|
Post by Artemidoros on Dec 21, 2003 20:34:29 GMT -5
Actually Melnorme I think I understand what Ramsharma is saying about the hiphop culture. It reminds me of the "rembetes" and their music in the first half of the 20th century in Greece. They were refugees from Turkey who had lost everything and encountered a kind of racism in Greece. Their music was outlawed (partly because their lifestyle involved smoking dope and heavy drinking). They used slang and sometime inappropriate words, although nothing like hiphop. It has greatly influenced modern Greek music and is very much admired today. It is seeing as a cultural "protest". Genuine rembetika is eclipsed today because the social conditions that created it are no longer there. By this I am by no means saying I am a hiphop fun or that I am not concerned with the messages it conveys. Especially violence. I don't think that in the US they are trying to do anything about the underlying causes. Only window dressing, while the music industry is trying to capitalise on this unorthodox yet original expression.
|
|
|
Post by ramsharma on Dec 21, 2003 20:36:39 GMT -5
I am not black, but I can vouch with some degree of certainty that most blacks would agree with me, without a shadow of a doubt. I am giving you a perspective from their side, which I very much agree with.
Again, it seems to me that you've taken the stereotype that is propogated by conservatives from the right, and Nazis, and the like, hook, line and sinker. Most blacks don't "pimp" hoes, most blacks don't go on a drive-by rampage, most blacks don't do drugs like there's no tomorrow. Most blacks are no different from most whites in that they want to lead their lives happily, without much pain. It is something all humans want, something that encompasses racial barriers. I don't think that blacks encourage hatred against Whites. But there's just a general feeling of fear that their past might come back, and so they just are ready to face the future, whatever it is, if you know what I mean.
If there are many European nations that were enslaved by other fellow Europeans, then what I can tell you is that if the nation that was enslaved wants foregiveness, then it is their prerogative. Japan committed heinous crimes again China and Korea. I am not sure if Japan has acknowledged what China and Korea went through, but China and Korea DO want Japan to acknowledge crimes committed against them. This is a different part of the globe, but I think it's a good example.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Dec 21, 2003 20:38:06 GMT -5
I don't think pretexts like, "There are many whites who had nothing to do with slavery" is valid, because first and foremost, there is no effective way of tracing who the culprits were, and secondly, someone has to be held responsible for past wrongdoings. Also, it's not ONLY about slavery my friend. Blacks were, only 50-60 years ago, not seen as equals to whites. Who did this? The society, correct? The Eurocentric society, correct? So, it seems to me that it's the society that has to make amends for what blacks went through. You can't just let everything slide. 40 years is not a milennium. This was happening RECENTLY. I am 100% sure that my ancestors did not have anything to do with black slavery. There is absolutely no possibility for this. More than 250 years ago, a Venetian slaver ship crashed on the coast of Montenegro, the few black slaves who survived the crash were FREED by the Montenegrins, and offered welcome as equals in Montenegro. The society was Eurocentric because it was built by Europeans, for Europeans. You can't expect hundreds of millions of Europeans to build a culturally ambiguous society for everyone. Africans had thousands of years on a continent almost all for themselves, and they didn't build anything that lasted, on the other hand, India is an amazing example of how culture flourished even in the roughest circumstances and under a series of invaders. After being scarred by Moghuls and Brits and internal turmoils, India is quickly rebuilding itself and improving, yet, the blacks, who have everything given to them are taking more enjoyment in crack and drive-by's and glorifying gangstas. There are probably many intelligent blacks who are born to this world with many talents, potentials to improve and build a better world for blacks, yet, they are born into a society that only has respect for thugs who pack 9mm's, crack and hate whitey's.
|
|
|
Post by dandan on Dec 22, 2003 21:34:46 GMT -5
As a person who has great respect for opinion, especially my own, I will tell you what I think; First off, I don't give a toss about "racial preservation". Many here are familiar with other forums which claim to be about the preservation of European/Nordish/Etc. culture, race, ethnos/ethos, or what have you. These sites forget that for the entirety of European history, there has never been any emphasis on "race". The pursuit of science, justice and beauty that characterizes European high culture form the Dark Ages onwards never gave any currency to ethnicity, European or otherwise. In light of that, I would say that the solution of any problem of racism anywhere is that people need to forget the whole thing. To take the US as an example, you have the situation wherein those trying to end racism are in fact perpetuating it; every time slavery is mentioned, the white people are made a little bit more guilty, and the black people more angry, or self righteous, a completely absurd situation given that nobody alive today was invoolved. The only way to escape the cycle of discrimination, which, it should be noted, affect people whether white or black, is for people, starting with the government, to say "what racism?" "what black?" and "what white?" Its really the only way. People can associate with, or discriminate against whoever they like, but it should be on the basis of personal or cultural affinities, not the colour of their skin, and especially not the events of 200, 300, or 5000 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Dec 23, 2003 1:09:45 GMT -5
I think that this whole big deal about Racism, which is being shoved down our collective throat by the PC crowd is having a debillitating effect on the Black people in USA.
Instead of making an effort, they have been lulled into an adolescent dream that them being Black makes them special and different from others.
Women also, so much talk has been given about womens strength, talent etc. so modern women think they just have to be respected and loved because they're female.
( Gradually US trends invade other parts of the world )
Modern white men in the USA are just a shadow of manhood, doesn't matter if they are PC or racist, in both cases, they are like a panicked crowd who lives in a dream world.
|
|
|
Post by dandan on Dec 23, 2003 2:24:01 GMT -5
very nicely put, Awar. It's only really in countries where there is no common, or at least meaningful, group identity, or where that identity has been eroded that you find people who will identify people as their "kin" based on what they look like. And, it should be noted, the erosion and destruction of any traditional value system has little or nothing to do with immigrants. It has to do with greed and, perversely, nationalism.
|
|
|
Post by galvez on Dec 24, 2003 4:05:56 GMT -5
I don't think pretexts like, "There are many whites who had nothing to do with slavery" is valid, because first and foremost, there is no effective way of tracing who the culprits were, and secondly, someone has to be held responsible for past wrongdoings. Also, it's not ONLY about slavery my friend. Blacks were, only 50-60 years ago, not seen as equals to whites. Who did this? The society, correct? The Eurocentric society, correct? So, it seems to me that it's the society that has to make amends for what blacks went through. You can't just let everything slide. 40 years is not a milennium. This was happening RECENTLY. Your post places emphasis on the need for Whites to accommodate themselves to Blacks and make amends for their past wrongdoings. This topic has been discussed by various posters, so I will bring up something related. There has been some controversy in France because the government, headed by Jacques Chirac, opposes allowing Muslim girls to wear headscarves while attending public schools. The decision by French authorities to prohibit this has drawn criticism by liberal and even conservative groups. My question: suppose Europeans flooded Muslim countries and demanded that they be allowed to do what they wanted to do at Muslim schools, funded by the taxpayers? Suppose Europeans (leaving aside the situation in Israel, which is an entirely different subject of its own) flooded Muslim countries at all? It is highly improbable that Muslims would welcome Europeans with open arms at the outset. The point I am trying to make is that discussions of "tolerance" tend to be framed in terms of Westerners (or those of European descent) lacking it. It is NEVER the other way around. For example, I have heard stories of "boorish, uncultured" American businessmen acting without courtesy on trips to Japan and other nations with "rich" cultures with the obvious plaintive tone, but do not ever hear about ethnic non-Westerners coming to the U.S. (a Western nation) and behaving totally inappropriately and uncivil -- the typical explanation is that such individuals come from different cultures (being non-Western) and so are absolved from taking responsibility for their behaviors. Thus, in terms of behavioral and cultural norms, it seems both Europeans and non-Europeans hold Europeans to higher standards. This implies that Europeans are in some way superior. I don't see in any way how non-Westerners are any more inherently civil or cultured than Westerners; on the contrary, empirical and historical evidence shows that a bulk of scientific and artistic contributions have come from Western nations. It's time to do away with cultural relativism and for Europeans to acknowledge the very obvious: that they are very gifted compared to other groups (some might say culturally superior), and that they deserve the respect afforded to other groups as well.
|
|
|
Post by Razmig on Dec 24, 2003 5:54:08 GMT -5
Unfortunetly whites are the smallest minority in the world. So is it only natural that the word of the non-whits be prefered. =(
|
|
|
Post by ramsharma on Dec 24, 2003 9:04:31 GMT -5
But in order that immigrants flooded the Muslim world, there must be a need for economic growth. There is such, in SOME countries, but many Arab nations are still very much developing. I know for a fact that there are tons of Indians and Pakistanis in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE. Everybody knows for a fact that Muslim countries discriminate against other religions, and it is a concern for many. There should be no such discrimination in any countries, as far as I am concerned. But this "tit for tat" kind of deal is an approach unbecoming the civilized world, IMHO. For instance, check this article out. www.fisiusa.org/fisi_News_items/news535.htm If you want to immigrate there, you will be welcomed with open arms, but just don't die there, because you wouldn't be worth as much as your Muslim colleague. Discrimination in the Middle East is something that's discussed pretty frequently, it isn't something that's just ignored. Also, while Japan is a developed nation, racist beliefs are totally ingrained in people's minds. It is ALSO a concern. People do discuss it. There was an article out on the Washington Post a while back about a Jewish citizen, if I am correct, fighting to change racist cultural practices there. I don't seem to find that article there anymore... If there were no need for economic growth in Europe, then there would be no need for immigration. The 90's America saw tremendous growth and prosperity, which also caused increase in volume of immigration. In the first place, how are you going to keep up with economic and manpower demand without allowing people to immigrate? Eastern Europe? But even in Eastern Europe, population is shrinking. So where are you going to get the manpower from? Or if you're thinking more of a "temporary" immigration kind of deal, then they'll be taking money out of the country and into theirs. If you are living in a Western country, where Westerners are the majority, questions are of course be directed mostly at Westerners. In India, questions are directed mostly at Hindus, and not the Muslims, because they are the majority. So your point is moot.
|
|
|
Post by rusalka on Dec 24, 2003 12:38:15 GMT -5
There has been some controversy in France because the government, headed by Jacques Chirac, opposes allowing Muslim girls to wear headscarves while attending public schools. The decision by French authorities to prohibit this has drawn criticism by liberal and even conservative groups. I would also like to point out that headscarves are not even allowed in schools in Turkey, unless it's a religious school. These schools are called Imam Hatip, and they're supposedly for educating clergy, but very religious people send their children to these schools so that they can get proper religious education and dress as they like. In Turkey, which is predominantly a Muslim country (emphasized, because I really don't know who decides who is Muslim and who is not, as it seems like they just label people automatically from birth if one of the parents is Muslim) head scarves are not allowed neither in public nor in private schools unless the school in question is the one I've mentioned above. If this is the case with a *Muslim* country, why should any non-Muslim country allow head scarves? Especially in public schools. My take on the issue is.. Well, I really don't like Islam, personally (sorry if I offended anyone). And I know that some people use the head scarf as a political tool. I don't like little girls all covered up by their parents because they (the parents) believe in something. But for grown up people, especially those in college.. I don't know, maybe they could decide for themselves as to wear it or not.
|
|
|
Post by geirr on Dec 25, 2003 9:09:27 GMT -5
I don't see in any way how non-Westerners are any more inherently civil or cultured than Westerners; on the contrary, empirical and historical evidence shows that a bulk of scientific and artistic contributions have come from Western nations. It's time to do away with cultural relativism and for Europeans to acknowledge the very obvious: that they are very gifted compared to other groups (some might say culturally superior), and that they deserve the respect afforded to other groups as well. I think as someone of European descent I'm proud of what europeans have contributed but I have never felt superior. I have a keen interest in Japan and China and I don't think that any European can argue that they are culturally inferior. but in saying that both Japan and China have been heavily influenced by the west. As great as European achievements are, Europeans can be as uncivilised as anyone. The two world wars wasn't started by civilised people. What happened in the Balkans wasn't civilised either, ETA, IRA and the mafia are not charity organisations and if you want an example of uncultured just go to Ibiza or some greek islands where you will find british tourists. I personally don't have a problem with muslim woman wearing the headscarve. but the french are fanatical about the seperation of church and state and thats fair enough. I'm starting to blabber on, what I'm trying to say is that Europeans don't have a monopoly on civilisation. Europe has seen some of the bloodiest conflicts in history, but Europeans can also be honorable and just and also create like no on else can. a paradox i think.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Dec 25, 2003 11:31:12 GMT -5
I don't think it's weird that Europe has such an influence. It seems that European soil was fertilized with the blood of generations of people, producing highly creative people.
|
|
|
Post by dandan on Dec 28, 2003 3:39:49 GMT -5
Unfortunetly whites are the smallest minority in the world. So is it only natural that the word of the non-whits be prefered. =( Point of interest; the above statement is not true.
|
|
Gauss
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by Gauss on Jan 1, 2004 11:37:08 GMT -5
"Racism against Whites is a topic liberals don't talk much about."
The wayward nature of your mind on display again. I thought the term "white" was meaningless because no one can agree on what it means? But here you are liberally sprinking your post with it, thereby suggesting it's at least meaningful enough for you to use. Otherwise you might as well have written "racism against &@$#$^".
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Jan 2, 2004 2:21:05 GMT -5
" Racism against Whites is a topic liberals don't talk much about." The wayward nature of your mind on display again. I thought the term "white" was meaningless because no one can agree on what it means? But here you are liberally sprinking your post with it, thereby suggesting it's at least meaningful enough for you to use. Otherwise you might as well have written "racism against &@$#$^". A White man is any man who is hated because of his European looks
|
|