White Man's guilt

[JoS]

This is an exert from a newsletter I was reading published by a Canadian think tank organization. I was wondering what you guys thought of it.

Historical grievances' is a game that anyone can play and any number of semi-educated cretins never let an absence of context or background detail prevent them from trying. As a part of the unequal public politics of 'victimhood' it has become popular for various claims to surface against the Western World. This includes demanding apologies for assumed historical grievances like the European settlement of the Americas, the trans-Atlantic slave trade or the bloody storming of Jerusalem in 1099.

The full context of history always provides a much broader picture. It helps to remember, for instance, that Columbus brought syphilis back from the New World, that thousands of Westerners died bringing an end to the slave trade, and that the storming of Jerusalem was matched by a number of Islamic atrocities of greater magnitude. While not excusing any historic evils done by anyone at any time, there are many other deeds worthy of collective censure that have gone entirely un-rebuked. If asked to feel guilty because of the purported (or real) crimes of one's ancestors, politely excuse yourself. If pressed on the issue, rudely excuse yourself. Source

[WeHaveFreshCookies]

I would have to agree. In fact, I believe that this is the main reason that Obama won the election. Many people only wanted to prove to themselves that they are no longer racist. They said, "Obama is black. If we vote him as president, maybe it will make up for the atrocities committed against his race." Or something to that extent. I think he won BECAUSE he was black. Racism can go both ways, you know. And I think we are dangerously close to that point.

Wow... I went WAY off topic there, didn't I?

[Prinzy2]

I think the magazine makes some good points, I don't have to apologize for what my ancestor did way before I was born. I don't have to condone or defend it, but I certainly don't have to apologize for their actions. Same thing for young Germans, young Catholics, and anyone else that might be connected to something far older than them. I think it goes far beyond the white man, even if that's the hot topic right now.

[Tancrisism]

I do agree somewhat. It isn't the individual's fault for what his/her ancestors did. But it is important to remember what happened in history to understand why things are the way they are.

I see an inherent flaw in here though: this is assuming that opposition to the US using military to fight al-qaida regardless of the country or whose territory it is in just don't care about our defense.

I will quote:

In the US, in Canada, and throughout Western Europe today, we are threatened by foes that many of these elites refuse to recognize as enemies. Our defences are hampered by their widespread belief that self-preservation is somehow immoral. The foundations of our societies are being gnawed away by institutions that purport to defend the very values they destroy. Best practices that have stood for centuries are set aside because they are no longer 'fair', 'tolerant' or - worse - 'modern'. We are taught to be ashamed of our history; to tolerate the intolerant in the name of tolerance; and to see our civilization's greatest accomplishments as meaningless.

Do people take this seriously?

[Tancrisism]

Perhaps I just read too deeply into the Source you provided. I agree with the part you brought up.

[poxpower]

You know what sucks? It's that generations ago, some horrible crimes happened and weren't punished and it resulted in very real consequences today.

Some of today's fortunes have been built on the blood of many in the past. I mean, it's easy for a rich heir to say "well we should just take history as the past and move on" and you can't fault him since all he did was be born into a rich family :o

Hard question as far as restitution goes. How much can we give and how far back do we go?

One thing is for sure though: I will not give a shred of extra respect for anyone based on their gender or ethnicity.

[thedo12]

At 11/11/08 10:45 PM, poxpower wrote:

:How much can we give and how far back do we go?

my opinion is that , the people giving resitution should have at least been alive when it the wrong deads happend .
I mean how can you blame someone for something that happend before they were born?

[Elfer]

My problem is that I was there and I actually did all of those things :(

[Chavic]

I agree with the article. I have never owned a slave, I'm of German heritage but I've never been a Nazi, etc. etc. etc.

[poxpower]

At 11/11/08 10:57 PM, thedo12 wrote:

I mean how can you blame someone for something that happend before they were born?

Well, ok let me give you an example.

Let's imagine that my dad was a Nazi and during the war, he killed your dad and stole all his shit. You were just a baby and your mom fled with you.
The money then goes to me.

30 years later, you're poor and I'm rich through a war crime. What was rightfully yours is now mine and I had nothing to do with it.

============
============

Another somewhat similar example:

During the 1800s, Britain went around Egypt pilfering the Pyramids and stealing national treasures of cultural significance. Those are now in British museums.

Should they give it back to Egypt? Even if you argue that they protected it from the elements and the thieves for all this time?

===============
===============

Sometimes it's easier though. For instance, maybe one of my ancestors was a slave to some Spartan. Who cares anymore? Maybe my caveman ancestor stole your mammoth.

[aviewaskewed]

You can't hold people now responsible for things that happened in the past. It's also important to understand as the article points up that many of these things were already recitified at an earlier point.

Look, let's do a quick test:

If your grandfather kicks the shit out of your grandfather when they were boys, and we run into each other now...if I demand you apologize for what your grandfather did, or demand some sort of reparation from you, do you think I have a right to do this or you owe me anything?

Because that's really what we're talking about here. We're talking about crap that relatives of ours may or may not have done long before we were ever around.

[fli]

At 11/11/08 10:21 PM, WeHaveFreshCookies wrote: I would have to agree. In fact, I believe that this is the main reason that Obama won the election. Many people only wanted to prove to themselves that they are no longer racist. They said, "Obama is black. If we vote him as president, maybe it will make up for the atrocities committed against his race." Or something to that extent. I think he won BECAUSE he was black. Racism can go both ways, you know. And I think we are dangerously close to that point.

Hardly.
first off-- we have many minorities who didn't usually vote-- vote.
And I also think that people just had it with the opression of a broken government lead by Republicans who only wanted to put their ethnocentric interests first above anything else.

And, what is more, people like the idea that a vote of Obama meant that they could less taxed... instead of being more taxed by McCain's plan.

I mean, that alone is probably what drove him to the top.

[JoS]

At 11/11/08 10:34 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Do people take this seriously?

Yes, because it is actually true. Look at radical Muslim clerics in western societies like Britain and other countries. They get away with saying despicable things, promotion of hatered and intolerance, and yet as a society we are tolerant of this because we believe we have to put up with this and that it is wrong to act to suppress this.

Clear example is the Danish cartoon. There is no law against publishing Mohammed's picture in any western country, bad taste perhaps but certainly not illegal. However the out cry against the cartoons was in some cases criminal, with hordes of people int he street calling for the murder of the cartoonist and encouraging violence against him. No one was arrested and charged for uttering death threats or any other cime, the numerous ones that were broken by these protesters.

[Tancrisism]

At 11/11/08 11:50 PM, JoS wrote:

At 11/11/08 10:34 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Do people take this seriously?

Yes, because it is actually true. Look at radical Muslim clerics in western societies like Britain and other countries. They get away with saying despicable things, promotion of hatered and intolerance, and yet as a society we are tolerant of this because we believe we have to put up with this and that it is wrong to act to suppress this.

Clear example is the Danish cartoon. There is no law against publishing Mohammed's picture in any western country, bad taste perhaps but certainly not illegal. However the out cry against the cartoons was in some cases criminal, with hordes of people int he street calling for the murder of the cartoonist and encouraging violence against him. No one was arrested and charged for uttering death threats or any other cime, the numerous ones that were broken by these protesters.

Right, but what you must understand is there is a reason these people are like this. Muslims aren't inherently radical. Back in the Middle Ages they were actually more rational and practical than most Europeans, excelling much further in science and math.

I agree that these people are completely radical and irrational, but you should look into their past situation and their present situation to understand why they are; and notice which groups of them are not (Morocco, Turkey, much of Egypt). To me it seems quite clear that they are tired of being pushed around, to put it poorly. And to push them around more does not seem like it will be effective in the long run; not to mention that it is very costly.

[FatherTime89]

At 11/11/08 11:19 PM, poxpower wrote:
Another somewhat similar example:

During the 1800s, Britain went around Egypt pilfering the Pyramids and stealing national treasures of cultural significance. Those are now in British museums.

Should they give it back to Egypt? Even if you argue that they protected it from the elements and the thieves for all this time?

Assuming that by Britain you mean the British government then yes. The victim (Egypt) and the guilty party (Britain) are still around so yes they still owe them.

What good is protecting against elements and thieves do if you still don't own it?

Lovers of history and museums (like myself, not trying to sound pompous or anything) might owe the British something but the Brits still owe Egypt something.

[HogWashSoup]

White men have guilt? No we dont.

[Dejomel]

At 11/12/08 04:04 AM, HogWashSoup wrote: White men have guilt? No we dont.

Try not to use "we" in this. Thank you very much. I dont regard myself as fucked up as you :)

But seriously, on the topic of Obama being voted president so people can prove their not rascist. That was a fucking stupid thing to do.

Never, ever, in 10000000 years, will any form of discrimination be eradicated. Be it homophobia, racism, elitism. Fucking humans just find another way to mess something up. And some end up feeling guilty about it. Its a cycle ain't it. Our traditional views and modern opinions of what defines a "beautiful" is one example. I believe from now on, you can never find a fixed and united opinion ever again. People used to believe in one fixed religion, and it was animalism (the spirits are in everything). Now look what happened. Nothings likely to change.

[HogWashSoup]

At 11/12/08 04:29 AM, Dejomel wrote:

At 11/12/08 04:04 AM, HogWashSoup wrote: White men have guilt? No we dont.

Try not to use "we" in this. Thank you very much. I dont regard myself as fucked up as you :)

But seriously, on the topic of Obama being voted president so people can prove their not rascist. That was a fucking stupid thing to do.

Maybe they voted him in because they thought he could fix the country up. I mean I am white and I almost never notice he is black. I didnt vote for him cause he is black, I voted for him because I believe he is the right man for the job.

You say they voted for Obama to prove they are not racist? There were a ton of people that voted for him, I doubt you had the time to interview each and every one. Plus, people that try to prove they are not racist ether are racist, were racist, or just stupid.

Me, I am not racist but if someone thinks I am, I dont give a crap.

Never, ever, in 10000000 years, will any form of discrimination be eradicated. Be it homophobia, racism, elitism. Fucking humans just find another way to mess something up. And some end up feeling guilty about it. Its a cycle ain't it. Our traditional views and modern opinions of what defines a "beautiful" is one example. I believe from now on, you can never find a fixed and united opinion ever again. People used to believe in one fixed religion, and it was animalism (the spirits are in everything). Now look what happened. Nothings likely to change.

Yes, racism and such will always be around. As long as there is human stupidity, there will be racism.

[Ynek]

At 11/12/08 06:02 AM, HogWashSoup wrote: As long as there is human stupidity, there will be racism.

"There are only two certainties... The existance of the universe, and human stupidity... And I'm not all that sure about the universe." -Albert Einstein.

[JoS]

At 11/11/08 11:56 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Right, but what you must understand is there is a reason these people are like this. Muslims aren't inherently radical. Back in the Middle Ages they were actually more rational and practical than most Europeans, excelling much further in science and math.

No they are not inherently radical, but there are members of the community who are, and they should be dealt with appropriately. Jews have been mistreated for thousands of years, yet people still denounce Israel's actions. Past injustices do not excuse you from breaking the law. It should never be acceptable to threaten someone else's life.

I agree that these people are completely radical and irrational, but you should look into their past situation and their present situation to understand why they are; and notice which groups of them are not (Morocco, Turkey, much of Egypt). To me it seems quite clear that they are tired of being pushed around, to put it poorly. And to push them around more does not seem like it will be effective in the long run; not to mention that it is very costly.

When you come to another country you should expect that you will need to integrate into that society, not that that society should change to meet your needs. Example, the push for Sharia law in western countries. It is total bullshit and goes against the rule of law that has already been established. What other minority group has demanded such a fundamental change to the society they live in?

[thedo12]

At 11/11/08 11:19 PM, poxpower wrote:
Sometimes it's easier though. For instance, maybe one of my ancestors was a slave to some Spartan. Who cares anymore? Maybe my caveman ancestor stole your mammoth.

I want my fucken mamoth back >:(

but seriously , I was talking more about intangable things , like murder, slavery, discrimination ect:

like, if my grandpa killed your grandpa, but they only now have the evidence to prove it , they shouldnt be able to put me in jail or force me to pay for reperations or some shit.

[FatherTime89]

At 11/12/08 06:02 AM, HogWashSoup wrote:

At 11/12/08 04:29 AM, Dejomel wrote:

At 11/12/08 04:04 AM, HogWashSoup wrote: White men have guilt? No we dont.

Try not to use "we" in this. Thank you very much. I dont regard myself as fucked up as you :)

But seriously, on the topic of Obama being voted president so people can prove their not rascist. That was a fucking stupid thing to do.

Maybe they voted him in because they thought he could fix the country up. I mean I am white and I almost never notice he is black. I didnt vote for him cause he is black, I voted for him because I believe he is the right man for the job.

You say they voted for Obama to prove they are not racist? There were a ton of people that voted for him, I doubt you had the time to interview each and every one. Plus, people that try to prove they are not racist ether are racist, were racist, or just stupid.

I think it's more of the lines of unproven theory than 'I' dead sure about it'. I think some people may have voted strictly for that reason, I don't know that for a fact, but yeah.

[SouthAsian]

At 11/11/08 10:12 PM, JoS wrote:

and that the storming of Jerusalem was matched by a number of Islamic atrocities of greater magnitude.

What were those Muslim atrocities that were on par or greater to what the European christians did such as slaughtering 3,000 muslim men, women, and children when they captured a town or when they actually cannabalised on the Muslim "heathens"?

[JoS]

At 11/12/08 02:43 PM, SouthAsian wrote: What were those Muslim atrocities that were on par or greater to what the European christians did such as slaughtering 3,000 muslim men, women, and children when they captured a town or when they actually cannabalised on the Muslim "heathens"?

The Muslim slaughter of about 1000 Jews in Medina?

Muhammad still does not show mercy, as the men and boys are handcuffed behind their backs and beheaded, and the women and children are enslaved. He takes one of the beautiful, recently "widowed" Jewish women for himself instead of taking the path of mercy.Source

Or the take over of a 1000 year old church in Istanbul and conversion into a Mosque?

Top it all off with the extermination of massive numbers of Hindus.

As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention that the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate)..Source

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 11/12/08 02:43 PM, SouthAsian wrote:

At 11/11/08 10:12 PM, JoS wrote:

What were those Muslim atrocities that were on par or greater to what the European christians did such as slaughtering 3,000 muslim men, women, and children when they captured a town or when they actually cannabalised on the Muslim "heathens"?

People seem to forgot that when these same cities fell back into Moslem hands, the citizens weren't always simply let go. Beyond the few occasions of this, such as the Fall of Jerusalem, the Moslems did the same thing the Crusaders did.

The Fall of Tripoli for example, or Acre, or Antioch or nearly ever Crusader city with the Holy Land.
The wars between the Saracens and the Crusaders was similar on both sides,both sides commited attrocities on each other and themselves as well as the Jews. The only few honorable people to come out of the Crusades were Richard and Saladin.

[Tancrisism]

At 11/12/08 10:25 AM, JoS wrote: No they are not inherently radical, but there are members of the community who are, and they should be dealt with appropriately. Jews have been mistreated for thousands of years, yet people still denounce Israel's actions. Past injustices do not excuse you from breaking the law. It should never be acceptable to threaten someone else's life.

And it isn't acceptable! It isn't acceptable in the slightest. But continuing our policy will only continue these people to act like this, do you understand?

When you come to another country you should expect that you will need to integrate into that society, not that that society should change to meet your needs. Example, the push for Sharia law in western countries. It is total bullshit and goes against the rule of law that has already been established. What other minority group has demanded such a fundamental change to the society they live in?

I have never witnessed this in my country, or in any of the others that I have been to. But I agree fundamentally with what you are saying.

[SouthAsian]

At 11/12/08 03:19 PM, JoS wrote:

At 11/12/08 02:43 PM, SouthAsian wrote:

The Muslim slaughter of about 1000 Jews in Medina?

I hear the number was around 800-900 but okay.

Muhammad still does not show mercy, as the men and boys are handcuffed behind their backs and beheaded, and the women and children are enslaved. He takes one of the beautiful, recently "widowed" Jewish women for himself instead of taking the path of mercy.Source

I read that she disagreed and she was left alone but later she converted to Islam.

After the Battle of the Trench in 627, the Jews of Banu Qurayza were accused of conspiring with the Meccans. Though Qurayza does not appear to have committed any overt hostile act[16] and been overtly correct in their behaviour,[17] they had most likely[17][16] been involved in negotiations with the enemy [16]. [18]" Marco Scholler believes the Banu Qurayza were "openly, probably actively," supporting Meccans and their allies.[19] Nasr writes that it was discovered that Qurayzah had been complicit with the enemy during the Battle. [20] Finally, Welch states that Muslims "discovered, or perhaps became suspected" that the Jews were conspiring with the enemy.[21]"

The Qurayza were fought and then defeated in battle, and then were allowed an arbitrator to decide their punishment. Muhammad suggested Sa'd ibn Mua'dh, a leading man among Aws, whom they believed would judge in their favour, hence agreed to. However, he passed an execution sentence against the Qurayza and 600-900 Qurayza men were beheaded (except for the few who chose to convert to Islam), all women and children enslaved, and their properties confiscated.[22] Watt writes that some of the Arab tribe of Aws wanted to honour their old alliance with Qurayza, are said to asked Muhammad to forgive the Qurayza for their sake as Muhammad had previously forgiven the Nadir for the sake of Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy.

A minority of Muslim and academic scholars reject the incident holding that Ibn Ishaq, the first biographer of Muhammad, supposedly gathered many details of the incident from descendants of the Qurayza Jews themselves. These descendants allegedly embellished or manufactured details of the incident by borrowing from histories of Jewish persecutions during Roman times.[23] Watt, however, finds this argument "not entirely convincing."

Or the take over of a 1000 year old church in Istanbul and conversion into a Mosque?

I see it as one receding power(Byzantines) defeated in the face of a victorious new force(the Ottomans) it was how empires were formed.Borderlines were vyed for and often conceded .
every world power has done it.Of course the Turks wouldn't have that rather magnificent Christian structure in the middle of their mostly Muslim populace!It doesn't represent their Empire.

Top it all off with the extermination of massive numbers of Hindus.

Considerable controversy exists both in scholarly and public opinion about the conversions to Islam typically represented by the following schools of thought:[17]

1.The bulk of Muslims are descendants of migrants from the Iranian plateau or Arabs.[18]
2.Muslims sought conversion through jihad [17]
3.Conversions occurred for non-religious reasons of pragmatism and patronage such as social mobility among the Muslim ruling elite or for relief from taxes[17][18]
4.Conversion was a result of the actions of Sunni Sufi saints and involved a genuine change of heart[17]
5.Conversion came from Buddhists and the en masse conversions of lower castes for social liberation and as a rejection of the oppressive Hindu caste strictures.[18]
6.A combination, initially made under duress followed by a genuine change of heart[17]
7.As a socio-cultural process of diffusion and integration over an extended period of time into the sphere of the dominant Muslim civilization and global polity at large.[18]
Embedded within this lies the concept of Islam as a foreign imposition and Hinduism being a natural condition of the natives who resisted, resulting in the failure of the project to Islamicize the Indian subcontinent and is highly embroiled within the politics of the partition and communalism in India.[17] An estimate of the number of people killed, based on the Muslim chronicles and demographic calculations, was done by K.S. Lal in his book Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, who claimed that between 1000 CE and 1500 CE, the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million.

His work has come under criticism by historians such as Simon Digby (School of Oriental and African Studies) and Irfan Habib for its agenda and lack of accurate data in pre-census times. Lal has responded to these criticisms in later works. Historians such as Will Durant contend that Islam was spread through violence.[19][20] Sir Jadunath Sarkar contends that several Muslim invaders were waging a systematic jihad against Hindus in India to the effect that "Every device short of massacre in cold blood was resorted to in order to convert heathen subjects."[21] Hindus who converted to Islam were not immune to persecution due to the Muslim Caste System in India established by Ziauddin al-Barani in the Fatawa-i Jahandari.[22], where they were regarded as an "Ajlaf" caste and subjected to discrimination by the "Ashraf" castes[23]

Not all Muslim invaders were simply raiders. Later rulers fought on to win kingdoms and stayed to create new ruling dynasties. The practices of these new rulers and their subsequent heirs (some of whom were borne of Hindu wives) varied considerably. While some were uniformly hated, others developed a popular following. According to the memoirs of Ibn Batuta who travelled through Delhi in the 14th century, one of the previous sultans had been especially brutal and was deeply hated by Delhi's population, Batuta's memoirs also indicate that Muslims from the Arab world, Persia and Turkey were often favored with important posts at the royal courts suggesting that locals may have played a somewhat subordinate role in the Delhi administration. The term "Turk" was commonly used to refer to their higher social status. S.A.A. Rizvi (The Wonder That Was India - II), however points to Muhammad bin Tughlaq as not only encouraging locals but promoting artisan groups such as cooks, barbers and gardeners to high administrative posts. In his reign, it is likely that conversions to Islam took place as a means of seeking greater social mobility and improved social standing.[

As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention that the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate)..Source

Disputers of the "Conversion by the Sword Theory" point to the presence of the large Muslim communities found in Southern India, Sri Lanka, Western Burma, Bangladesh, Southern Thailand, Indonesia and Philippines coupled with the distinctive lack of equivalent Muslim communities around the heartland of historical Muslim Empires in the Indian Sub-Continent as refutation to the "Conversion by the Sword Theory". The legacy of the Muslim conquest of South Asia is a hotly debated issue and argued even today. Different population estimates by economics historian Angus Maddison and by Jean-Noël Biraben also indicate that India's population did not decrease between 1000 and 1500, but increased by about 35 million during that time.[24][25]

[JoS]

At 11/12/08 04:05 PM, Tancrisism wrote: And it isn't acceptable! It isn't acceptable in the slightest. But continuing our policy will only continue these people to act like this, do you understand?

So do you think radical clerics should be allowed to preach hate, or that they should be removed fromt heir positions through whatever legal avenues are available (hate speech laws, deportation for non-residents, denial of visas etc). Do you think everyone at the protests for the dnaish cartoons who held up signs and chanted death threats should be charged?

I have never witnessed this in my country, or in any of the others that I have been to. But I agree fundamentally with what you are saying.

Canada
UK

[morefngdbs]

At 11/12/08 05:40 PM, JoS wrote: So do you think radical clerics should be allowed to preach hate, or that they should be removed fromt heir positions through whatever legal avenues are available (hate speech laws, deportation for non-residents, denial of visas etc). Do you think everyone at the protests for the dnaish cartoons who held up signs and chanted death threats should be charged?

;;;;;
I believe if they can be identified, & they were not just protesting but were making death threats etc. they should be charged. Other confrontations where individuals in a crowd of protesters have been identified from Video footage etc. have be used & these people subject to trail by the legal system.
So why not the Danish Protesters ?
I am very much opposed to anyone who uses a position of authority ie: a teacher, religious leader, political leader & any members of any organization from promoting inciting HATE !
I believe they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the Law & should receive the harshest sentence possible IF convicted.

[Korriken]

The only way to handle the crazed extremists that call for Sharia Law in every country and figure they can push, bully, and exploit the politically correct crybabies to get their way is to come down on them hard and fast. prosecute them at every turn if they break any law. When they bitch about "being oppressed" you say, "STOP BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!" get the point across to EVERYONE that we live in a nation under the rule of law and rule of the majority and no piece of shit scumbag with psychotic beliefs is going to come in and remake the system to fit the image they want. In a democracy everyone is equally (more or less) pissed off that the government. No one fully gets their way and thats the way it should be.