue against racists?

 

[S.A.M.]

I'd suggest that you abandon all of the technology that the white man introduced into India. Go back to the way things were before the evil white man showed up. Use whatever technology you were using back in the 17th century, and enjoy your 'culture' and keep your xenophobia to yourself.

Are you kidding? We deserve that much out of the mess they left us.

 

[w1z4rd]

You missed it.

Thats the best you can do? I counter your misinformation with data... and thats the best you can do? Wanna discuss anything I have mentioned? I got loads of genocidal data to get through..... and here I thought India was ment to be a country of intelligent people shows you, stereotypes will let you down.

 

[S.A.M.]

Thats the best you can do? I counter your misinformation with data... and thats the best you can do? Wanna discuss anything I have mentioned? I got loads of genocidal data to get through.

What data? Are you saying that the natives were given equal status by those who conquered them? That their culture was allowed to flourish, thrive and benefited from the invaders?

You gave me the exact opposite data, that they became more protective of their culture to the point of becoming xenophobic themselves.

 

[angrybellsprout]

Are you kidding? We deserve that much out of the mess they left us.

You deserve to be left off right where you were before the evil white man showed up.

 

[S.A.M.]

You deserve to be left off right where you were before the evil white man showed up.

You mean the richest country in the world?

We're getting there.:shrug: