FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Islamophobia: politically correct exaggeration or a real problem? (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Islamophobia: politically correct exaggeration or a real problem?
the_Somalian
Member
Member # 6688

 - posted      Profile for the_Somalian   Email the_Somalian         Edit/Delete Post 
I accept many of the criticisms leveled at Islam from a secular perspective--for instance, like the criticism from former muslims like Ayaan Ali Hirs and Wafa Sultan--or that from atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. I get uncomfortable though when people like David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes demonize Islam because they unapologetically harbor a Zionist bias, thereby rendering their criticism suspect. I also get uncomfortable when Christians start to criticize Islam and begin calling Mohamed a false prophet and Allah an awful god. Their criticism isn't rational, but they often use the guise of rational criticism as a front for their bigotry. Visit jihadwatch.org and read their comments section--if such opinions are harbored by even a third of americans then I fear for myself and family.

[ April 16, 2008, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: the_Somalian ]

Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
Makes sense to me
Every religion has its good points and its bad points. Most of the time only people who have been raised in the religion really understand the positives and negatives of it. Sometimes outsides can get the whole picture.
It varies. It's all different.
Ayaan Ali Hirsi's books about Islam were extremely interesting and good. I can understand where her frustration comes from, but just demonizing Islam because it's the thing to demonize is really aggravating.

Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm skeptical of attacks on Islam as an inherently bad religion. All the major religions have dark sides, have dark histories, especially Christianity and Islam. They all have violent unacceptable (by today's standards) things in their texts, and they all have and have had people who use the name of the faith to justify things that the faith itself may or may not actually advocate.

Besides, attacking Islam itself ignores the problem, and does nothing to solve it. Our problem is with the fundamentalist fanatics and the societies that support and spread them. Attacking their actual faith isn't going to work. You can't outfaith a fanatic.

It's a GREAT way to whip up anti-_______ fill in the blank fervor though. Politicos, media figures, clergy; a lot of groups in history have tried to paint a negative picture of the "other than" group for thousands of years to grab more influence or power or money for themselves. Or just to push a personal agenda.

I think people would get a lot further with whatever problem they are trying to solve, if it's really a real problem, by looking for underlying issues and solving those, rather than the easy surface ones.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
Definitely don't like the term "Islamophobia" and neither do a few of the people mentioned already:

quote:
We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", a wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatisation of those who believe in it.
...
Signed by:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Chahla Chafiq
Caroline Fourest
Bernard-Henri Levy
Irshad Manji
Mehdi Mozaffari
Maryam Namazie
Taslima Nasreen
Salman Rushdie
Antoine Sfeir
Philippe Val
Ibn Warraq

link
The letter addressed the issue of Islamic "totalitarianism" as a whole.

quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Attacking their actual faith isn't going to work. You can't outfaith a fanatic.

I disagree that faith is the only thing you can use to attack a fanatic. (or their faith rather, both are true I guess)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I disagree that faith is the only thing you can use to attack a fanatic.
Who are you disagreeing with?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
Attacking their faith certainly can work. We (as the Western world) are probably not willing to do it (for mostly good, some bad reasons), so we need to use other ways.
That does not mean that attacking their faith isn't going to work. There is a distinction.

Also:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I think people would get a lot further with whatever problem they are trying to solve, if it's really a real problem, by looking for underlying issues and solving those, rather than the easy surface ones.

I think you're coming dangerously close to saying that the people who believe in this sort of Islamic fundamentalism "cling to their faith" since they're "bitter" [Wink]
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the_Somalian:
I get uncomfortable though when people like David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes demonize Islam because they unapologetically harbor a Zionist bias, thereby rendering their criticism suspect.

Pro-Israel = Anti-Islam? Really? So does that mean that Pro-Islam is automatically Anti-Israel, too?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Mucus -

I said that attacking their faith won't work, and you said you disagree that attacking their faith is the only way, which is where I was confused, because you seemed to be disagreeing with the opposite of what I said.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the_Somalian
Member
Member # 6688

 - posted      Profile for the_Somalian   Email the_Somalian         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by the_Somalian:
I get uncomfortable though when people like David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes demonize Islam because they unapologetically harbor a Zionist bias, thereby rendering their criticism suspect.

Pro-Israel = Anti-Islam? Really? So does that mean that Pro-Islam is automatically Anti-Israel, too?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Not all. Again, as I never got to express in that deleted thread of mine, it's my personal belief that Israel must continue to exist. It's just that many ardent Zionists like Pipes and Horowitz extend their advocacy of Israel to criticizing Islam.

edit: for instance, they criticize Islamic "Jihad" and then lump Palestinians along with Al-qaida--not because they use similar tactics but supposedly because they all share the same ultimate goal.

Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
Lyrhawn: I think I'm having trouble parsing your "You can't out-faith a fanatic." You seem to be either saying that you cannot remove faith from a person OR that you need to be more faithful than they are in order to challenge their faith.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Can't it just be a pithy sounding phrase that remains unparsed? [Wink]

I guess what I meant was that you can't destroy a fanatic via their faith. Or at least, maybe you can, but it's certainly the absolute least efficient way of doing it.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
And I'm wondering whether its the *only* way of doing it. We were lucky in the West, the scientific revolution, the French Revolution, and the American revolution came with many non-religious figures who managed to defang the worst of Christianity and establish many secular institutions.

Some think that the two, economic progress and increased secularism are linked. What if they aren't now? Religion certainly is not going away in America.

What if we stop condescending in the West and either in the right-wing Bush approach, "Islam is a religion of peace" and assuming that the fanatics are misinterpreting their own religion or in the left-wing condescending, "Oh you're not really blowing up yourselves for God, you're just frustrated about your economy" way, we consider the fact that these people really are blowing themselves up for their religion?

Maybe despite Lisa's off-putting tone, she's *right.* That when the Palestinians say they want to destroy Israel so they can get back their religion-backed place of living, they really do mean it. It might actually be dangerous to assume that if we merely continue throwing aid and money at them, that if their economy starts flourishing again that they will suddenly forget about attacking Israel and the US.

Maybe we do have to deal with the messy parts of their religion head on.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the_Somalian:
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by the_Somalian:
I get uncomfortable though when people like David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes demonize Islam because they unapologetically harbor a Zionist bias, thereby rendering their criticism suspect.

Pro-Israel = Anti-Islam? Really? So does that mean that Pro-Islam is automatically Anti-Israel, too?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Not all. Again, as I never got to express in that deleted thread of mine, it's my personal belief that Israel must continue to exist. It's just that many ardent Zionists like Pipes and Horowitz extend their advocacy of Israel to criticizing Islam.
Oh. Because it seemed that you were saying that being both Zionist (supporting Israel) and not being apologetic for it (presumably because one ought to be) automatically makes someone anti-Islam. I'm still not sure how what you said can be interpreted otherwise, but I'll take your word for it if you're saying that you didn't mean what you said.

quote:
Originally posted by the_Somalian:
edit: for instance, they criticize Islamic "Jihad" and then lump Palestinians along with Al-qaida--not because they use similar tactics but supposedly because they all share the same ultimate goal.

Though you aren't suggesting, are you, that when it comes to Israel, they do share the same ultimate goal. Both are adamantly opposed to the existence of a Jewish state in the middle east, and intend to see Israel cease to exist as such.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Economics are part of it. Societies where the wealth is more evenly distributed among the people are freer societies. Look at some of the tinier, richer emirates and Gulf countries.

I think economics is often looked at as a solutions because historically we've believed in a "trade follows the flag" theory. In some cultures this has been true, though personally I think the desire for trade is what sent the flag there in the first place (examples of this being the Punic Wars and when whats his name opened up Japan for trade).

But the more people become prosperous, the more they want more modern things, and that leads to access to Western cultures and ideas on a personal level, rather than a state sponsored or filtered one. The biggest agitators for change in China are the internet users. "Oil rich" and "money rich" aren't necessarily the same things in the Middle East, where the wealth is often concentrated in the hands of the few. But I think the solution is free speech, free access to information, to other ideas, to other cultures. People will find a way to rationalize their faith with this new information as things change, the same way that America did as a culture, the same way that a lot of countries have.

The French and American revolutions are questionable in the way you're using them, or at least in the conclusion you draw. America was actually rather religiously INtolerant in its roots, and our leaders were deeply religious men who in may ways were a cut above the rest, and had incredible foresight in creating a document that would wean us off a lot of our vices, but even now it's a battle between the secular and religious for how much of our culture, society and government which faction will control. If it's 50/50 for us right now, it's 99/1 for them, in favor of the religious. The French Revolution started in many ways because of the clergy, a few of whom broke with the rest to support the poor. In the end, the governments that formed as a result were violently anti-religious, and it took years for them to parse out what they wanted their government to religion relationship to look like. England decided a long time ago to separate the church from the government (well, the Catholic church anyway, but that was a huge step). And it took us 2000 years to get to where we are today, after Dark Ages, after persecutions, after endless religious wars. Islam needs an Enlightenment.

I think that, specifically dealing with Palestine, if they were all living in nice little suburbs and had money in their pockets, you wouldn't see nearly the problems that you do now. I don't think it's dangerous to think that. The poverty there is the absolute best incubator for recruits in the war. It's a proaganda bonanza. Yes it's true that while men like Bin Laden come from well educated wealthy families, more often you find these are the leaders, whereas most of the foot soldiers do indeed come from poverty ridden areas, the same way gang members are recruited in inner cities.

quote:
"Oh you're not really blowing up yourselves for God, you're just frustrated about your economy"
That doesn't go far enough. They ARE blowing themselves up for God, in their minds, though I think a big factor for some of the Palestinian is the money that their families get as a result of that. But look at what puts them on the path. Destitute people looking for help, and the biggest hand offering it is Hamas. They provide schools, hospitals, government services, and people have to choose between that and suffering their wrath if they go against them, so they buy into it, and get pulled in, and for a lot of the youth there, instead of going to college and getting a job, they join militia brigades and fight for terrorists. And it's out of a lack of options.

I think you're presenting some either/or scenarios that aren't necessarily true, and that's part of what I was talking about when I said you need to look at solving underlying issues. Kick their legs out from under them, stop trying to strongarm them.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
But the more people become prosperous, the more they want more modern things, and that leads to access to Western cultures and ideas on a personal level, rather than a state sponsored or filtered one. The biggest agitators for change in China are the internet users.

I disagree. The Chinese Internet is actually the base for many of their most nationalistic, young university students. This treads on the Olympics thread, but there are strong indications for me that the biggest agitators for change are *not* the Internet users, but in fact older and more experienced people. People that have seen the corruption and inefficiency of the Chinese government or have traveled outside China.

Furthermore, they do not want a state sponsored or filtered Internet, but neither do they necessarily want one dominated by *Western* ideas.

Make no mistake, they will import many Western ideas but at the end of the day there is no guarantee that they will necessarily *agree* with us on every issue, or even a majority of issues. There is amazingly little support for Tibetan independence (even in principle, if not pragmatically) even in prosperous Chinese communities in the more progressive Hong Kong or Canada, let alone on the mainland Internet.

This will be doubly true when we look at religious, rather than nationalistic ideas when we go to the Muslim world. I am not convinced that people have to agree with us as an economy grows. We may simply get prosperous Islamic nations ... that *still* want to kick the crap out of Israel [Wink]

quote:
America was actually rather religiously INtolerant in its roots, and our leaders were deeply religious men

This is debatable, it is well established that many of the leaders were actually Deists or in some cases as many have argued convincingly, TomD in particular on these forums, some were atheists.

quote:

Yes it's true that while men like Bin Laden come from well educated wealthy families, more often you find these are the leaders, whereas most of the foot soldiers do indeed come from poverty ridden areas, the same way gang members are recruited in inner cities.

It is also true that many of the hijackers on the 9/11 flights were very well educated, could have lead quite prosperous careers, but decided to go ahead.
The majority of the bombers in the London bombings were native-born and educated as well. Probably the same with the French riots.

I am not convinced that the poor are necessarily overrepresented due to their ease of recruitment. It is possible that the poor are recruited in larger numbers simply because there *are* more poor, especially in the immediate area of Israel or Iraq.

Again, I think you're being condescending to them. It comes across as "we know better than you, even though you're in the situation itself." They're literally saying that they're dying for the religion. You're telling them that you know better and that if they would just stop caring so much about their religion and listen to your advice about their economy, that they'd really agree with you and care less.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the_Somalian
Member
Member # 6688

 - posted      Profile for the_Somalian   Email the_Somalian         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by the_Somalian:
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by the_Somalian:
I get uncomfortable though when people like David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes demonize Islam because they unapologetically harbor a Zionist bias, thereby rendering their criticism suspect.

Pro-Israel = Anti-Islam? Really? So does that mean that Pro-Islam is automatically Anti-Israel, too?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Not all. Again, as I never got to express in that deleted thread of mine, it's my personal belief that Israel must continue to exist. It's just that many ardent Zionists like Pipes and Horowitz extend their advocacy of Israel to criticizing Islam.
Oh. Because it seemed that you were saying that being both Zionist (supporting Israel) and not being apologetic for it (presumably because one ought to be) automatically makes someone anti-Islam. I'm still not sure how what you said can be interpreted otherwise, but I'll take your word for it if you're saying that you didn't mean what you said.

quote:
Originally posted by the_Somalian:
edit: for instance, they criticize Islamic "Jihad" and then lump Palestinians along with Al-qaida--not because they use similar tactics but supposedly because they all share the same ultimate goal.

Though you aren't suggesting, are you, that when it comes to Israel, they do share the same ultimate goal. Both are adamantly opposed to the existence of a Jewish state in the middle east, and intend to see Israel cease to exist as such.
Except that in one instance its understandable extremism given how Israel's creation affected these people and their ancestors whereas in the other it's just inane extremism. It's political expediency to claim that both groups are part of the same effort.

As for whether or not I was saying Zionists are automatically anti-Muslim--clearly I wasn't. But when people like Horowitz and Pipes start to criticize Islam it is suspicious because they have a political stake in the matter as a country they feel considerable allegiance to is embroiled in a bitter struggle and dispute with a bunch of muslims. How can they be objective?

Furthermore I have a serious issue with Zionists all together because they aren't respectful of opposing viewpoints and are quick to insult and demonize anyone who dare oppose them. For a current illustration of this phenomenon, I present Jimmy Carter.

Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Mucus -

quote:
Furthermore, they do not want a state sponsored or filtered Internet, but neither do they necessarily want one dominated by *Western* ideas.
I never said that. I think if everyone in the Middle East had access to the internet, they'd likely create their own corner of it, like many other cultures have done. My goal wouldn't be to shove Western ideas and values down their throats, it's about access and the sharing of ideas. The Idea Marketplace isn't a free market at the moment. Think of ideas as a market in the same way that the free global economy works right now. Ideas flow freely, the most popular ones are spread the furthest and the most in demand, the least best ones are the least consumed, at least in theory. In much of the ME, the Idea Marketplace is severely restricted by the state, and only state sponsored ideas are readily distributed to the people. And it's very similar in China as well (we can skip the China conversation if you want, it's not really relevant here).

I doubt they will agree with us 100% on everything, I'm not even sure I'd want them do. I also don't think the flow of information would be one way either, I think there's a LOT about their culture that we don't understand either, and I think the flow of information out of the Middle East by regular people is probably just as important as the flow of information into the Middle East by our people to theirs.

Do you honestly think that if given more real access to Western culture that nothing will change? Right now a lot of them only get negative propagandistic versions of Western cultures used by anti-Western leaders in an attempt to whip up anti-Western sentiments and violence against us. They have no access or means to counteract what they are told. Does that mean that I think they would all automaticaly change their minds if given such access? No. But do I think such access would have a meaningful impact? Certainly, and I'm curious as to why you think otherwise.

quote:
This is debatable, it is well established that many of the leaders were actually Deists or in some cases as many have argued convincingly, TomD in particular on these forums, some were atheists.
Well, we can have that conversation too if you want, though I don't think it fits here either. I'll be honest in that I don't know specifically which ones were what religion, but they weren't as a group areligious or anti-religion by any means. There was a reverand in the second continental congress. And most of the protections they put in place to separate church from the state were not put there to protect the state from the church, they were put in place to protect the church from the state.

quote:
I am not convinced that the poor are necessarily overrepresented due to their ease of recruitment. It is possible that the poor are recruited in larger numbers simply because there *are* more poor, especially in the immediate area of Israel or Iraq.
That's close to what I said. A lot of that has to do with poverty, and for many reasons. There has been a population boom in many countries of the Middle East in the last decade, but wages haven't totally risen to keep up with the growing size of families, and as a result, a lot of families are a lot poorer. The wealthier countries get, the more their population growth tends to slow because people have smaller families. I've seen some pretty astounding graphs and charts that track the slowing growth of families in countries as their earnings per capita grow. Both of those things would leave less people to recruit, and would allow the familes to become more prosperous. Doesn't eliminate the problem entirely, but it kills a pretty big contributing factor. You seem to sort of agree.

quote:
Again, I think you're being condescending to them. It comes across as "we know better than you, even though you're in the situation itself." They're literally saying that they're dying for the religion. You're telling them that you know better and that if they would just stop caring so much about their religion and listen to your advice about their economy, that they'd really agree with you and care less.
I think you're focusing too much on the economy. My concern is more with the free flow of information, which would be greatly sped up by a better economy, and for that matter, a better economy would help reduce poverty and would reduce recruiting grounds for insurgents. A lot of them are being indoctrinated. They go to state sponsored schools with state sponsored curriculums that teach anti-American or less specifically anti-Western ideas. We've tried to combat it before via foreign aid for schools, and when we pull back, countries like Saudi Arabia swoop in to replace our money with their own Wahhabist centric madrassas that preach hate.

I don't know if they'd stop caring as much about their religion as much or not, but then I don't think that is a fair argument. That's like saying that when I argue with a Christian over gay marriage that I want them to care about their religion less. I don't care how they feel about their religion, I just want them to keep it to themselves.

I want them to be able to decide for themselves. Whether or not they agree with me? We'll save that for a time when they have the ability to make the choice for themselves. Right now they don't have that choice.

I feel like you're responding to a much more narrow minded assumption of how I actually feel, but maybe that's because I'm not explaining myself well enough.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the_Somalian:
Furthermore I have a serious issue with Zionists all together because they aren't respectful of opposing viewpoints and are quick to insult and demonize anyone who dare oppose them. For a current illustration of this phenomenon, I present Jimmy Carter.

I have yet to hear any criticisms of Jimmy Carter and his vile anti-Israel (and anti-semitic) views that aren't spot-on. Though I'm sure you'll simply dismiss that with "Oh, but you're a Zionist, so your opinion doesn't count".

And I find it interesting, btw, that you object to people generalizing to all Muslims based on the behavior of many, but you're fine doing it to anyone who supports the existence of Israel as a Jewish state (which, btw, is what Zionist means).

Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I have yet to hear any criticisms of Jimmy Carter and his vile anti-Israel (and anti-semitic) views that aren't spot-on.
Well, I've heard some people say that Carter hates Jews, which is pretty clearly false.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
I'd be willing to place money that this thread will be locked by the end of the day?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
And I find it interesting, btw, that you [the_Somalian] object to people generalizing to all Muslims based on the behavior of many, but you're fine doing it to anyone who supports the existence of Israel as a Jewish state (which, btw, is what Zionist means).

Lisa nailed you on that, the_Somalian. For a counter-example, how about Noam Chomsky? He is a Zionist yet is very critical of Israeli policy, is intellectually honest and respectful in his debates I've seen and is (presumably) anti-terror.

David Horowitz is suspect not because he's a Zionist, but because he's a fraud and a liar.

He's turned Islamophobia (along with fighting liberal bias in academia and other pet issues) into cottage industries, which is why he could only wait a few months after last October's Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week before repeating it last week: he needs the fund raising tool!

He also is more than a little paranoid:
quote:
A coalition of groups with ties to the Islamo-fascist jihad are likely to protest this educational effort.
Student Guide to Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week II

This is almost cult-like: whoever opposes him is a jihadist. He doesn't even acknowledge the possibility that people and groups can oppose him for a variety of reasons and be anti-terror.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Morbo:
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
And I find it interesting, btw, that you [the_Somalian] object to people generalizing to all Muslims based on the behavior of many, but you're fine doing it to anyone who supports the existence of Israel as a Jewish state (which, btw, is what Zionist means).

Lisa nailed you on that, the_Somalian.

David Horowitz is suspect not because he's a Zionist, but because he's a fraud and a liar.

I'm not defending Horowitz, as such, because I don't know much about him. But I don't understand that link. Clearly, Horowitz makes a distinction between "actual liberals" and leftists. I suspect that if I were to search through stuff he's written, I'd find that he doesn't consider the left to be liberal in classical sense. He may be a liar. Honestly, I don't know. But that link certainly doesn't show him to be one.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
Within a few months, after writing Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, he denied comparing liberals to Islamic terrorists, by a hair-splitting semantic argument of the difference between the Left and Liberals, then later acknowledged it.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
If you say so. But there's nothing in that link that suggests this is the case. And for the record, I don't think that's hairsplitting.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
Lisa, here's an excerpt from one of Horowitz' many sites. Apparently, by his definitions he's a liberal--anyone to the left of him is a Communist terrorist. [Wink] [Wall Bash]
quote:
Here's the reason liberal has become a dirty word. Because Communists, fellow-travelers, pro-terrorists, terrorist sympathizers have hijacked the word liberal and because organs like the New York Times have abetted them, using "liberal" to describe anti-American radicals and even totalitarian radicals like Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Michael Moore, the organizers of the anti-Iraq and pro-Saddam "peace" movement, and Katrina vanden Heuvel and the Nation.

The nation's last truly liberal leader, a pro-Vietnam war Democrat named Hubert Humphrey, had his presidential chances destroyed by the pro-Communist Tom Hayden and the Yippes nearly forty years ago. Hayden, who even today is working to defeat America in Iraq is invariably referred to by institutions like the Times as a liberal. Wrong. I am a liberal -- a believer in free markets and free individuals, a supporter of intellectual diversity on college campuses against the opposition of the ACLU, the AAUP, the Nation, and the progressive left generally (with one exception known to me).

"Why Liberalism Has A Bad Name" by David Horowitz

edit: Ya gotta laugh at someone who puts scare quotes around "peace".

[ April 17, 2008, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]

Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Furthermore I have a serious issue with Zionists all together because they aren't respectful of opposing viewpoints and are quick to insult and demonize anyone who dare oppose them.
Although there are certainly example of this, even here on this board, there are plenty of counterexamples. Moreover, there are at least as many examples of the equivalent lack of respect for viewpoints and quick demonization from those who oppose Israel - also present on this board.

Lisa is not the only one responsible for these threads getting locked.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Morbo:
Lisa, here's an excerpt from one of Horowitz' many sites. Apparently, by his definitions he's a liberal--anyone to the left of him is a Communist terrorist. [Wink] [Wall Bash]
quote:
I am a liberal -- a believer in free markets and free individuals, a supporter of intellectual diversity on college campuses against the opposition of the ACLU, the AAUP, the Nation, and the progressive left generally (with one exception known to me).


Well, just so you know, liberal was actually once derived from the word meaning "free". It was (shock!) even related to the word libertarian. It meant the opposite of tyranny. The opposite of things like a strong central government directing the lives of individuals. The fact that the left in this country has co-opted the word "liberal" to mean exactly the opposite of what it once meant is something some of us are kind of offended by.

I'm not about to object to someone trying to reclaim it.

quote:
Originally posted by Morbo:
"Why Liberalism Has A Bad Name" by David Horowitz

edit: Ya gotta laugh at someone who puts scare quotes around "peace".

You call them scare quotes. I think it's pretty obvious that he used those quotes because some of the movements that claim to be peace movements are really not in favor of peace in any rational sense. Sure, he could have said peace [sic] movements. Would that have been better? It would have meant the same thing, but you wouldn't have been able to call it scare quotes.

For him to call them peace movements without qualification would be to tacitly accept their self-definition. Do you think he should have been required to do so? If not, can you think of some way in which he could have referred to them while at the same time not misrepresenting his own views and making it clear that he does not accept their claim to be pro-peace?

Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You call them scare quotes. I think it's pretty obvious that he used those quotes because some of the movements that claim to be peace movements are really not in favor of peace in any rational sense.
I suppose that when he put quotes around "peace" he could have been trying to distinguish between the "anti-Iraq pro-Saddam" movements who call them self peace movements and others who a genuinely in favor of peace.

But given the context of the article and the fact that I have yet run across even one self proclaimed peace activist either online or in real life who could rationally be called "anti-Iraq and pro-Saddam", I suspect it was just one more of his usual slurs against everyone who happens to disagree with him.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
we can skip the China conversation if you want, it's not really relevant here.

I disagree that it is not really relevant. China is perhaps the biggest and most dynamic as an example of a nation where the economy is growing quickly and that is becoming rapidly more open, even compared to say ten years ago.
Thus there are applicable observations that we can make from that and apply elsewhere. I do agree that it would be better to handle that in the other thread though. Maybe I'll gather up some applicable news articles when I have time later.

quote:

Do you honestly think that if given more real access to Western culture that nothing will change? Right now a lot of them only get negative propagandistic versions of Western cultures used by anti-Western leaders in an attempt to whip up anti-Western sentiments and violence against us. They have no access or means to counteract what they are told. Does that mean that I think they would all automaticaly change their minds if given such access? No. But do I think such access would have a meaningful impact? Certainly, and I'm curious as to why you think otherwise.

I think that plenty will change. I am unconvinced that it will have a meaningful impact, at least in time to counteract the increased threat. Again, consider the 9/11 bombers, the London bombers, and the Paris rioters. All had significant exposure to Western culture and ideas. The majority of the London bombers were native born and educated. Western educated engineers are statistically overrepresented in their radical movements.
I am not prepared to take it, essentially on faith, that mere exposure to our ideas will necessarily make a positive impact. I in fact agree with you that an Islamic version of an Enlightenment needs to take place.

However, I am unconvinced that an Enlightenment will magically take place if we stop confronting Islam head-on (indeed, I am unconvinced that we *are* confronting it head on, in significant numbers anyways ... no, radical Christian leaders denouncing Islam from a Biblical basis do not count, thats more like not even meeting them, period).

I think we need more people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Salman Rushdie, that understand Islam and have that background, that have the courage to deal with Islam head-on, to not be intimidated by protests about Danish cartoons or TV shows about the Koran or be dissuaded by run-away political correctness. And we may need to support these people.

quote:
And most of the protections they put in place to separate church from the state were not put there to protect the state from the church, they were put in place to protect the church from the state.

I think that that is not an either/or. Many of the leaders also saw the damage that a single dominant church could do to the state and the religious strife of old Europe. There is an element of self-preservation in their actions.

quote:
That's close to what I said.
I don't think so, you said "The poverty there is the absolute best incubator for recruits in the war. It's a proaganda bonanza." It seems like you're saying that the poverty is an incubator for extreme views. Thats causation (or at least very heavy correlation). I'm saying something different, that they may have extreme views *regardless* of their poverty.

In fact, it may be the radical religion that causes poverty and mismanagement, not that the poverty causes the radical religion.

quote:
I don't know if they'd stop caring as much about their religion as much or not, but then I don't think that is a fair argument. That's like saying that when I argue with a Christian over gay marriage that I want them to care about their religion less. I don't care how they feel about their religion, I just want them to keep it to themselves.

Some tenants of a religion you can keep to yourselves. There are some that you can't. When Muslims riot about *any* depictions of Mohammed, not even their own, thats trying to affect us. But according to their faith, they think they have very good reasons and from their working assumptions, they might very well be right. Maybe its the moderate Muslims that are interpreting it wrong (although I would argue that thats a good thing, sometimes its good to be wrong).
When the radicals have the view that apostates should be threatened or killed, thats something thats hard to have them keep to themselves without changing the view outright.

The gay marriage/Christian thing is a good example. Thats occurring here, with a relatively good economy and free flow of ideas, not without those two.

These people do not necessarily disagree with us due to unrelated reasons. They may disagree with us in good faith, on their interpretation of what they believe is right, period. In these cases, we have to address that head-on.

[ April 17, 2008, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
Well, just so you know, liberal was actually once derived from the word meaning "free". It was (shock!) even related to the word libertarian. It meant the opposite of tyranny. The opposite of things like a strong central government directing the lives of individuals. The fact that the left in this country has co-opted the word "liberal" to mean exactly the opposite of what it once meant is something some of us are kind of offended by.

I'm not about to object to someone trying to reclaim it.

I know the history of the word liberal. You and Horowitz can quixotically refer to yourself as liberals if you want to confuse most people. But don't forget, that history includes recent efforts to demonize it by conservatives, so you get that baggage too.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Morbo:
"Why Liberalism Has A Bad Name" by David Horowitz

edit: Ya gotta laugh at someone who puts scare quotes around "peace".

You call them scare quotes. I think it's pretty obvious that he used those quotes because some of the movements that claim to be peace movements are really not in favor of peace in any rational sense. Sure, he could have said peace [sic] movements. Would that have been better? It would have meant the same thing, but you wouldn't have been able to call it scare quotes.

For him to call them peace movements without qualification would be to tacitly accept their self-definition. Do you think he should have been required to do so? If not, can you think of some way in which he could have referred to them while at the same time not misrepresenting his own views and making it clear that he does not accept their claim to be pro-peace?

So you and Horowitz can self-identify as liberals, but peace groups like Quakers can't self-define themselves as peace groups? [Confused]
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Lyrhawn:
quote:
And it's very similar in China as well (we can skip the China conversation if you want, it's not really relevant here).
I think you will find as time passes China will become relevant to an increasing number of conversational topics. [Wink]
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
This is a very odd discussion.

First off, the Paris rioters might be a bad example on your part. Why were they rioting? Economics. They're pissed because they live in the Parisian version of ghettos (and other large cities' outlying areas like Lyon) and are virtually ignored by the French government. French youth have a massive unemployment rate, adn they want jobs and benefits but are largely ignored. They rioted because they want attention. A lot of the rioters were Arabic, mostly because they've been shunted into these poorer poverty ridden neighborhood because France has been having a problem with immigrating Arabs for at least 60 years now. The penalties of north African colonialism I suppose.

quote:
However, I am unconvinced that an Enlightenment will magically take place if we stop confronting Islam head-on (indeed, I am unconvinced that we *are* confronting it head on, in significant numbers anyways ... no, radical Christian leaders denouncing Islam from a Biblical basis do not count, thats more like not even meeting them, period).
I never said we should stop confronting them, and I agree that we are not confronting them in many meaningful ways. Dropping bombs and denouncing them isn't the kind of confrontation we need, or at least, not entirely. I'm wondering where you got a different impression of my views, or if you're just saying it to say it.

quote:
I think we need more people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Salman Rushdie, that understand Islam and have that background, that have the courage to deal with Islam head-on, to not be intimidated by protests about Danish cartoons or TV shows about the Koran or be dissuaded by run-away political correctness. And we may need to support these people.
I agree with this too.

quote:
I think that that is not an either/or. Many of the leaders also saw the damage that a single dominant church could do to the state and the religious strife of old Europe. There is an element of self-preservation in their actions.
I don't think it's an either/or either. That's why I didn't phrase my statement as an absolute. I think what you're saying is part of it, also combined with the fact that they all came from different religious backgrounds and at least in theory, came to America to escape persecution, (though in reality they ended up doing a fair bit of their own persecution). And I think they saw the damage that could result from such close ties between a church and the state.

quote:
I don't think so, you said "The poverty there is the absolute best incubator for recruits in the war. It's a proaganda bonanza." It seems like you're saying that the poverty is an incubator for extreme views. Thats causation. I'm saying something different, that they may have extreme views *regardless* of their poverty.

In fact, it may be the radical religion that causes poverty and mismanagement, not that the poverty causes the radical religion.

Oh I see what you're saying. You're still presenting an either/or argument. I don't think poverty is the ONLY place that extreme views can fester, but I think that it is a situation that amplifies the ease with which those ideas are transmitted and take root.

As for the second part, that's a big question. I think you'd have to do a lot of research to find the answer to that, because it's kind of a chicken or the egg question, the way you have it there. In many ways it's going to be a cyclical thing, feeding into itself. But how did it start? Hard to say. You'd have to go back 50 to 100 years to look, but even that's hard because how do you measure 21st century economies versus the economies of those countries when they were Western colonial territories?

quote:
Some tenants of a religion you can keep to yourselves. There are some that you can't. When Muslims riot about *any* depictions of Mohammed, not even their own, thats trying to affect us. But according to their faith, they think they have very good reasons and from their working assumptions, they might very well be right. Maybe its the moderate Muslims that are interpreting it wrong (although I would argue that thats a good thing, sometimes its good to be wrong).
When the radicals have the view that apostates should be threatened or killed, thats something thats hard to have them keep to themselves without changing the view outright.

Well, then you deal with it as best you can. If a free exchange of information over the years doesn't dissuade them from their violent and radical views, and in the years to come it ends up being that they simply cannot stand the idea of a West that exists in violation of their beliefs, then it could come to blows on a global scale. That's certainly not my first solution then.

I keep asking myself what your alternative is. I'd like a free cultural exchange of information in the hopes that understanding can smooth over a lot of the rough edges that exist between our cultures. You call that condescending. Okay, well if they are all out to kill us and we can't convince them we aren't evil through dialogue then what, bomb them all? Or let them kill us? What's your alternative?

quote:
The gay marriage/Christian thing is a good example. Thats occurring here, with a relatively good economy and free flow of ideas, not without those two.
Yeah? And? I never said it was a silver bullet or a magic wand, but you'll notice that we manage to do it without shooting each other or blowing each other up over the issue. I never said the free flow of ideas or a good economy will solve every problem, as you seem to be suggesting there.

quote:
These people do not necessarily disagree with us due to unrelated reasons. They may disagree with us in good faith, on their interpretation of what they believe is right, period. In these cases, we have to address that head-on.
How do you propose we do so?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
This is a very odd discussion.

To be honest, I think so too. I'm not entirely sure how to articulate why.

quote:

First off, the Paris rioters might be a bad example on your part. Why were they rioting? Economics.

Again, we seem to disagree on cause and effect. You seem to be saying that the economics is the problem, if we just improve that they'll suddenly stop feeling alienated. I disagree, I think the economic problem is a *symptom* of alienation, not the cause.
Consider the laws on wearing a burkha in France or the undercurrent of racism in the inability of many educated Muslims or Arabs to find jobs. In this case, I'm not saying that its their fault that they're alienated, but they are and thats causing the economic problems, not vice versa.

In the middle east, it may be similar. That the economic problems are a symptom of their radical religion. In this case, it "may" be their fault. But still, the principle is similar.

quote:
Dropping bombs and denouncing them isn't the kind of confrontation we need...

I disagree, partially anyways.
Dropping bombs may not be the answer. Certainly, we cannot do it in an effective manner in the current political climate.
However, we definitely need to denounce them (I don't think you can characterize some of what Hirsi Ali says as *not* denouncing them) and especially support those that they consider apostates to do so. That is the precisely the confrontation we need.

quote:
I don't think poverty is the ONLY place that extreme views can fester, but I think that it is a situation that amplifies the ease with which those ideas are transmitted and take root.

Again, I think thats condescending and won't play well. They're saying, "I really care about my religion" and you're going *Pat pat* "Sure you do, but let's fix your economy and see how you feel about it then, maybe you won't feel as hostile then"

Consider someone that supports gun rights on these forums. If you ignore how they feel and assume that they're doing it because of a bad economy, they'll feel you're being condescending. Maybe they really do care about gun rights.

I think you need to confront them head-on, show them how you disagree, and why you disagree. Argue about the evidence. They may be upset and disagree, but at least you're dealing with the issues in a respectful way instead of dancing around it.

quote:
I keep asking myself what your alternative is. I'd like a free cultural exchange of information in the hopes that understanding can smooth over a lot of the rough edges that exist between our cultures. You call that condescending.

No, I most explicitly do not. I say that saying that they're moving toward radical Islam because of a failed economy is condescending. I never said that about a free cultural exchange of information. I just said that I don't think it will work.

quote:
How do you propose we do so?
I think its a matter of focus. We want to do some similar things but for different reasons. I want to improve their economy, if only for humanitarian reasons. But I don't think it will necessarily help their problem with radical Islam and I don't think that should be our focus as you implied here.

quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I think people would get a lot further with whatever problem they are trying to solve, if it's really a real problem, by looking for underlying issues and solving those, rather than the easy surface ones.

I think that Islam IS the real problem and *not* the "easy surface one." We need to stand right up to them and tell them that they're wrong. Better yet, we need to find those that are in a position to do that well. I think I can quote myself:
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
However, I am unconvinced that an Enlightenment will magically take place if we stop confronting Islam head-on (indeed, I am unconvinced that we *are* confronting it head on, in significant numbers anyways ... no, radical Christian leaders denouncing Islam from a Biblical basis do not count, thats more like not even meeting them, period).

I think we need more people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Salman Rushdie, that understand Islam and have that background, that have the courage to deal with Islam head-on, to not be intimidated by protests about Danish cartoons or TV shows about the Koran or be dissuaded by run-away political correctness. And we may need to support these people.

I think that finding and supporting these kind of people is what is needed to spark a real Islamic counterpart to the Enlightenment.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
You call them scare quotes. I think it's pretty obvious that he used those quotes because some of the movements that claim to be peace movements are really not in favor of peace in any rational sense.
I suppose that when he put quotes around "peace" he could have been trying to distinguish between the "anti-Iraq pro-Saddam" movements who call them self peace movements and others who a genuinely in favor of peace.

But given the context of the article and the fact that I have yet run across even one self proclaimed peace activist either online or in real life who could rationally be called "anti-Iraq and pro-Saddam", I suspect it was just one more of his usual slurs against everyone who happens to disagree with him.

Could be. Like I said, I'm not defending him as such. I don't know enough about him. I just dislike hearing someone called a liar based on a link in which he is clearly not lying. Or at least in which it hasn't been established that he's lying.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Morbo:
So you and Horowitz can self-identify as liberals, but peace groups like Quakers can't self-define themselves as peace groups? [Confused]

Who said anything about Quakers? If there's a group, like the so called "Peace Now" group in Israel, which is more of a Surrender Now group, calls itself a peace group, I'm going to put quotes around it. Because I don't think that their goals will bring peace. So calling them a peace group would be a misrepresentation of what I think.

I'm not telling you that you have to call me a liberal. By all means, don't. But Horowitz was making a point. If you want to call him a liar, call him a liar. But if you do so based on that link, it makes you look stupid. Because there's nothing in that link that constitutes a lie on his part. Particularly since he explicitly addresses the fact that he disagrees with the way in which the word "liberal" is used.

Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Again, we seem to disagree on cause and effect. You seem to be saying that the economics is the problem, if we just improve that they'll suddenly stop feeling alienated. I disagree, I think the economic problem is a *symptom* of alienation, not the cause.
Consider the laws on wearing a burkha in France or the undercurrent of racism in the inability of many educated Muslims or Arabs to find jobs. In this case, I'm not saying that its their fault that they're alienated, but they are and thats causing the economic problems, not vice versa.

You may have something there. And it may be that solving the economic problem means solving the racial problem too.

quote:
However, we definitely need to denounce them (I don't think you can characterize some of what Hirsi Ali says as *not* denouncing them) and especially support those that they consider apostates to do so. That is the precisely the confrontation we need.
That's fine, I don't have a problem with that. I didn't say don't denounce, I said don't JUST denounce. Whenever there is an option to, I'm almost always going to be more in favor of a multifaceted approach to anything, and I'll always be skeptical of silver bullets. I don't think confrontation is bad, it just has to be constructive confrontation, not confrontation that shoots us in the foot.

quote:
Again, I think thats condescending and won't play well. They're saying, "I really care about my religion" and you're going *Pat pat* "Sure you do, but let's fix your economy and see how you feel about it then, maybe you won't feel as hostile then"

Consider someone that supports gun rights on these forums. If you ignore how they feel and assume that they're doing it because of a bad economy, they'll feel you're being condescending. Maybe they really do care about gun rights.

I think you need to confront them head-on, show them how you disagree, and why you disagree. Argue about the evidence. They may be upset and disagree, but at least you're dealing with the issues in a respectful way instead of dancing around it.

I'm not sure how to word this but, I think you're assigning more to what I'm saying than is there, and I think that's where part of the oddness of this discussion for me is coming from.

I don't think I'm being condescending in the way you're describing. First off, I don't think Obama meant what you're saying he did either. What I think he meant, but poorly worded (several times) is that politicians will use issues like guns, religion and whatever else as wedge issues to try and drum up support. People have known for 20 some years that the government isn't going to hand them a job, so they vote on issues nearer and dearer to their hearts, like guns or religion and politicians feed on that like leeches, and it works, and it HAS worked for thousands of years of politics, and hundreds of years of American politics. Call it condescending if you want, but I call it historical. I've seen it in dozens of history books that I've read, political history books, general history books, biographies, it's there.

Instead of actually discussing what he's talking about, people seized on his words and attacked them as a gaffe, thus the substantive issue was buried and it became a ridiculous farce of a story about anything other than policy. Substance gets lost very easily in politics because voters are often swayed much more easily by anything other than substance. You might think that's condescending too, but I think there are a lot of people here who'd agree with me.

Second, let's say that you're right and it's the extremism that causes the economic problems...yeah, and what? Look at Palestine. Ridiculously high unemployment and people dependent on Hamas, an internationally known terrorist group for basic human services including electricity, food, potable water, hospital services and education. And to get access to all of these things, they are exposed to anti-Western pro-Hamas agenda oriented propaganda. The schools teach an anti-Western death to Israel indoctrination curriculum. The thing about poverty is that it reduces your choices to whatever is available, you don't get your pick of the litter.

I think the economics of a situation and the access to information free of constraints are pretty well linked, though not inseparably.

quote:
They're saying, "I really care about my religion" and you're going *Pat pat* "Sure you do, but let's fix your economy and see how you feel about it then, maybe you won't feel as hostile then"
I don't think that is accurate. That's certainly not what I'm intending and I don't think it's an accurate depiction of my feelings on the matter either. I think you're far too focused on "fixing the economy." I'm wondering how far you think this goes though. If someone had a religion that said "It's very important that I dismember and sacrifice my second child on their 10th birthday" and I came out opposed to that, would you think that's condescending?

In my mind it's much closer to "It's very important to me that I kill people who don't agree with what I've been told to believe." And my response to that is "alright well, I don't think you know as much about the people you want to kill as you might think, so here's some information about them, let's open up a dialogue." I think economics ARE an issue, but they aren't necessarily my main weapon. I'm not sure what your problem is here, but to me, it seems to be some sort of assumption that people are smarter than they are. If someone thinks that 2 + 2 = 15, am I being condescending in correcting them? You've so much as agreed that these people do not have free access to the information that we here possess, which means they are making choices without that information, which one could call uninformed decisions, and poverty feeds into that.

I think you're way off base. I'd like for everyone in the world to have a good job, be able to provide for their families, to have their children responsibly exposed to many cultures, and to be sent to whatever sort of educational society that their parents decide for them. Whenever I try to suggest something to move us towards that goal, it seems like that's when you pin the condescending label on me. I think you're giving too much credit to ignorance.

quote:
I think you need to confront them head-on, show them how you disagree, and why you disagree. Argue about the evidence. They may be upset and disagree, but at least you're dealing with the issues in a respectful way instead of dancing around it.
Yeah, and on a person to person level how do we do that? You just said exactly what I've been saying, a person to person dialogue and a free flow of information. Where's the magic wand you plan on waving that makes this possible?

quote:
No, I most explicitly do not. I say that saying that they're moving toward radical Islam because of a failed economy is condescending. I never said that about a free cultural exchange of information. I just said that I don't think it will work.
Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point then. I don't think it's condescending. I think it's historical. Poverty stricken people are ripe for others to take advantage of. It happens, it has happened, it will continue to happen, and I don't think that is condescending.

quote:
I think its a matter of focus. We want to do some similar things but for different reasons. I want to improve their economy, if only for humanitarian reasons. But I don't think it will necessarily help their problem with radical Islam and I don't think that should be our focus as you implied here.
What do we focus on? I didn't necessarily say it should be the primary focus either, but, I do think that it would open a lot of doors. You've yet to offer a real alternative.

quote:
I think that Islam IS the real problem and *not* the "easy surface one." We need to stand right up to them and tell them that they're wrong. Better yet, we need to find those that are in a position to do that well.
I disagree. Millions of Muslims live quite peacefully in America without blowing other people up or rioting. I live near one of the largest Arabic populations outside of the Middle East, and it is the largest Iraqi population outside of Iraq. I work beside Arabs every day of the week (well, every day I'm at work). The religion itself is not the problem, just like Christianity itself wasn't the problem in the Crusades. It is the people who use religion as an excuse to get something done that are the problem. I guess by way of that, the religion itself can BECOME a problem, but it's the people who use that religion, or use a corrupted version of the religion to achieve their own ends that are the problem. I guess in the world we live in today it's not as easy. A thousand years ago we'd declare war on the Muslim hordes and slaughter and conquer everything we could, but we live in a more civilized world today don't we? But we have proof, here in America, that Islam is not directly tied to the problems we see in the world, there are many other factors that push it over the edge.

The only solution I think I've seen you offer yet is to say "Hey, don't do that!" whenever an Arab acts up. Frankly that sounds a lot more paternally condescending like than anything I've suggested.

quote:
I think that finding and supporting these kind of people is what is needed to spark a real Islamic counterpart to the Enlightenment.
I'm skeptical on whether that alone would work. But even if it did, it'd take 200 years, even with our help. I think the real solution lies in person to person discussions, a grass roots effort in many ways. There are civil rights activists in the Middle East that I think we should support. And there are a lot of global politically things that need to be changed at the level of national governments. Hirsi and Rushie, and even others like them, aren't going to get it done by themselves.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Even more Muslims live peacefully in India, frequently in environments of high religious diversity.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
Even more Muslims live peacefully in India, frequently in environments of high religious diversity.

Lets not forget that ultimately however Muslims had to leave India en masse to newly formed Pakistan and to this day they have had many armed conflicts with their Indian neighbors.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
Lisa, like the Rabbit said, "anti-Iraq and pro-Saddam" peace groups likely never existed. Name one. They are a complete imaginary straw man from Horowitz' fevered imagination.

As far as Horowitz lying, that link certainly does show that. In the first quote he denies that leftists are liberals, in the second he's equating leftists and liberals. It's pretty cut-and-dried.

Please keep defending Horowitz. He's a complete fraud and I'd love to see what you can muster to aid him.

Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
You may have something there. And it may be that solving the economic problem means solving the racial problem too.

Perhaps, but people do not usually stop being racist because their target is now successful. I'm also not sure if French Arabs can be particularly successful without (first) creating a dent in the racism there.

quote:
I don't think confrontation is bad, it just has to be constructive confrontation, not confrontation that shoots us in the foot.

I disagree that confrontation of the type I suggest shoots us in the foot. I think our current policy of accommodating Muslims whenever they protest about stuff like cartoons or films is doing a good job of shooting us in the foot.

quote:

I don't think I'm being condescending in the way you're describing. First off, I don't think Obama meant what you're saying he did either. What I think he meant, but poorly worded (several times) is that politicians will use issues like guns, religion and whatever else as wedge issues to try and drum up support.

I disagree. I agree that your new spin is correct, but I don't think thats what he meant. In the American context, religion is "Mostly Harmless", and he's probably right when he says that they cling to these things in the face of other problems.
I think he was right, maybe he was being condescending, but that does not mean he was wrong. There is a distinction.

However, that does not mean the notion is automatically right in the Middle Eastern context where religion is NOT "Mostly Harmless." Details are different, the players are different. Here the same view is being condescending, it is also wrong.

quote:
I'm wondering how far you think this goes though. If someone had a religion that said "It's very important that I dismember and sacrifice my second child on their 10th birthday" and I came out opposed to that, would you think that's condescending?

Did you stop beating your wife?
Thats a pretty silly mis-characterization of what I said. I've been saying all along that we need to come right out and confront them directly. That we need to say that they're wrong.
If they dismember their child due to their religion (or whatever reason), I'm the one clearly saying that we need to deal with that belief head-on. I have no idea why you would think otherwise, that I wouldn't oppose it. [Dont Know]

quote:
quote:
I think you need to confront them head-on, show them how you disagree, and why you disagree. Argue about the evidence. They may be upset and disagree, but at least you're dealing with the issues in a respectful way instead of dancing around it.
Yeah, and on a person to person level how do we do that? You just said exactly what I've been saying, a person to person dialogue and a free flow of information. Where's the magic wand you plan on waving that makes this possible?

I never said that we need a magic wand. I said we need to support the people that I mentioned before and to do it well. We aren't doing that. IIRC, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has trouble affording her security. Rushdie was essentially criticized for bringing the fatwa upon himself, by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself. We give in when people riot because of cartoons or videos and say, "Oh maybe they shouldn't have provoked them." We accept the the politically correct meme(?) that says that all (current) religions are essentially harmless and equivalent.
Most are ... not all.

quote:
Poverty stricken people are ripe for others to take advantage of. It happens, it has happened, it will continue to happen, and I don't think that is condescending.

*People* are ripe for others to take advantage of. Particularly those that believe in things unquestioningly.

quote:
What do we focus on?
I've answered this question twice already.

quote:
The religion itself is not the problem, just like Christianity itself wasn't the problem in the Crusades.

I disagree with the this assumption which pretty much means that I disagree with the reasoning that comes from it.
I think you can say that Christianity was not the only problem that contributed to the Crusades, but it was by far the most dominant one and it was also a necessary one.

But you make a good point about moderate Muslims in the West. Why can we live with them? Because they're moderate, we *have* convinced them (as a group, not individually necessarily) to abandon radical Islam. Because they're the Muslim equivalent of the "Cafeteria Christian," cherry-picking what they want to believe from the Koran and leaving behind the bad parts that we convinced them are wrong, even if they don't admit it to themselves that it *was* wrong.

quote:
I'm skeptical on whether that alone would work. But even if it did, it'd take 200 years, even with our help.
Then we damn well better get started. It took a long time for the Western world to shake off religious dominance of the state too. But we're better now.

quote:

I think the real solution lies in person to person discussions, a grass roots effort in many ways. There are civil rights activists in the Middle East that I think we should support.
...
Hirsi and Rushie, and even others like them, aren't going to get it done by themselves.

Sure, thats part of what I'm saying too. Criticism and disagreement cannot come through one or two unsupported people, we need more people saying these things, to not be afraid to say these things, to encourage more people to speak out, to build up momentum and snowball.

[ April 17, 2008, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
BB: that is a very distorted characterization of what happened. For one thing, as many Muslims remained in India as left. For another, much of the population migration was dictated by the British gov't as it divided up the country, since they tried to divide up a country with a high degree of religious mixing

While India and Pakistan have fought several wars, the first three were extremely low violence. Additionally, there was no significant violent conflict in the Kashmir region for decades after separation. The reason the area was of such contention in the first place, allowing it to eventually reach such violence, was because the British division was particularly wishy-washy about the location.

Muslims routinely serve in high level gov't positions in India.

That's only scratching the surface of how distorted your statement is.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, and nobody 'had to'. There were two significant groups that contributed to the independence of India/Pakistan, and one was the Muslim League. The other, the Indian National Congress, welcomed Muslim members and was interested in having a unified state (which they have; India is not a religious state). The Muslim League decided they wanted to have a go at their own state, and the British gov't decided to go along with the plan. That was a positive choice, not something the Muslim League was forced into.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Mucus -

I'm only going to address a couple things, because I think we're mostly at the point where agreeing to disagree is the only way to end this.

quote:
Thats a pretty silly mis-characterization of what I said. I've been saying all along that we need to come right out and confront them directly. That we need to say that they're wrong.
One wonders how I'm being condescending by suggesting that living in povert can lead to a situation ripe for terrorist recruiting, which you characterize as me saying they should care less about their religion, when you're saying flat out that their religion is wrong. I mean, wow.

quote:
*People* are ripe for others to take advantage of. Particularly those that believe in things unquestioningly.
You're dodging, and you're ignoring history and reality.

quote:
I think you can say that Christianity was not the only problem that contributed to the Crusades, but it was by far the most dominant one and it was also a necessary one.
I'd say it was not in fact the most important factor. Europe was tearing itself apart with intercountry warfare. Kings warred with each other, constantly killing off vast swaths of European populations. Urban II wanted the Crusades for a variety of reasons, from consolidating Papal power, to yes, securing the Holy land, but there were a couple giant reasons that had nothing to do with Christianity. 1. Muslim invaders had already blazed a trail across North Africa, which had been Christian until their arrival, and they'd made their way across southern Spain, hence the reconquista. And they were on their way to Europe. I don't know if they ever would have been able to make it past Constantinople without the 4th Crusade softening it up, but for sure that would have held on to Anatolia, reducing the Byzanties to Nicea and the surrounding territories but not much else in Asia Minor. Anywho, they'd blazed a trail across Christian lands and they were headed for Europe. The Crusades were as much a defense as they were an offense. 2. Urban II wanted to channel European firepower outside of Europe. He figured if they were going to slaughter someone, it ought not to be fellow Christians. Ironically, it's pretty easy to argue that the wars themselves pretty well signaled the collapse of Papal authority. By the 7th Crusade, it was pretty clear that they didn't much care what he said once they were on Crusade, they did whatever they wanted anyway. Anyway, I don't accept your premise that Christianity was the biggest factor, I think it was a means to an end.

quote:
But you make a good point about moderate Muslims in the West. Why can we live with them? Because they're moderate, we *have* convinced them (as a group, not individually necessarily) to abandon radical Islam. Because they're the Muslim equivalent of the "Cafeteria Christian," cherry-picking what they want to believe from the Koran and leaving behind the bad parts that we convinced them are wrong, even if they don't admit it to themselves that it *was* wrong.
See, to me that is incredibly condescending. You told me I was wrong for telling them to care less about their religion, which isn't a position I hold, but it's okay for you to say they are wrong and need to flat out abandon parts of their religion? Wow. I mean wow. What standards are you using?

quote:
Then we damn well better get started. It took a long time for the Western world to shake off religious dominance of the state too. But we're better now.
White man's burden anyone? If only we could teach them the correct way to do things eh?

quote:
Sure, thats part of what I'm saying too. Criticism and disagreement cannot come through one or two unsupported people, we need more people saying these things, to not be afraid to say these things, to encourage more people to speak out, to build up momentum and snowball.
I think a multifacted approach, that deals with Middle Eastern civil rights and supporting the grass roots proponents there, access to a dialogue between our nations at the national and individual level, raising the standard of living so many aren't suffering in poverty, and holding them to an international standard of conduct is the way to go. I don't think your approach is a bad idea necessarily, it's just nowhere near enough.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Corwin
Member
Member # 5705

 - posted      Profile for Corwin           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Thats a pretty silly mis-characterization of what I said. I've been saying all along that we need to come right out and confront them directly. That we need to say that they're wrong.
One wonders how I'm being condescending by suggesting that living in poverty can lead to a situation ripe for terrorist recruiting, which you characterize as me saying they should care less about their religion, when you're saying flat out that their religion is wrong. I mean, wow.

quote:
But you make a good point about moderate Muslims in the West. Why can we live with them? Because they're moderate, we *have* convinced them (as a group, not individually necessarily) to abandon radical Islam. Because they're the Muslim equivalent of the "Cafeteria Christian," cherry-picking what they want to believe from the Koran and leaving behind the bad parts that we convinced them are wrong, even if they don't admit it to themselves that it *was* wrong.
See, to me that is incredibly condescending. You told me I was wrong for telling them to care less about their religion, which isn't a position I hold, but it's okay for you to say they are wrong and need to flat out abandon parts of their religion? Wow. I mean wow. What standards are you using?

I find nothing condescending in confronting religious people about their religions. I think the western civilization is mostly saying that "religion is a personal thing even if your religion will affect me", which I don't agree. I think the condescending thing to do is to say "let them think what they want, no matter if they're wrong or not". To me that says they're not worth arguing with, they won't understand our position anyway. Confronting them and arguing about parts of their religion which I think are wrong *is* taking their religion seriously. As seriously as I'd like anyone to take my own philosophy. I think that's what Mucus is trying to say too, but I hope he'll answer himself.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Morbo:
Lisa, like the Rabbit said, "anti-Iraq and pro-Saddam" peace groups likely never existed. Name one. They are a complete imaginary straw man from Horowitz' fevered imagination.

You may be right. Horowitz might be a total wingnut. Who cares? My point was that the quotes he used weren't "scare quotes". Whether there are such groups or not, he clearly thinks so, and was referring to them correctly according to his views. That's not what scare quotes are.

quote:
Originally posted by Morbo:
As far as Horowitz lying, that link certainly does show that. In the first quote he denies that leftists are liberals, in the second he's equating leftists and liberals. It's pretty cut-and-dried.

You really do have reading comprehension difficulties. Please quote, right here, the phrase or sentence in which he equates leftists and liberals. The only place in the second quote in which the word "liberal" is used is where he says that "sophisticated liberals (The New Republic comes to mind) ignored my book".

"Cut-and-dried"? Is it that hard for you to either find some other source for your claim that he's a liar or simply admit that you're wrong?

quote:
Originally posted by Morbo:
Please keep defending Horowitz. He's a complete fraud and I'd love to see what you can muster to aid him.

I'm not defending Horowitz. I don't know him, and I don't care about him. I'm attacking your misstatements of fact. Actually, I kind of wish you were defaming someone on the left in the same way so that I could call you on it without you being able to pretend that I'm doing so to defend them.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
... I think we're mostly at the point where agreeing to disagree is the only way to end this.

I think you're probably right.

quote:
quote:
Thats a pretty silly mis-characterization of what I said. I've been saying all along that we need to come right out and confront them directly. That we need to say that they're wrong.
One wonders how I'm being condescending by suggesting that living in povert can lead to a situation ripe for terrorist recruiting, which you characterize as me saying they should care less about their religion, when you're saying flat out that their religion is wrong. I mean, wow.
I've explained this before in this thread, but maybe I can make it more clear.
I'm an atheist, I do not believe that religion has any rational or scientific basis. Like you seem to imply, I think that religion is a tool made by humans, afterall, what else could it be made by in this POV?

When it comes time to communicating that to people, I inherently have two choices, I can ignore their religion, "If you can't say anything good, don't say anything at all" or I can tell the truth as *impolite* as it is.

I strongly disagree that this is condescending. In fact, I am recognising that a fair number of people, Muslim or not, hold their religious convictions close to their heart. It informs their actions, the way they think, and the way that they see the world. It is damn important to them. Maybe its *impolite* to oppose that, I could conceed that.

What I strongly disagree with, and probably moreso than anything you've said so far, is that saying that someone is wrong (period) is condescending. I think you can point at every influential human rights activist, every scientist with a major new theory, and even *wait for it* religious leaders whose sincerity that I have no reason to doubt and each one of them, if you took this view, they would be condescending. I reject this line of reasoning. Oddly enough, you seem to say this too with your "2+2=15" example.

I think that if you assume that someone's words are in good faith, that they really mean what they say until proven otherwise and deal with that honestly and openly, that is actually the *least* condescending we can be.

Pretending to read minds, assuming unrelated motives on the part of others, those are things that "are" condescending. (They can be *right* in certain cases, as I made the distinction in my last post; That doesn't make it less condescending)

Thats the distinction, and while I fully expect that we can agree to disagree, if you can't understand that distinction it will be pretty hard to continue this specific chain of argument.

quote:
quote:
*People* are ripe for others to take advantage of. Particularly those that believe in things unquestioningly.
You're dodging, and you're ignoring history and reality.

You're dodging, and you're ignoring history and reality.
Gee, that was convincing both ways, huh?

quote:
Anyway, I don't accept your premise that Christianity was the biggest factor, I think it was a means to an end.

Tt can be both, its not an either/or. I remind you that I'm an atheist, religion is man-made in my POV. It can be considered a tool, and tools can be used.
Don't want to Godwin this, but let's go back to the Chinese experience. Maoism perhaps a means to an end, for Mao to gather up power and setup a new cult of personality and a dictatorship. Does that mean that Maoist policies are not the biggest factor in why the earlier years of the PRC were some of the worse ever in Chinese history?
Can it be said that Maoism was "just" a means to an end?

Maybe you would pin it on Mao, maybe he just implemented the policy wrong, maybe he was an evil person. I disagree with this line of reasoning, I think that the policy *itself* is flawed and even the best and most innocent of us, if we gave them the power to implement it again would probably make just as big a mess, maybe even bigger.

I think parallel thoughts about radical religion. Maybe there are good intentions behind it, but the concept is fundamentally flawed.

quote:
quote:
Then we damn well better get started. It took a long time for the Western world to shake off religious dominance of the state too. But we're better now.
White man's burden anyone? If only we could teach them the correct way to do things eh?
That is incredibly offensive even on an impersonal level and if you knew anything about the history of why the former colonial nations had a real problem with it, you would know part of why. I'll leave your rather personal side of the insult untouched.

If the Western nations just *told* everyone that they had a better way, maybe it would be annoying but that would be the least of everyone's problems.
The real problem is when the notions behind "White man's burden" was translated into a post-hoc rationale for imperialism, the use of economic force and military intervention to both interfere with internal affairs in other countries, colonise them, and most importantly to act as a "cover."

But just telling them these things? You may as well tell all human rights activists regarding China's human rights policies to put up and shut up. How do they know that democracy and freedom of speech are good things? What right do they have to push these Western ideas on China?
And what if I told you that some of these activists are Chinese and rather explicitly say that they need international support to continue their work, to show the Chinese government a better way? Would you consider them "white" too? Bah, what an odd and rather insulting accusation.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, I'm going to probably ignore the "condescending" portion of this debate after this post, because honestly, I was being snippy in my last post. I do think you were being a little condescending in saying that you need to fix them by removing a portion of their religion from their lives (at least, condescending by the standards you've set up). But making such a big deal of it on my part was really just my annoyance at your constant prodding by saying that I was being condescending. I'm not. I get that you obviously think I am, but I'm not, or at least, no more than you are being.

quote:
Gee, that was convincing both ways, huh?
I didn't want to launch into it because everything I've said before you've brushed off as condescending or wrong, why would I waste the effort? I get your argument, and I think it's wrong for reasons I've already listed.

quote:
Maybe you would pin it on Mao, maybe he just implemented the policy wrong, maybe he was an evil person
Frankly I don't have an opinion on Mao. I don't know enough about Chinese history to discuss what you're referencing. I've only so much time to read and so much RAM in my head, and Chinese history is one of those things I've left by the wayside for the moment. The Crusades on the other hand I do know enough about to form an opinion and discuss at length so, if you want discuss that specifically, and the role that Christianity played, we can do that.

quote:
That is incredibly offensive even on an impersonal level and if you knew anything about the history of why the former colonial nations had a real problem with it, you would know part of why. I'll leave your rather personal side of the insult untouched.
I apologize for any offense caused but that's how what you said came off to me.

quote:
If the Western nations just *told* everyone that they had a better way, maybe it would be annoying but that would be the least of everyone's problems.
I realize that the phrase "white man's burden" is a loaded phrase, but I didn't mean it in that context. I was referencing it in it's most basic premise, that of it being, fit to this situation, the job of the West to help the lesser people's to come up to our level. That's what it looked like you were saying to me, and especially given what you've said to me, it looks like you're operating with something of a double standard there.

quote:
And what if I told you that some of these activists are Chinese and rather explicitly say that they need international support to continue their work, to show the Chinese government a better way? Would you consider them "white" too?
If you remove the specifics from the idea of the white man's burden, it fits many different situations. It's a three word phrase that describes the idea of a people who think they are superior taking it upon themselves to lift up people they see as lesser than them. Again, I know with its history it's a loaded phrase, but I don't think that makes it impossible to use it in the way I have to describe the things that I have, but knowing your sensitivity to it now, I wouldn't do it again.

But no, I wouldn't call them white because they aren't white, as I just explained, and because even if they were, I'm not sure they'd fit what I see as the criteria.

I think a lot of this conversation could have been saved by settling upon a definition of condescending before we even started.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
f you remove the specifics from the idea of the white man's burden, it fits many different situations. It's a three word phrase that describes the idea of a people who think they are superior taking it upon themselves to lift up people they see as lesser than them.
Perhaps we need to find a phrase we could use to describe the responsibility of those who are fortunate to lift up those who are less fortunate.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
Som--Real quick, it is far far fewer than 1/3 of Americans equate Islam with danger, terrorism, or believe it should be violently limited.

Mucus--I have a problem with this quote:

quote:
We were lucky in the West, the scientific revolution, the French Revolution, and the American revolution came with many non-religious figures who managed to defang the worst of Christianity and establish many secular institutions.
I don't mean for this to be a "Pile on Mucus" day, but according to my memory of history The French and American revolutions were in many ways the results of the Enlightenment that preceded it. (I'm not sure which Scientific Revolution you are referring to, the one starting in the Renaisance, or the one starting in 1850s or so, or some other time.)

The Enlightenment was a reaction to several hundred years of the worst religious violence imaginable. Organized genocides against heretical groups, conversion through torture, war and death wholesale for the sake of dogma.

In the 1600's England was burning Catholics or Protestants with the turn of every monarch. Is it a surprise that the children and grand-children of those survivors want to separate themselves from the institutions that were supposed to teach virtues but demanded violence instead?

Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Fugu: If you say so.

quote:
For one thing, as many Muslims remained in India as left.
Do you have numbers supporting this? Assuming that's true what does that prove? Millions still left, if 50% of the Catholics in the US partitioned off a part of the country to form their own state it would seem unlikely that it could be said we enjoy an environment of religious amalgamation.

quote:
For another, much of the population migration was dictated by the British gov't as it divided up the country, since they tried to divide up a country with a high degree of religious mixing

The British government did not force people to move anywhere, it was not even their idea to split the country and create a Muslim Indian state. They assisted in splitting the country because that was what the Indians wanted. Gandhi in an attempt to keep the country together tried to select an Muslim Indian as the countries first prime minister, but separatist sentiment in the nation was too strong.

quote:
While India and Pakistan have fought several wars, the first three were extremely low violence.
Define low violence, and do you have statistics backing this up too?

quote:
Additionally, there was no significant violent conflict in the Kashmir region for decades after separation.
I think you will find the First Kashmir War took place a mere year from the formation of Pakistan, the second took place 14 years later, the third 6 years, and the fourth I suppose does not count as it was the only minor conflict of the 4. Combined we are looking at over 10,000 deaths, hardly something I'd call, "low violence."

quote:
Muslims routinely serve in high level gov't positions in India.

That's wonderful, it still does not negate the point that there was still a mass exodus of Muslims into a new state and that both sides found it impossible to live together.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2