Crackers
Hoolies and Honkies. These words have been made public recently. In one case, a racist group in Georgia, USA threw out "crackers" for all to hear and see. Then they added anti-Jewish words...and they weren't apparently drunk at the time.
I visited Hawai'i. Waianae specifically; I did observe in the local Junior High School. There was some racism, but not as blatant as that displayed by those at Cynthia's drubbing get-together.
I lived through the 1960s to the 1990s when I retired. The lie is that all they wanted was equality. To quote Animal Farm, "The pigs became corrupted by power and a new tyranny is established under Napoleon (Stalin). 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.' Snowball (Trotsky), an idealist, is driven out.
At least the NAACP's official position has moderated to the present party in power and have not shown the racism that was rampant there for the last 30 years. I met Julian Bond at USC in the late 60s.
Now to our present war against Islamic Facists: It is time to call a spade a spade.
They are racist, just like the Japanese were for almost 1,000 years fusing a religion to their military conquests including the Rape of Nanjing
It is time to take the gloves off and confront this present day Racism before another Rape occurrs.
posted by Chief RZ @ 11.8.06
27 Comments:
You know, I so disgusted at Cynthia McKinney that I wanted to go to GA in person to bitch slap her, but I thought better of it and remember that it was something Jesus wouldn't do, but still, I want to. IDIOTS!
My husband is enlisted in the Chaplains Corps, and working in Combat Developments and Modular Transformation we both realize the urgency of calling this war: it truly is Jihad. This is a religious war and we have to get over the politically incorrect implications and kill our enemies. Or they will kill us.
Mecca should already be a radioactive hole in the ground!
As well as Tehran, Damascus, and a score of others!
(I'm not feeling very graceful at this hour about the whole situation, Chief!)
BTW, if there's not at leas a dozen FBI agents keeping an eye n McKinney and her organization, DHS is worthless!
Amen, brotha!
Brooke and all--
Thanks for the comments and this lead up to my post today on the parallel between Islam and Shinto.
I thought this was an intresting post. our current enemy is alot of things, but racist? A deemphasis of racial divisions in favor of religious divisions is something explicitly laid out in Koran. There are black african muslims. what about the nation of Islam? Come to think of it there are alot of white european muslims too. (john walker Lind?). I'm not trying to troll.
Anonymous--First, thank you for engaging in an adult, logical discussion of facts. Second, to your thoughts and questions.
What you quote may be in the Koran, but look at what happens when one person, Abdul Rahman. When he decided to follow Christianity, he is now marked for death.
See: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/2006_10.htm for more details, facts and history. In fact, Koran-thumpers have kidnapped an Italian journalist and are demanding that Rahman be handed over to them in exchange for the journalist's life!
That does not sound like deemphasizing racial or religious divisions to me. How about you?
Yes a group of 'black muslims' was created in the 1960s here in the USA. The leader went to Mecca and was 'completely surprised' to see non-black people there! There are peoples of all colors and nationalities in the Muslim faith, but that is not the point. The point of the post is and was that Muslims are racist, just like the Japanese of the 1920s-1945 when we defeated them. They do not tolerate anyone who does not think the way they think.
Third, thank you for telling the truth and not "trolling." By the way, I reject the current use of that term. I like discussions of opposite views as long at the people use facts and not just name calling and insults.
dear chief, thanks for the reply. I think the point that really stuck in mind was that for all evils our enemy has engaged in, the key motivating factors are ideological and religious, not racial. take the case that you point to in your reply- abdul rasman. Was he not marked for death because of his beliefs- not his ethnicity? I think the the Japanese of WWII era are a great example of race driven nutjobs, it just seems to me, that like the communists, the Muslim fanatics were dealing with now are driven by an ideology that at its heart is not concerned with racial divisions.
(except the jews)
now that mention the pan-arab issue you've got me curious though...
right on. as i'm reading up im starting to see how you could make an argument that arab-centrism within islam essentialy constitutes a racist ideology. Its not an argument i would make, but maybe. as for an american joining up with al-quaeda - Adam Yahiye Gadahn?
anonymous--hopefully you are a different person than the last anonymous who used unnecessarily bad language and taste. Do you think that the Roman Empire was also racist? Remember the "roman noses"? Yes, but was or would he have been 'accepted'? The Japanese allow Koreans to work in Japan, but they can not hold property.
Interesting that an old skeleton was recently discovered there. It was re-burried when it matched Korean, not Japanese body style!
chief- It occurs to me, that while the concept of race seems at first blush pretty straight forward, on further reflection the concept can be a little trickier than it seems. could you define what you mean by race in this context?
chief- in response to your last post-
A. all the anon posts are the same person.
b. I understand the point about language and in future will respect your boundries on the subject. As for the question of taste-???????
i dont get it.
B. im interested in the Islamists, not the Romans or the Japanese. I think it is firmly established that both of the above-cited groups were enamoured, with their own sense of racial superiority. the question concerns the Islamists, sir.
Give me examples of Islamists basing there actions on ideas about race as opposed to ideas about religion. Im intrested in that.
I contend that while you can find an arab cultural bias to our current enemy's philosophy, their ideas are not inherently about ethnic identity. instead, its at heart about a way of thinking, a state of mind.
the differance between the two is the reason wanted to discuss all this with you.
anonymous(1) above: I quote from my original post--
"Now to our present war against Islamic Facists: It is time to call a spade a spade.
They are racist, just like the Japanese were for almost 1,000 years fusing a religion to their military conquests"
They are racist. They think that their religion (ideology if you will) is the only one worth 'surviving' -- again, if you will, just like the NAZI's perceived 'survival of the fittest'.
Would you grant that Hitler put forth a racist claim?
Race, on the other hand by Encyclopaedia Britanica definition is: a physical, unique characteristics, brought on by intermarriage. The Japanese were and are like this, Jews engage in marriage among only themselves, and Islamists--Muslims if you wish, engage in murder to all others who change religions. So, an 'only Muslims may marry Muslim philosophy has been in palce for about 1,000+ years. Hence, a race with a similar religion/philosophy. Good opening debate/definition?
anonymous(2) above:
Thank you for the clarification and moderation of your language.
B-- See above about ideology and religion.
OK -- To the heart/meat of the matter. race.
On initial observation, Arabs/Muslims/Easterners, resemble each other. They have physically identifiable characteristics. From what I have heard, translated, their rhetoric is one of "don't step foot here" Similar to some places in the USA where certain people were not allowed to swim/walk/drink/live. Not even allowing a person to step or pass through because they are 'not from around here' smacks of racism.
Personally, I experienced this passing through Kuwait, which is one of our friendlier Arab/Muslim/Eastern countries. The official and unofficial stance was: we were second class citizens. Don't let anyone even see you! It might be difficult to find or translate the dejour [racist] policies of these countries, but I will continue this if you are willing.
chief- before i respond in point to your last posts i was curious as to your thoughts on the previously mentioned (white)american al-quaeda, John walker Lind and Adam Yahiye Gadahn (of jewish stock, no less)?
anonymous--A lot of people see race as you have implied:
black and/or white (Negro vs Caucasian). They leave out Mongol and several sub-groups especially the Pacific-Islanders who traveled thousands of miles in small canoes to inhabit those islands.
But these are, as you mentioned, merely physiological characteristics. You make an interesting gambit--that if someone (not of a race) is "accepted", then my idea is moot. Just because the two you mentioned joined, or tried to join this group of Islamic Facists does not change my assertion. Many fanatic groups 'used' others as their slaves and 'associates', but like the Japanese, Koreans will never achieve acceptance.
Jews may be considered a sub-race by some. I don't see them that way. In my view they would be similar to the Armenians, Hawaiians, or Greeks.
Now, lets examine some of the translated Islamic speeches put out by UBL and his group and compare them with Hitler's speeches, Napoleon's, Stalin's, and Castro's.... Then let me ask you a neutral one:
Do you think the Serbs exhibited racism against the Croats and/or Albanians in Kosova?
Before another post by anonymous...Personally, I don't have any problem with a person "I'm the greatest" or a group feeling they are "the best" IF and only if (a math term) they mind their own business and do not attempt to kill, rob, intimidate, or injure others outside their group.
The Amish may be a religious (philosophical for sectarian language) example of a group keeping to themselves even as they are attacked and killed.
I think that we in the USA were perfectly happy to leave Muslims and other extremist groups alone, but...
WE WERE ATTACKED on September 11, 2001 by this very group. That changed everything. We are not at war with UBL and his group of Muslim extremist fanatic facists. Another question for anonymous: There was a group at Waco, Texas that were keeping to themselves, they had a religious philosophy that was different, but they did not attack us, but were attacked by Janet Reno and company. Response? In this case, I would not classify the group of religious fanatics as racist, nor aggressive. Now the Philadelphia, PA group in the 1980s were throwing feces off their roof at passerbys and broadcasting loud words and music. Racist?
I await your replies.
chief- to continue with the gambit, if you dont mind, what evidence do you have that either of these individuals were treated as second-class citizens after their conversions?
I was hoping that you might at least comment on my numerous questions above as we look at two individuals who we will never know how high up on the social status they may or may not have been allowed to climb.
How about the millions of examples I gave above?
Let me also open up another view to further define racism:
The Amish communities in Lancaster County, PA. They marry mostly within their own group. They subscribe to a similar religion (philosophy) but do not attack others.
Now, back to some recent examples of racism above:
Serbs, Albanians, French speaking Canadians (Quebec) and some more who are all Negroes, but discriminate on height-- Hutus vs. Tutsis. The mass butchery in Rwanda of over one-half million people. Would you call that racism?
chief- Before addressing any other of the points that youve brought up, i'd like to focus on somethimg that i consider key to the issue. You defined race as being "a physical, unique characteristics, brought on by intermarriage", and go on to claim that a seperate race has effectivly been created through the selective pressure created by Islam. I agree with both these and I believe the second illustrates perfectly why i do not feel it is correct to label the Islamists as racists.
Anonymous--I hope we can widen this discussion to better define race, including the Mongol line that is overlooked by many. Thanks for restating what I summarized from one Encyclopaedia, and here is another one. I use numerous references for many points of view-- http://www.1902encyclopedia.com/A/ANT/anthropology-3.html
Not just Islam or any other religion, but also by geographical and historical, family traditions. I understand there will be a broadcast this weekend on this subject including many translated words by some of these islamo-facists. Perhaps this will shed some light on the question of motivation and expose even more this group's 'root causes' of their fanatical aggression against anyone who disagrees with them.
Sometime about ten or twenty years ago, a small group of people in the US made the point that ~ only those with power can be racist. I disagree. Any group can be racist and it is best to discourage this extreme case of aggressive racism early. Sadam, and many Arabs were not Muslim, but used the religion when it helped them. Others use this to advance their goals of world domination by force. This is the same as I have stated: The Japanese, French, Germans, Romans, Greeks, Arabs, Hungarians, Russians, Vikings, Italians, and yes, Americans in the 1840s. All have sined and fallen short.
Now, by their own admission and religious laws, one who is born into Islam must remain. If they try to leave, they are killed. This example has recently been illustrated by one individual who is under a death threat now for converting to Christianity. In addition, the two TV newsreporters who were kidnapped were forced to "convert" to Islam-Muslim or be shot to death. I suppose that would bolster your point that they did not resemble, physically the main group. I would counter that the two were "conquored" -- part of their stated goal of world conquest.
The religion is being used as a hammer to keep a group of people in one group. That group's characteristics are significantly different from other groups. Yes, in this case a philosophy or religion seems to be more forceful than geography like the island of Japan or climate like Africa or Northern Europe, but the main force causing the aggression is a form of racism:
"My idea, body shape, region, lifestyle, religion, etc is better than yours, and if you don't like it, I will kill you."
[I’ve tried to post this a couple of times, so sorry if it’s a repeat. Also, please excuse length]
Chief- Islam (and by extension, Islamism) is expressly, emphatically and unambiguously not a racialist ideology. Muhammad denounced racial strife, told his followers it was their faith and language, rather than their blood, which held them together, and had an adopted black African son, whereas he himself was an Arab. The Islamic and ottoman empires were run in a way that de-emphasized ethnic division- instead, de jure, focusing on religious identity. (While I whole-heartedly concur that, as you pointed out, over time sectarian divides can, and do, become ethnic divides, no ethnic prerequisites are in place to become either a Muslim or Al Qaeda. {Not that I’ve tried!} ) Our current enemy claim to follow Islamic teaching, and as you point out, his ethnic identity is also a creation of his religion. While many of those we fight truly seem to follow no real idea beyond kill and be killed, and even the devout amongst them blatantly flout Islamic law, I still believe the teaching of Muhammad shed at least some light on their motives.
However, all that said, Islam is currently contained with in the racial limits it was able to attain before its expansionist phase was ended by force of arms and geographic boundaries. I would point to white Muslims in the Balkans (Albanians, Bosnians, etc.), and Southeast Asian Muslims in the far east as examples of how the originally Arab Islam sought to subsume disparate ethnicities into its culture and political system. (subsume, in contrast with enslave.) The Important thing to our topic of discussion is that there is no physical or genetic prerequisite to becoming Muslim. (Contrast that with the Nazis or the Japanese!)
I don’t feel honest calling UBL and co. racist. I feel like its empty invective. Their proximate goal is the ouster of Western forces from the Arab world, and the destruction of the state of Israel. These do focus on the racial division between us and them; however this is a function of political realities, not their beliefs. Their ultimate political goal, however, is the establishment of an international caliphate, with all of mankind subsumed into the Muslim world. The racial divisions, which are indeed there, are only part of this phase.
To me what sets a racist ideology apart is that it is rooted in and limited by predetermined physical traits. Take, as an obvious example, the Nazis- their ideas were by design only open to those who fell within certain genetic parameters. There was nothing in Nazi ideology for non-“Aryans” but enslavement or death. (In reference to the Nazis’ Muslim allies, what do you think the Nazis intended to do to them if they had defeated the allies?)
Islam, on the other hand does not have this racial acid test. It is not limited to a particular subpopulation. The Muslim idea set is specifically designed to be able to cross these “blood” barriers, rather than exasperate them, (like the Nazis). I believe Islam has taken on racial limits only because of its defeat at the hands of Christendom long ago managed to contain it with a limited (albeit large and varied) population.
Of course in the current stage of this war, Bin Laden and company are fighting as much a nationalist or racial cause, as a religious one. But don’t be fooled. Their ultimate goal, after the recapitulation of the old empire, is to continue its expansion, dividing the world not into Arabs and non-Arabs, but rather, believers and non-believers. (This, I suspect, is also the cause for how the Kuwaitis treated you. Their memories are short in one sense, but very long in another, I think.)
chief- apologies that the last couple of post didnt directly address questions you raise. I'd like to read up on the specifics of some of these and try to respond more directly. also, more info on the program you mentioned?
Anonymous--First to your longer reply. It sounds like you more agree than disagree with my assertion that this is a racist war.
Here is one of several telling quotes and their term for "Nigger or Cracker or hoolie or Kike or Mick or breed, etc."
Kuffah
and a quote: "The first enemy of the Arab and Islamist Peoples is America.
They identify themselves, peoples as Arab and Islamist in the same breath and their enemy. Racism.
As for the NAZI thing, as you must surely concur, not all Germans resembled "Arians". Even the head of that government, Hitler did not. They were National Socialists who were defending their country against Communism to their East and to the West attempting payback to the back and forth wars in Europe for the last thousand years. Napoleon did much more devistation that the NAZI government. In my opinion, he was the French Hitler. i visited France and in some universities, saw about the 15% Racist words and political parties that exist there.
The program was called Obsession. The announcement is on this website: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227057,00.html
chief- If your logic is correct, wouldnt Americanism be considered a racist ideology? Most Americans are white, and almost all our founding thinkers and defining leaders have been white. even though, in theory, the American idea is colorblind, like Islam, hasnt it often been a vehicle for the advancement of a particular race? Couldnt the racial minorities in the United States also be described as "others being used as slaves and 'associates'", but who will never 'really' belong, as you described non-arab Islamists? After all, consider how most black Americans got here, Or many Chinese.
I guess i'm trying to illustrate the major sticking point i have with the argument your making. For an ideology to truly said to be racist, i think its core unifying feature has to be "physical, unique characteristics, brought on by intermarriage". With Islam, like the American idea, racial factors are real, but whats important is that a follower conforms to a code of behaviour or thought, not nessacerily that he looks a certain way. With both, Physical characteristics are really incidental to behaviour and belief, even though both are historically tied to particular ethnic identities.
I think that American ideas and principles are clearly superior to those being put forth by our enemy, and i also acknowledege the racial divide between the combatants in this war, but i dont think either side claims superiority based on physical chacteristics that are beyond the control of individuals. I dont see any way around it. nothing ive read or seen leads me to see this, given our agreed definition of race, as a racialy motivated war, or as an essentially racist enemy. ( however, after ive considering the subject for the last couple of weeks, I must say, their ideas are bad enough, that maybe throwing accusitions of racism in for good measure really doesnt matter that much)
thats all i got. i think anything else i might have to say would just be ego nonsense. thank you for talking with me.
Post a Comment
<< Home