Question: How to fight effectivly against Pacific Apartheid?
S. Kolarich
"Krim" wrote:
> You like to protect endangered endemic (by the way why
> endemic?)
'Endemic' as autochtononal, indigenous.
> cultures and on the way you are destroying human rights.
'Human rights' is a juristic concept and, as such, needs:
1) a repressive apparatus which will impose it,
2) a body of people which won't excessively oppose it.
Let's take two examples:
USA. For USA, condition 1) above is satisfied because USA have a mighty
repressive apparatus. It consists of a well developed judicial system, and
strong police forces. Condition 2) is also satisfied - I won't go into
details, I'm sure you all know about them.
Fiji - condition 1) is not satisified because Fiji is a small country where
everybody knows everybody. It's hard to be a policeman there and then try to
arrest another Fijian, when that same Fijian could be your friend or even
your relative. Situation is even worse when we have a Fijian having to
arrest an Indian, and vice versa - a very explosive situation. So
no effective represive apparatus in Fiji. Condition 2) is also not
satisfied, because we have only two well defined peoples which basically can
not stand each other, and there is that polynesian concept of "aina" which
is, at least for me, concept of "Blut and Boden" on steroids.
Conclusion - forget 'human rights' in Fiji, unless you provide at least 1)
there.
-s
S. Kolarich
"Krim" wrote:
> >It goes deeper than that.
> >
> >
> Yes Your racism against Indo Fijians goes really deep. Hope it is not
> genetical :-)
Not true. I have no reason to harbour racism against
Indians. I've met just one Indian in my entire life, and even he was a
cool person. I also know that Indians fare well in IQ tests, have a number
of
successful scientists and enterpreneurs, and are basically non-nonsense
people.
If I really were a racist, then I could say something in the "who cares
about those former Fijian canibals? Screw them, and let Indians prevail"
vein.
Next, being a mathematician/cognitive psychologist/scientist , I could go
even further, and say "who cares about those Fijian savages? I'm sure they
don't have one guy who could add 2 and 2." (For which I'm sure it's not
true.) "Leave Fiji to Indians."
But then, I am not doing this. Fijian culture is so important, no matter how
different it looks, because gradients (differences) are really the magic
ingredient which is running this world. Nivelism is something very
dangerous - because in nivelism we have no differences, therefore no
generative impulses, therefore - death, demise, destruction and extinction.
Tu put all the above in the context, Fijian culture is endangered. It is
endangered with people who do not assimilate into that culture and who do
not resonate with that culture. Rather, those people ignore it, and
attenuate it. As a result we have present problems in Fiji.
> Oh Yes it is true. You and Chaumont are a racists and the fact that
> you don't like this label. You like to see yourselves as protectors of
> endangered cultures (versus endangered human rights) and that is just
> the way all racists like to see themselves.
Spare me.
S. Kolarich
S. Kolarich
"Krim" wrote:
> > This "were born and raised in Fiji" is all very nice and dandy, but it
does
> > not remove the animosity between the two groups.
> >
> >
>
> Why nice and dandy? It is a fact.
> For you the "animosity" between the two groups seems to be the only
> problem.
Are you having comprehension problems? Yes, "animosity" is a fact, and is a
generator for....
> What about ethnic persecution of Fiji Indos by Fijian indigenous
> establishment, Army, Police, and silent majority.
.... these phenomena you listed above.
> > The only solutions are:
> >
> > 1) to separate the two groups, for instance by relocating all the
Fijians
> > to Viti Levu, and Indians to Vanua Levu. Example: Cyprus.
> > Drawbacks: there is no way in hell Fijians will agree with this, and
> > I agree with them.
> >
> Nothing new: You are backing the systematical ethnic persecution of
> Indo Fijians. You may not approve their methods, but their goals, am I
> right?
I'm not backing anything. I qouted an existent situation (Cyprus) as a model
for solving the problem.
S. Kolarich
S. Kolarich
> Following up on your logic:
> The descendants of the English should go back to England.
> The descendants of the Normans should go back to Normandy or
> rather Scandinavia.
> The descendants of the Anglo-Saxons should go back to
> Germany, Denmark or wherever.
> The descendants of the Romans should go back to Rome or rather
> Turkey. The descendants of the Turks should of course go back
> to Mongolia.
Thank you for pointing this out. According to you, what matters is bare
force.
> If I follow this idea far enough we should all go back to Africa
> whence our common ancestors left, except of course for the pure
> blooded descendants of the pioneers, who, probably after being
> pushed off their homelands, moved into absolutely uninhabited lands.
> Life goes on better when we learn to get along.
This "getting along" works in Americas and Australia, which are basically
comprised of multi-culti tutti-frutti countries. The biggest ethnic
aggregations there are ghettos, or Little Somethings (Little Italia, Little
China, etc.), so the distribution of ethic groups is a very fine affair
there - ethnically homogenous territories are measured in just a couple of
miles, at most. So "getting along" is a necessity. The biggest ethnically
homogenous teritory in this group is Quebec, and, guess what - we have
"problems" there. Somehow, they do not want to "get along".
The other group is comprised of Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania. (For
Oceania, we have a very important concept of 'Aina' - land.) The countries
in this group make up a set of well bounded teritories with more-or-less
ethnically homogenous population. In this group we can find the prototypes
of "Blut and Boden" countries - Germany and Japan. Here, whenever there is a
group which stands out from the majority, there are significant political
problems. "Getting along" does not work here.
S. Kolarich
Krim
wrote:
>
>"Krim" wrote:
>
>> You like to protect endangered endemic (by the way why
>> endemic?)
>
>'Endemic' as autochtononal, indigenous.
>
>
ago.
The Indians who live in Fiji came last century. How many generations
exactly have people to live in a place do be regarded as autochtonal
in your view?
>> cultures and on the way you are destroying human rights.
>
>
>'Human rights' is a juristic concept and, as such, needs:
>
>1) a repressive apparatus which will impose it,
Where do you learn that nonsense?
It is in Dictatorships where Human Rights are abused and persecuted
with a repressive apparatus, not the other way round.
>2) a body of people which won't excessively oppose it.
The only body of people who excessively oppose Human Rights are
followers of totalitarian ideologies, fortunately still a minority.
>
>Let's take two examples:
>
>USA. For USA, condition 1) above is satisfied because USA have a mighty
>repressive apparatus. It consists of a well developed judicial system, and
>strong police forces. Condition 2) is also satisfied - I won't go into
>details, I'm sure you all know about them.
>
I cannot follow your logic. You are somewhat fantastic, bombastic...
.
>Fiji - condition 1) is not satisified because Fiji is a small country where
>everybody knows everybody. It's hard to be a policeman there and then try to
>arrest another Fijian, when that same Fijian could be your friend or even
>your relative. Situation is even worse when we have a Fijian having to
>arrest an Indian, and vice versa - a very explosive situation. So
>no effective represive apparatus in Fiji. Condition 2) is also not
>satisfied, because we have only two well defined peoples which basically can
>not stand each other, and there is that polynesian concept of "aina" which
>is, at least for me, concept of "Blut and Boden" on steroids.
>
Better take care that your steroids don't take off with you,
It is hard to be a policeman, everywhere in the world.
You shouldn't become a policeman, if you are not willing to enforce
law, but help criminal friends, maybe relatives to get away with
hostage taking, overthrowing of a democratically elected government,
looting, arson, rape...
>Conclusion - forget 'human rights' in Fiji, unless you provide at least 1)
>there.
>
Try to avoid wrong assumptions, then you don't have to repeat yourself
in wrong conclusions.
Krim
Krim
wrote:
>
>"Krim" wrote:
>
>> >It goes deeper than that.
>> >
>> >
>> Yes Your racism against Indo Fijians goes really deep. Hope it is not
>> genetical :-)
>
>
>
>Not true.
Oh yes you are.
> I have no reason to harbour racism against
>Indians. I've met just one Indian in my entire life, and even he was a
>cool person. I also know that Indians fare well in IQ tests, have a number
>of
>successful scientists and enterpreneurs, and are basically non-nonsense
>people.
>
Like you I cannot see any reasons why to harbour racism. But your
statement about one billion Indians, who are all faring well in IQ
tests shows that you like to make simple generalisations about
ethnicities. That too is called racism.
>If I really were a racist,
You are.
.
>then I could say something in the "who cares
>about those former Fijian canibals? Screw them, and let Indians prevail"
>vein.
>
Your comment is self-speaking
>Next, being a mathematician/cognitive psychologist/scientist ,
I am impressed
>I could go
>even further, and say "who cares about those Fijian savages? I'm sure they
>don't have one guy who could add 2 and 2." (For which I'm sure it's not
>true.) "Leave Fiji to Indians."
>
How benevolent from you
>But then, I am not doing this. Fijian culture is so important, no matter how
>different it looks, because gradients (differences) are really the magic
>ingredient which is running this world.
Do you really think this World is run by Fijian culture? Can you say
that with your authority as scientist - or is it the mathematical
genius, or the psychologist who is talking to us?
>Nivelism is something very
>dangerous - because in nivelism we have no differences, therefore no
>generative impulses, therefore - death, demise, destruction and extinction.
>
I see the End of the World is near
>Tu put all the above in the context, Fijian culture is endangered. It is
>endangered with people who do not assimilate into that culture and who do
>not resonate with that culture. Rather, those people ignore it, and
>attenuate it. As a result we have present problems in Fiji.
>
Promoting cultural diversity is the opposite of Nivelism. If there is
a threat of Nivelism than it is the Preservation of monoculture.
But then this is not the reason for the present problems in Fiji.
That has more to do with greed for money under the pretext of native
rights.
>
>> Oh Yes it is true. You and Chaumont are a racists and the fact that
>> you don't like this label. You like to see yourselves as protectors of
>> endangered cultures (versus endangered human rights) and that is just
>> the way all racists like to see themselves.
>
>
>Spare me.
>
Why? I thought you and Chaumont are both buddies?
Not very nice from you, to let your friend Chaumont stand alone in the
rain
>
>S. Kolarich
>
>
Krim
Krim
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000 04:17:19 +0300, "S. Kolarich" <nonos...@acm.org>
wrote:
>"thi...@pop.sttl.uswest.net" wrote:
>
>> Following up on your logic:
>> The descendants of the English should go back to England.
>> The descendants of the Normans should go back to Normandy or
>> rather Scandinavia.
>> The descendants of the Anglo-Saxons should go back to
>> Germany, Denmark or wherever.
>> The descendants of the Romans should go back to Rome or rather
>> Turkey. The descendants of the Turks should of course go back
>> to Mongolia.
>
snip
>> If I follow this idea far enough we should all go back to Africa
>> whence our common ancestors left, except of course for the pure
>> blooded descendants of the pioneers, who, probably after being
>> pushed off their homelands, moved into absolutely uninhabited lands.
>> Life goes on better when we learn to get along.
>
>
>This "getting along" works in Americas and Australia, which are basically
>comprised of multi-culti tutti-frutti countries.
Where did you learn this nonsense? America and Australia are countries
with democracies, which provide a framework of juridical justice to
every citizen. That is why they get along.
>The biggest ethnic
>aggregations there are ghettos, or Little Somethings (Little Italia, Little
>China, etc.), so the distribution of ethic groups is a very fine affair
>there - ethnically homogenous territories are measured in just a couple of
>miles, at most.
The biggest ethnic aggregations are big american cities, like New York
and Los Angeles with many American citizens, am I right?
>So "getting along" is a necessity. The biggest ethnically
>homogenous teritory in this group is Quebec, and, guess what - we have
>"problems" there.
It depends what you define as ethnically homogenous. But then - if
this is the criteria with which you mesure the well-beeing of a
society..
>Somehow, they do not want to "get along".
>
It is more probably you and your like who do not get along with
others...
>The other group is comprised of Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania. (For
>Oceania, we have a very important concept of 'Aina' - land.)
Oh this is new, America and Australia as opposed to the rest of the
world?
>The countries
>in this group make up a set of well bounded teritories with more-or-less
>ethnically homogenous population.
Where did you learn this nonsense? Europe is ethnically homogenous,
Southafrica, India,etc. all ethnically homogenous? You are again
fantasizing.
> In this group we can find the prototypes
>of "Blut and Boden" countries - Germany and Japan. Here, whenever there is a
>group which stands out from the majority, there are significant political
>problems. "Getting along" does not work here.
>
Where is the source for this nonsense in your head?
Germany is a democratic country and some time ago I read that they
eased it for immigrants to get the German pass.
What you are romantizising about is the laws in the Third Reich under
Adolf Hitler.
If you were stating such balderdash publicly in Germany the german
authorities would probably put you to trial for slandering their state
and constitution.
>
>
>S. Kolarich
>
>
>
>
Krim
S. Kolarich
"Krim" <krim...@gmx.net> wrote
[...]
> >'Endemic' as autochtononal, indigenous.
> >
> >
> The melanesian Fijans came to Fiji as immigrants some hundred years
> ago.
?????
Fiji's first settlers arrived from island Melanesia at least 3,500 years
ago.
All consequent immigrants blended and assimilated well - perhaps because
they came from regions with similar cultures.
Indians - no.
> The Indians who live in Fiji came last century. How many generations
> exactly have people to live in a place do be regarded as autochtonal
> in your view?
This is a good question, but off target. Indians living in Fiji may very
well be autochtonal now, but Fijians are "more autochtonal", so to speak.
Moreover, we have a well defined problem, which is manifested through
interethnic intolerance.
So even if I say "yes, Indians are now autochtonal there", that won't solve
the problem or get us any nearer to its solution.
[...]
> >'Human rights' is a juristic concept and, as such, needs:
> >
> >1) a repressive apparatus which will impose it,
>
> Where do you learn that nonsense?
> It is in Dictatorships where Human Rights are abused and persecuted
> with a repressive apparatus, not the other way round.
So are you saying that police is a charitable institution?
> >2) a body of people which won't excessively oppose it.
>
> The only body of people who excessively oppose Human Rights are
> followers of totalitarian ideologies, fortunately still a minority.
Which country had discriminatory laws only 40 years ago?
And how did that country turn into a bastion of freedom and democracy?
Through some kind of miracle, or through an effective repressive mechanism,
embodied in anti-discriminatory laws?
> >Let's take two examples:
> >
> >USA. For USA, condition 1) above is satisfied because USA have a mighty
> >repressive apparatus. It consists of a well developed judicial system,
and
> >strong police forces. Condition 2) is also satisfied - I won't go into
> >details, I'm sure you all know about them.
> >
>
> I cannot follow your logic. You are somewhat fantastic, bombastic...
Yes. You cannot follow my logic because I am neither from the West, nor from
the East. My balanced logic thus surprises you.
> >Fiji - condition 1) is not satisified because Fiji is a small country
where
> >everybody knows everybody. It's hard to be a policeman there and then try
to
> >arrest another Fijian, when that same Fijian could be your friend or even
> >your relative. Situation is even worse when we have a Fijian having to
> >arrest an Indian, and vice versa - a very explosive situation. So
> >no effective represive apparatus in Fiji. Condition 2) is also not
> >satisfied, because we have only two well defined peoples which basically
can
> >not stand each other, and there is that polynesian concept of "aina"
which
> >is, at least for me, concept of "Blut and Boden" on steroids.
> >
>
> Better take care that your steroids don't take off with you,
Don't you like being taken off?
> It is hard to be a policeman, everywhere in the world.
> You shouldn't become a policeman, if you are not willing to enforce
> law, but help criminal friends, maybe relatives to get away with
> hostage taking, overthrowing of a democratically elected government,
> looting, arson, rape...
This is nice in theory, but usually fails in real life.
Fiji is a small country and people try to get every job they can,
including jobs offered by the government.
> >Conclusion - forget 'human rights' in Fiji, unless you provide at least
1)
> >there.
> >
>
> Try to avoid wrong assumptions, then you don't have to repeat yourself
> in wrong conclusions.
Are you sure my assumptions are wrong?
S. Kolarich
S. Kolarich
"Krim" <krim...@gmx.net> wrote
[...]
> >This "getting along" works in Americas and Australia, which are basically
> >comprised of multi-culti tutti-frutti countries.
>
> Where did you learn this nonsense? America and Australia are countries
> with democracies, which provide a framework of juridical justice to
> every citizen. That is why they get along.
Yes. America and Australia are democracies. But - they are also multi-culti
compounds.
Compared to Japan, USA look like a mosaic & cornucopia of different
cultures.
> >The biggest ethnic
> >aggregations there are ghettos, or Little Somethings (Little Italia,
Little
> >China, etc.), so the distribution of ethic groups is a very fine affair
> >there - ethnically homogenous territories are measured in just a couple
of
> >miles, at most.
>
> The biggest ethnic aggregations are big american cities, like New York
> and Los Angeles with many American citizens, am I right?
You are right. Those are all American - *citizens*.
> >So "getting along" is a necessity. The biggest ethnically
> >homogenous teritory in this group is Quebec, and, guess what - we have
> >"problems" there.
>
> It depends what you define as ethnically homogenous. But then - if
> this is the criteria with which you mesure the well-beeing of a
> society..
No this is not my criteria with which I measure the well-being of a society.
I stated the fact that Quebecois clearly feel they are different from
"Canadians" (which is many things to many people).
> >Somehow, they do not want to "get along".
> >
>
> It is more probably you and your like who do not get along with
> others...
Me, and the majority of people in Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania.
Get rid of your USA-centric views when discussing things over Usenet.
> >The other group is comprised of Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania. (For
> >Oceania, we have a very important concept of 'Aina' - land.)
>
> Oh this is new, America and Australia as opposed to the rest of the
> world?
Not opposed. But definitely different.
>
> >The countries
> >in this group make up a set of well bounded teritories with more-or-less
> >ethnically homogenous population.
>
> Where did you learn this nonsense? Europe is ethnically homogenous,
Europe is a term which designates a set of countries - France, Germany,
Italy, etc.
All those countries are more or less ethnically homogenous.
> Southafrica,
Whites are backing off in Africa.
> India,
India is a subcontinent, with many internal problems.
> etc. all ethnically homogenous? You are again fantasizing.
Are you really sure I am fantasizing?
> > In this group we can find the prototypes
> >of "Blut and Boden" countries - Germany and Japan. Here, whenever there
is a
> >group which stands out from the majority, there are significant political
> >problems. "Getting along" does not work here.
> >
>
> Where is the source for this nonsense in your head?
News I read every day? Books I read?
> Germany is a democratic country and some time ago I read that they
> eased it for immigrants to get the German pass.
Yes, that's why 6 immigrants were blown up last week in Duesseldof. (In
fact, those people were Jews.) And that's why a building inhabited with
strangers was set on fire last week. And that's why...
> What you are romantizising about is the laws in the Third Reich under
> Adolf Hitler.
Not true. I am describing you how the things stand outside of USA, and you
are slinging mud.
> If you were stating such balderdash publicly in Germany the german
> authorities would probably put you to trial for slandering their state
> and constitution.
Then we have a repression apparatus after all?
S. Kolarich
S. Kolarich
"Krim" <krim...@gmx.net> wrote
> Like you I cannot see any reasons why to harbour racism. But your
> statement about one billion Indians, who are all faring well in IQ
> tests shows that you like to make simple generalisations about
> ethnicities. That too is called racism.
Perhaps I was referring to average IQ tests results? Published articles?
> >If I really were a racist,
> You are.
What makes you so sure?
> >then I could say something in the "who cares
> >about those former Fijian canibals? Screw them, and let Indians prevail"
> >vein.
> >
>
> Your comment is self-speaking
Is it?
> >Next, being a mathematician/cognitive psychologist/scientist ,
>
> I am impressed
>
> >I could go
> >even further, and say "who cares about those Fijian savages? I'm sure
they
> >don't have one guy who could add 2 and 2." (For which I'm sure it's not
> >true.) "Leave Fiji to Indians."
> >
>
> How benevolent from you
How profound from you
> >But then, I am not doing this. Fijian culture is so important, no matter
how
> >different it looks, because gradients (differences) are really the magic
> >ingredient which is running this world.
>
> Do you really think this World is run by Fijian culture?
Do you really think this World would be a better place without Fijian
culture?
[...]
> >Nivelism is something very
> >dangerous - because in nivelism we have no differences, therefore no
> >generative impulses, therefore - death, demise, destruction and
extinction.
> >
>
> I see the End of the World is near
So you don't give a f*ck for Fijians after all?
> >Tu put all the above in the context, Fijian culture is endangered. It is
> >endangered with people who do not assimilate into that culture and who do
> >not resonate with that culture. Rather, those people ignore it, and
> >attenuate it. As a result we have present problems in Fiji.
> >
>
>
> Promoting cultural diversity is the opposite of Nivelism. If there is
> a threat of Nivelism than it is the Preservation of monoculture.
> But then this is not the reason for the present problems in Fiji.
> That has more to do with greed for money under the pretext of native
> rights.
"That has more to do with greed for money" - a standard excuse for
mult-culti buffs to suffocate national states.
[...]
> Why? I thought you and Chaumont are both buddies?
Sorry pal, I don't know him.
S. Kolarich
Chaumont Devin
> You like to protect endangered endemic (by the way why
> endemic?)
This kind of stupid rhetoric by disinterested persons can only hurt Fiji,
Fijians, and Melanesia even more.
Chaumont Devin
Eastern Alliance for Freedom
Krim
No Chaumont, I am not disinterested in Fiji, Fijians and Melanesia.
I like their culture and think this peoples have the same right to
exist like everybody else.
Yes I believe every person has a right to stay on this earth,
regardless of his race, not a special ethnical group only.
Protecting Melanesians means to me to help enforcing equal Justice for
Melanesians and all citizens in those countries, where they are
deprived of the most basical Civil Rights.
And I mean Individual Rights, No Race rights,
That is the difference between you and me.
Krim
Krim
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000 22:48:46 +0300, "S. Kolarich" <nonos...@acm.org>
wrote:
>
>"Krim" <krim...@gmx.net> wrote
>>No this is not my criteria with which I measure the well-being of a society.
>I stated the fact that Quebecois clearly feel they are different from
>"Canadians" (which is many things to many people).
>
>
>
>> >Somehow, they do not want to "get along".
>> >
>>
>> It is more probably you and your like who do not get along with
>> others...
>
>Me, and the majority of people in Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania.
>Get rid of your USA-centric views when discussing things over Usenet.
>
Listen Kolarich
You are not entitled to speak for Europeans at all.
If you are entitled to speak for anybody then it is for your self:
A mathematical, psychological and scientifical expert, as you were
praising your own qualification in another thread..
You are obviously living in Croatia, which is a part of former
Yugoslavia, which broke apart after a murderous war.
Not a very good example to follow isn't it?
The rest of Europe does not want to adopt your crazy example
of race hate and Ideal of an ethnical homogenous, "pure" Statel.
So stop to give us tips how to govern our countries and societies.
We have seen enough, where your Yugoslavian recipies of race hate have
led to...
Krim
Chaumont Devin
wrote:
>You talk to too many rednecks. You need to expose yourself to those of
us
>that graduated from Junior High.
Are there any on the Internet as well?
>> all evolution, be it biological, linguistic, or cultural, is based
>> squarely upon diversity. Homogenize everything and you stop evolution
>> dead in its tracks.
>No. Evolution is based on being more successful than your competition.
Without diversity, no one is ever more or less successful than any other.
>Sharks have changed very little over the millenia because they've filled
>their niche so well that there's no pressure to change.
This is true, and this is why the peoples of the South Pacific and the
Americas did not have guns when Europeans arrived. Many Europeans took
this to mean that Europeans were somehow of superior genetic stock or
something like that, but they fail to realize that only about 100
generations ago (which is a mere blink in evolutionary terms) the Romans
were chasing Britons through the swamps, and when they killed or captured
them, they found them wearing iron ornaments as if these were some
precious thing.
Englishmen developed iron manufacture to a science because they had to do
this in order to survive, because ever since the Roman invasion it was
necessary to have good iron or steel to survive. Pacific Islanders were
able to survive just fine without any steel whatsoever, and so there never
was any evolutionary pressure upon them to develop this resource.
Then, during the second half of the second millennium A.D., Pacific Island
peoples came into immediate and violent contact with a full-fledged steel
technology and a lot of steel brought on bulging ships that acted just
like fortresses as far as Pacific Island peoples were concerned. They did
not have time to develop an iron and steel culture as the Britons did, and
so suffered massive losses at European hands, the silly Europeans
believing that this technological advantage they happened to bring with
them was some kind of manifest destiny or mark of racial superiority, or
some crazy thing like that, when most of them probably wouldn't have had a
clue about how to build a gun on his own any more than you would have a
clue how to build an electric lightbulb.
>You assume that cultural "evolution" adheres to the same rules as
>biological.
No I don't. Please read my words. I did not say that these different
kinds of evolution worked by the same rules. What I said was that
diversity was the basis for both. That is all.
>Just look at England. They've been a dominant culture for
>centuries, and yet no one could say that modern England resembles the
>England of 500 years ago, 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago. Culture
>simply cannot become homogenous unless every member of the culture is
>homogeneous as well.
Evolution will occur at a rate corresponding to the available diversity.
Of course there is diversity within cultures, but this has not been
enough, as I have proven by citing the case of the Chinese, who sailed all
the way to Africa, then stopped, returned, and tore up all their charts.
China never became a great naval power again, and thus all further
evolution along those lines ceased in Chinese culture. The very
homogeneity of Chinese culture made this impossible. No, not exactly
IMPOSSIBLE, but highly IMPROBABLE. Now do you understand, or must I get
out my hammer and nails, or give you the Vulcan mind meld? Shish!
>if the Fijians had total
>control of their nation and decided to strip it of its exquisiste
>rainforests, would that be okay?
Under no circumstances.
But here a very important phenomenon comes into play which is VERY
relevant to this entire discussion. All cultures adjust to their
environment over time, and the older the culture, in general, the better
adjusted it will be to its environment. This is simply because if a
culture exists in a particular environment long enough, either it will
figure out how to coexist with that environment or else it will perish.
Unlike what the idiot just said about native Fijians arriving in Fiji a
hundred years ago, as a matter of fact the Fijians are a mixture of
Melanesian and Polynesian stock. The Polynesians swept through about
4,000 years ago reaching all the way to Hawaii and Easter Island, where
they caused some pretty serious extinctions during the two millennia or so
they were in these places. In other words, they were not in these places
long enough to develop a fine-tuned relationship with the land, and nearly
died off completely on Easter Island, which they pretty much totally
destroyed.
As for the Melanesian part, on the other hand, Melanesians have existed in
New Guinea for about as long as Homo sapiens sapiens has existed in
Europe. In other words, they have had many thousands of years over which
to work out and fine-tune their relationship with the land. And this is a
major reason, besides the virtual impenetrability of tropical rainforest
to anything except modern power tools (the chainsaw, etc.) for the fact
that an incredibly lush, green and biologically diverse Melanesia awaited
the arrival of the first Europeans.
But everywhere White men have gone in the tropics, they have caused
serious problems. Just go to Fiji today, and instead of the fantastically
rich and diverse primeval rainforests you will see mile after mile of
loathsome sugarcane monoculture. This is partly because they came from a
radically different kind of environment, partly because they had no love
whatsoever for the people or the land and so did not care what they
spoiled, partly because they were totally misguided, but mostly because
they were driven by unbridled greed.
>Ah, so the Indians *tricked* the Fijians into letting the Indians get
>*elected* into office. Those sneaky Indians. Maybe Gore should call up
>their campaign managers to see if they can work their mojo on his
campaign.
You see, once again you are totally blinded, and although you may deny
this out of hand, you will go right back immediately to comparing Fiji
with the United States at every chance. Fiji is NOT the United States,
nor is there any reason on earth why it should be forced to emulate United
States politics in any shape or form. You are totally blinded by your own
US chauvanism, so much so that you fail to see the reality of other
peoples and other lands completely.
So I will conclude this message by returning at once to my original
hyperbolic statement: If somebody doesn't like cocacola, beer, and
rocknroll, then he simply should be denied all his rights and have America
shoved down his throat because he is something less than 100% human, and
needs much work--AMERICAN work--to be human.
Please pardon me (barf, barf), but I really do believe this stinks pretty
bad, and oughta be fixed--not the Fijian part, but the American desire to
force everybody else into the groove of American mainstreaming. It's
pretty disgusting and sick, and I don't think any culture or race should
be allowed to engage in this kind of game. And my reason for thinking
this is that I happen to understand something of the process of human
evolution, and the essential and indispensible power of human diversity.
This isn't some kind of hobby, as a lot of poorly educated Western people
may believe. It is essential to the survival of the whole human race.
Just like inbreeding produces gimps, the destruction of all cultures not
like our own will produce intellectual and spiritual depravity and vacuum.
Just sit down and think honestly and openly about my words for a few
minutes, and you will probably see what I mean.
S. Kolarich
"Krim" <krim...@gmx.net> wrote
> Listen Kolarich
Listen "Krim"
> You are not entitled to speak for Europeans at all.
I'm not speaking for Europeans at all.
> If you are entitled to speak for anybody then it is for your self:
I am speaking for myself, as are most people on the Usenet.
> A mathematical, psychological and scientifical expert, as you were
> praising your own qualification in another thread..
By the way, three published articles for now, and going.
> You are obviously living in Croatia, which is a part of former
> Yugoslavia, which broke apart after a murderous war.
> Not a very good example to follow isn't it?
I'm not speaking about following an example, I'm stating the facts.
Ever heard of 'argumentum ad hominem"?
> The rest of Europe does not want to adopt your crazy example
> of race hate and Ideal of an ethnical homogenous, "pure" Statel.
Who mentioned race hate? And you sound as if "ethnically homogenous" is
something intrisincally bad? Almost all countries in Europe, Asia and Africa
are ethnically homogenuous. Are all those countries evil? Is Japan or
England evil?
> So stop to give us tips how to govern our countries and societies.
So stop giving me tips how to voice my opinion.
> We have seen enough, where your Yugoslavian recipies of race hate have
> led to...
I'm talking about the desire of people to live on their own, as is clearly
demonstrated in the case(s) of Northern Irish, Basques, Quebecois, Kurds,
East Timoreans, Palestinians (declaring their independence really soon), ex
Yu, ex Czechoslovakia, ex USSR, etc, etc.
-s
Chaumont Devin
>Protecting Melanesians means to me to help enforcing equal Justice for
>Melanesians and all citizens in those countries, where they are
>deprived of the most basical Civil Rights.
>And I mean Individual Rights, No Race rights,
>That is the difference between you and me.
Yes, there is this essential difference between us, because besides basic
human rights, I also believe in the right to possess and hold property
without having it wrenched away, and this is especially true for native
homelands. To give you a crude example of what I mean, suppose you and I
have equal human rights, but I am some kind of drifter and you have a
home, and I decide to come live with you. You may not really want me to
do this, but I move right in and make a place on the floor of your bedroom
by your bed. And when it is time to take my bath, I just walk into your
shower, draw shut your curtain, and use your bathsoap. Then I brush my
teeth with your toothbrush and toothpaste. Then I go down to your kitchen
and look in your cupboard for food. Finally you think you can no longer
stand what I am doing, and so you try to talk to the British about the
problem, but they clearly do not understand, so you try the United
Nations, and they do not have time, then the Americans, etc. Although you
are a fine person, and would never think of doing this under normal
circumstances, you may slowly start thinking about murder weapons and
plastic bags, and then someday when I am not watching ... Well, you know
the rest. So although I might have the same rights as you as a human
being, I believe I must still respect your person, your family, your
personal, cultural, and racial identity, your property, your connection
(if any) to the land, etc. I honestly believe you have a right to these
things of yours, and to go on living your life with them as they were
undisturbed and unmolested.
Now do you understand?
With best regards from Honolulu,
S. Kolarich
Krim
Please stay on-topic.
What does your fantasy of molesting other people in their bathroom
and taking away their toothbrush have to
to with Civil Rights for Fijian citizens of Indian, Melanesian and
Polynesian origin?
Best regards
Krim