What racism is the acceptible sort?
Kerry
But really, stop the apoligism - this is racism Hone. And Margaret.
And Pita. And everyone who tries to explain away outrageous racism
because of the 'colour' of the person making the comment.
An institutionalised racist
Professor Mutu said it was important that Mr Harawira's comments were
taken in context. Her first husband was Pakeha and her mother is
English and Scottish. But she defended the mindset of those Maori who
continued to feel prejudice against Pakeha. "They know that when these
[Pakeha] kids come in, they bring Pakeha attitudes. And not all Pakeha
are bad - you'll always hear about a lovely Pakeha daughter-in-law.
But when they first come in, [the Maori family] are suspicious - and
those suspicions are grounded."
I don't mind so much about Hone Harawira. As the Mr Rudman observes,
he is old and in the way, a relic of an unkinder past. As Mr George
reveals, Mr Harawira and he have much in common.
No, it is Professor Mutu who bothers me. She has a real job, a
position of responsibility at the University in which I have the
honour of being a student. Had she been Pakeha, she would have been
sacked for making similar comments about Maori. Professor Paul
Buchanan was sacked (unfairly) for less.
Let's face it, Professor Mutu is a racist. Of course, many white folks
will not face it. Instead they will contort themselves to avoid the
fact, claiming (as some do) that it is only white folks who can be
racist, or that we have to view such bile in some wider context that
exonerates the Professor from responsibility. But no, she is a Racist.
And something of a sexist as well - those lovely daughters-in-law. And
what are the Pakeha attitudes to which she objects - the propensity to
form relationships with people of other races, the unwillingness to
preserve bloodlines? I think we should be told.
And she should be sacked. We don't want her kind around here."
http://fundypost.blogspot.com/2010/08/institutionalised-racist.html
Add the that Macdoctor
"Dear Mr. Sharples
I judge from your recent remarks that you are not aware of the
definition of the word racist. In the interests of helping you
understand your colleague Hone Harawira, I thought I might help you
out:
racism
“Pronunciation:/ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/
noun [mass noun]
“the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics,
abilities, or qualities specific to that race , especially so as to
distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races
•prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of
a different race based on such a belief:
In case you are still puzzled, let me spell it out for you.
Hone Harawira is a racist.
If you think what he said was…
•Amusing
•Normal
•“Just a view point”
•Justifiable
…then that makes you a racist as well."
http://www.macdoctor.co.nz/2010/08/05/racists/comment-page-1/#comment-11441
Come on New Zealand, stop pussy footing around.
Racism. That's what it is
And yet somehow more foregivable...
How patronising.
WD
>
> Come on New Zealand, stop pussy footing around.
>
> Racism. That's what it is
>
> And yet somehow more foregivable...
>
> How patronising.
"a belief that ALL members...."
There is an important distinction between racism and prejudice.
Racism is where one believes that certain characteristics (of an
inferior or superior quality) are *inherent* in members of that race.
However, if you simply believe certain characteristics are *more
likely* in another race then is that racist? I would say no. One
could believe that young Maori males are *more likely* to be
criminals. That doesn't make one a racist, that's simply stating a
fact.
On the face of it, I don't see what's so outrageous about Hone's
comments. While I'm not sure as to his exact reasoning it's not
uncommon (or unreasonable) for parents to want their children to marry
someone within the same cultural sphere as their family. How many
here would want their daughters marrying an Arab? Would anyone feel
uncomfortable at all? Any uncomfortableness when the husband wants to
take his wife back to Saudi Arabia? I'm sure there are those that
would say "nope, no uncomfortableness here", but there is certainly
reason to be uncomfortable, not least of which is the reality that
Arabs are likely to be Muslim and the Muslim world has a poor track
record when it comes to treatment of women. The laws in countries
like Saudia Arabia are archaic and allow women to be treated as if
they were property. Just being Arab doesn't necessarily mean he is a
women hating prick, but is it more likely?
That's an extreme example of course, but it illustrates the fact that
there can naturally be a degree of uncomfortableness when one's
daughter wishes to marry into another culture. In terms of Pakeha and
Maori there is somewhat of a cultural divide. It's nothing like the
divide between the West and the Arab world, but there are differences
nonetheless. Differences in attitudes, beliefs etc. It's likely
these cultural differences are what concern Hone and not the fact that
one's skin is a certain colour. Indeed there are plenty of Maori who
are very white looking (like myself).
Yes there is a double standard when anyone says anything about Maori.
But that doesn't make Hone wrong for wanting his daughter to marry
within the cultural sphere he prefers. It doesn't make him wrong for
preferring his own culture over that of another.
Weihana.
bubba ray
>
> But really, stop the apoligism - this is racism Hone. And Margaret.
> And Pita. And everyone who tries to explain away outrageous racism
> because of the 'colour' of the person making the comment.
>
Rousseau 'noble savage' racism is acceptable.
J.Wilson
Geopelia
English and Welsh people are both white, but among the Welsh speaking Welsh
I was regarded as (and sometimes called) a "godless Saxon". I never saw a
marriage between English and Welsh among the farming families where I
worked, sixty years ago.
And between English and Irish, religion would be the most important thing to
consider.
I was surprised to find animosity between English people from the North and
South of England too, when I started work.
Ted
What's your view on this sentiment (quoted by Kerry):
"I don't mind so much about Hone Harawira... No, it is Professor Mutu
who bothers me.. .Let's face it, Professor Mutu is a racist." ?
WD
My view is that both the Professor and Hone *may* be racist. But
technically I don't see anything explicitly racist, at least in what
Kerry posted. Prejudice is different to racism and I think we all
make liars of ourselves if we pretend that we are not prejudiced. Who
watches Police 10/7 and doesn't expect the next crim to be a "young
male, Maori or Polynesian"? Who walks down the street at night to see
a young group of Maori teenagers wearing hoodies and doesn't think..
gee, should I cross the road?
On top of that you've also got to consider the importance of culture.
I don't think anyone should be ashamed simply because they prefer
their own culture over that of another and that they prefer their sons
and daughters to marry someone of the same culture rather than one
that is alien to them.
Weihana.
John Cawston
Is it racism.. or is it elitism?
JC
>
>
> Weihana.
Brian Dooley
>Culturism is more important than racism.
>
>English and Welsh people are both white, but among the Welsh speaking Welsh
>I was regarded as (and sometimes called) a "godless Saxon". I never saw a
>marriage between English and Welsh among the farming families where I
>worked, sixty years ago.
>
But how would they ever have got together?
>And between English and Irish, religion would be the most important thing to
>consider.
However it didn't stop my parents.
>
>I was surprised to find animosity between English people from the North and
>South of England too, when I started work.
That's because they all talk funny.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Culturism is more important than racism.
You mean, the belief that cultures are not equal?
I don’t believe that all cultures are equal.
Kay Neich
about a whole uni dept where i know others are really trying to
contribute research of merit. inidividuals can end up pulling us all
into their own narrowness.
Weihana, some interesting pts youve raised, but a few funny
assumptions too. i used to play wt the culture/racial distinction,
then just became plain bored <shrug>.
cheers
Ted
OK
> Prejudice is different to racism and I think we all
> make liars of ourselves if we pretend that we are not prejudiced.
Yes, except that I would say "preference" rather than "prejudice".
You may have a preference for some racial or cultural characteristic -
that's your business and it's private. Racism is public. It is one
of the things used in the politics of division.
> Who
> watches Police 10/7 and doesn't expect the next crim to be a "young
> male, Maori or Polynesian"? Who walks down the street at night to see
> a young group of Maori teenagers wearing hoodies and doesn't think..
> gee, should I cross the road?
Does the group of teenagers need to be Maori though?
Ted
A bit of both, I think.
WD
I say prejudiced because I'm talking about making judgments about
people on limited information (e.g. their appearance). It's not
simply about personal preference but it's about judging people in
various situations based on prejudice. Some cases it's fair enough,
in other cases maybe we have a duty to find out more before we judge
(e.g. employment).
In Hone's case I'm not sure he's saying he wouldn't try to get to know
a pekaha trying to marry his daughter rather he's simply acknowledging
his prejudice. On the other hand would the pakeha son in law want to
get to know Hone? hmmmmm.. :-)
>
> > Who
> > watches Police 10/7 and doesn't expect the next crim to be a "young
> > male, Maori or Polynesian"? Who walks down the street at night to see
> > a young group of Maori teenagers wearing hoodies and doesn't think..
> > gee, should I cross the road?
>
> Does the group of teenagers need to be Maori though?
Not necessarily, but it's all about fitting a profile. There are a
number of factors which make up our assessment of people based on
their appearance and if they were white teenagers with shaven heads
maybe the inference would be that they were skinheads or whatever.
But just because there are other factors doesn't mean that race also
isn't a factor, it's just not the only factor.
Weihana.
Geopelia
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
news:i3tsqf$3uc$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Geopelia
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
news:i3tsqf$3uc$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
It rather depends what is meant by "equal". e.g.equal in law, or in values
etc?
People would probably think that their own culture is the best.
But while people of another race but the same culture may get along well,
people of opposing cultures may not.
WD
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
>
> news:i3tsqf$3uc$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
>
> >> Culturism is more important than racism.
>
> > You mean, the belief that cultures are not equal?
>
> > I don't believe that all cultures are equal.
>
> It rather depends what is meant by "equal". e.g.equal in law, or in values
> etc?
>
> People would probably think that their own culture is the best.
> But while people of another race but the same culture may get along well,
> people of opposing cultures may not.
Though cultures are not necessarily equal in law either. A culture
can be anything after all. Some cultures think it's okay to kill your
wife if she "dishonors" you. Some think that races must be
segregated. The law necessarily regulates our actions in one way or
another and therefore promotes certain cultures over others. When
people talk of tolerance of other cultures they're really talking
about a specific set of 'acceptable' cultures which we are all
familiar and comfortable with.
Weihana.
Geopelia
"Brian Dooley" <bri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:9gn46657amm7fd3c1...@4ax.com...
>
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:26:58 +1200, "Geopelia"
> <phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>Culturism is more important than racism.
>>
>>English and Welsh people are both white, but among the Welsh speaking
>>Welsh
>>I was regarded as (and sometimes called) a "godless Saxon". I never saw a
>>marriage between English and Welsh among the farming families where I
>>worked, sixty years ago.
>>
> But how would they ever have got together?
There were English people working in Wales, in the Forces and in the Land
Army, and probably plenty in the cities.
But some Welsh girls married Germans, who had been prisoners of war and
stayed on after the war ended.
Geopelia
"WD" <tuar...@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
news:0835804d-1761-43fb...@x20g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Weihana.
That's right. People must obey the laws of the country they live in.
But how far can the law go to accommodate various cultures? That is a
problem.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
> news:i3tsqf$3uc$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
>> In message <i3sjnn$9s3$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Geopelia wrote:
>>
>>> Culturism is more important than racism.
>>
>> You mean, the belief that cultures are not equal?
>>
>> I don't believe that all cultures are equal.
>
> It rather depends what is meant by "equal". e.g.equal in law, or in values
> etc?
“Equal” as in “desirable”, as in “we could learn something from them”.
> People would probably think that their own culture is the best.
The only thing that makes my culture the best is the fact that it has been
exposed to so many others along the way, and had to pick up things from
them.
> But while people of another race but the same culture may get along well,
> people of opposing cultures may not.
Which is where learning from other cultures comes in.
Geopelia
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
We should also include historical cultures that have now gone, e.g.the
Romans and the Athenians may have much to teach us.
Children use to pick up some knowledge of those cultures (rather sanitized!)
while studying their languages. Now many rely on books, TV and films.
Brian Dooley
Stick the buggers in the army and they'll learn to get along.
Kay Neich
> > > Culture manifests itself differently in each of us as individuals too......
>
> and i don't think it's all about ethnicity. one thing i dont like is
> labelling people as antisocial risks just coz theyve deviated from
> whatever their culture is said to be. a deviation does not necessarily
> turn someone into an irresponsible, shady and lost character. in
> short, ........... arrgh.......... i had something to say about excuses for
> babykillers, and also how we're just going back and forth along with the actual set
> sort of ways, not looking at the possible while tryna help those who need to live more sensibly than what they have been.
>
> blablabla
>
>
<the above was edited only enough to tie up loose ends>
later
k
Kay Neich
i guess i'm just an ethology student, whereby learning from another
being IS culture. i dunno what ethnicity is....... dancing w spears
and maypoles, maybe.... ask dad. to do w the biohistorical pathway of
cultural transmission in humans, i guess...
too complex to treat this lightly all the time tho'. culture indeed
involves perceptions, biases and ideologies, good, bad and ugly.
ideology is just the more conscious guff, undermines itself
continuously, and to know as much probably helps.
my university needs to look at itself tho', i'd agree. advocates only
need ideology, and can't see what's wrong with that.
Kay Neich
> On , , Wed, 11 Aug 2010 03:25:03 -0700 (PDT), Re: What racism is the acceptible
> sort?, Kay Neich <k.ne...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
> > i removed my first post in this thread coz i ended up saying things
> >about a whole uni dept where i know others are really trying to
> >contribute research of merit. inidividuals can end up pulling us all
> >into their own narrowness.
>
>
> --
> "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
> to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
> Anatole France.
that's ok. not a worry at all there.
Geopelia
"Friar Scooter" <5c0...@gomail.com> wrote in message
news:8uc766hru2fvd6qbu...@4ax.com...
> On , , Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:57:25 +1200, Re: What racism is the acceptible
> sort?,
> "Geopelia" <phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Brian Dooley" <bri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>>news:9gn46657amm7fd3c1...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:26:58 +1200, "Geopelia"
>>> <phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Culturism is more important than racism.
>>>>
>>>>English and Welsh people are both white, but among the Welsh speaking
>>>>Welsh
>>>>I was regarded as (and sometimes called) a "godless Saxon". I never saw
>>>>a
>>>>marriage between English and Welsh among the farming families where I
>>>>worked, sixty years ago.
>>>>
>>> But how would they ever have got together?
>>
>>There were English people working in Wales, in the Forces and in the Land
>>Army, and probably plenty in the cities.
>>But some Welsh girls married Germans, who had been prisoners of war and
>>stayed on after the war ended.
>
Of course not, the war had been over for a while and the Germans had been
working on Welsh farms for a long time.
They were just ordinary soldiers, not the fanatical Nazis.
It would have been different if the Germans had invaded, like Occupied
France.
Geopelia
"Kay Neich" <k.n...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:8f5674c1-4225-4283...@h17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
--------------------
The best way to learn about other cultures is to work among the people as
one of themselves, not as a student or (heaven help us!) a do-gooder.
Factory and farm work used to be very good for that. It' was an enjoyable
life too, no worries or responsibilities except to earn the weekly wage.
Joining the army in Britain was much the same years ago, before all the
technology of today.
But now alas the days when one could just walk into a job like that have
gone.
Geopelia
Quite right!
Kay Neich
> "Kay Neich" <k.ne...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> Factory and farm work used to be very good for that. It' was an enjoyable
> life too, no worries or responsibilities except to earn the weekly wage.
> Joining the army in Britain was much the same years ago, before all the
> technology of today.
>
> But now alas the days when one could just walk into a job like that have
>
> - Show quoted text -
yeah, but still you can get ones who worked among the so-called other
their whole lives, and their lack of understanding is still shocking!
Geopelia
> Factory and farm work used to be very good for that. It was an enjoyable
> life too, no worries or responsibilities except to earn the weekly wage.
> Joining the army in Britain was much the same years ago, before all the
> technology of today.
>
> But now alas the days when one could just walk into a job like that have
> gone.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
yeah, but still you can get ones who worked among the so-called other
their whole lives, and their lack of understanding is still shocking!
--------------
I think it depends whether they saw themselves as just one of the mob, or as
observers.
Were they accepted as fellow workers, or viewed with suspicion?
Kay Neich
>
> - Show quoted text
i see where youre coming from. yeah, which party is 'they' ;-) i've
seen people think they're just getting along splendidly, and the other
party just gritting teeth.
the distinction between practice and theory blends in too much for me
to fervently go along with pragmatics. one becomes the other, and
that's part of the fun, indeed, if we just let go a bit.
cheers Geo,
k
Brian Dooley
Brian Dooley
>On , , Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:57:25 +1200, Re: What racism is the acceptible sort?,
>"Geopelia" <phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Brian Dooley" <bri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>>news:9gn46657amm7fd3c1...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:26:58 +1200, "Geopelia"
>>> <phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Culturism is more important than racism.
>>>>
>>>>English and Welsh people are both white, but among the Welsh speaking
>>>>Welsh
>>>>I was regarded as (and sometimes called) a "godless Saxon". I never saw a
>>>>marriage between English and Welsh among the farming families where I
>>>>worked, sixty years ago.
>>>>
>>> But how would they ever have got together?
>>
>>There were English people working in Wales, in the Forces and in the Land
>>Army, and probably plenty in the cities.
>>But some Welsh girls married Germans, who had been prisoners of war and
>>stayed on after the war ended.
>
>Wouldn't they have had their heads shaven and then tarred and feathered?
The British don't do that kind of thing. Who else would say to a
re-captured German prisoner, "Hello Fritz - fancy a cup of tea"?
Kay Neich
> usual confusion of relationships...
>
> ----------
>
> hahahaha. was bloody typing the last post out, and our cleaner from
> the adhb was just asking me if Dad really was a nz palagi, coz,
> apparently, he seems too nice...
>
> it'd hurt if i let it, coz what about the rest of my family?
>
> but, yeah, was thinking bout Hone & Margaret this morning. felt a bit
> of a churn in my stomach, actually. it's their cursory, "oh, if pakeha
> were honest re who their kids marry..."
>
> they're creeps.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
fukn terrible spelling. i was rushing. sorry.
still paraphrasing here too...
Geopelia
Most English and German lads would rather play football together than shoot
each other.
Let's hope no governments ever make them fight again.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> "Brian Dooley" <bri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:f47766l0oc5f13m0n...@4ax.com...
>>>
>> Stick the buggers in the army and they'll learn to get along.
>
> Quite right!
Until they commit a My Lai or an Abu Ghraib, or a Katyn ...
Geopelia
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
The officers are responsible for those, the other ranks just carry out the
orders.
Actually that sort of thing would probably bind the men closer together.
Who else could understand what they did? Not the average civilian.
These days they would be expected to refuse an "illegal order". Some hopes!
What would happen to them if they did refuse?
Whoever brought in that regulation is crazy.
Geopelia
Kay Neich wrote:
> On Aug 13, 11:26 pm, "Geopelia" <phildo...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
> > message
> >
> > news:i4336i$4hb$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >
> > > In message <i40nj4$j2...@news.eternal-september.org>, Geopelia wrote:
> >
> > >> "Brian Dooley" <bria...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> > >>news:f47766l0oc5f13m0n...@4ax.com...
> >
> > >>> Stick the buggers in the army and they'll learn to get along.
> >
> > >> Quite right!
> >
> > > Until they commit a My Lai or an Abu Ghraib, or a Katyn ...
> >
> > The officers are responsible for those, the other ranks just carry out
> > the
> > ge orders.
> > Actually that sort of thing would probably bind the men closer together.
> > Who else could understand what they did? Not the average civilian.
> >
> > These days they would be expected to refuse an "illegal order". Some
> > hopes!
> > What would happen to them if they did refuse?
> > Whoever brought in that regulation is crazy.
>
> oh shit Geo, i've just clicked a link accidently on google groups and
> it's recorded you as spam. um, being called to a big special breakfast
> w dad... will come back soon as to sort out...a zillion, zillion
> apologies.
Don't worry, it's still appearing here. I expect it will be in your spam
file, if you want to find my ramblings on.
I suppose I'd better check on Google, I don't use it much for the
newsgroups.
Geopelia
"Kay Neich" <k.n...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:eeafe326-e372-464a...@p22g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Kay Neich wrote:
> On Aug 13, 11:26 pm, "Geopelia" <phildo...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
> > message
> >
> > news:i4336i$4hb$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >
> > > In message <i40nj4$j2...@news.eternal-september.org>, Geopelia wrote:
> >
> > >> "Brian Dooley" <bria...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> > >>news:f47766l0oc5f13m0n...@4ax.com...
> >
> > >>> Stick the buggers in the army and they'll learn to get along.
> >
> > >> Quite right!
> >
> > > Until they commit a My Lai or an Abu Ghraib, or a Katyn ...
> >
> > The officers are responsible for those, the other ranks just carry out
> > the
> > ge orders.
> > Actually that sort of thing would probably bind the men closer together.
> > Who else could understand what they did? Not the average civilian.
> >
> > These days they would be expected to refuse an "illegal order". Some
> > hopes!
> > What would happen to them if they did refuse?
> > Whoever brought in that regulation is crazy.
>
> oh shit Geo, i've just clicked a link accidently on google groups and
> it's recorded you as spam. um, being called to a big special breakfast
> w dad... will come back soon as to sort out...a zillion, zillion
> apologies.
My posts still seem to be on google on my computer, though you might have
lost them.
Kay Neich
> "Kay Neich" <k.ne...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
all fine now. i wrote to google just to explain what happened, and it
seems there'll be no repercussions. please notify me if ever there
are though, and i'll get onto it. almost sent more correspondence
about this to the group, but it seems all fixed, i got sick of the way
i can go on, so i deleted my first notification of this problem to the
group along with other posts of mine instead. i think everything has
worked out.
thanks and cheers again,
Kay
Brian Dooley
If they do commit an atrocity it will be an additional reason for
getting along together.
Brian Dooley
Nothing much, however during WWII in the German forces the
underlings would probably have been shot. And today in North
Korea or similar much the same.
>Whoever brought in that regulation is crazy.
>
It ha been so since long before my time - and yours.
Geopelia
Of course. And something to boast about when they all get drunk.
But I suppose it depends on how they see their victims.
As something less than really human, that don't matter?
Geopelia
?? I thought it was brought in recently. I was never told anything about
refusing an illegal order.
Were you?
Robin Halligan
> On Aug 12, 12:49 am, "Geopelia" <phildo...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
>>
>> news:i3tsqf$3uc$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>
>>> In message <i3sjnn$9s...@news.eternal-september.org>, Geopelia wrote:
>>
>>>> Culturism is more important than racism.
>>
>>> You mean, the belief that cultures are not equal?
>>
>>> I don't believe that all cultures are equal.
>>
>> It rather depends what is meant by "equal". e.g.equal in law, or in values
>> etc?
>>
>> People would probably think that their own culture is the best.
>> But while people of another race but the same culture may get along well,
>> people of opposing cultures may not.
>
> Though cultures are not necessarily equal in law either. A culture
> can be anything after all. Some cultures think it's okay to kill your
> wife if she "dishonors" you. Some think that races must be
> segregated. The law necessarily regulates our actions in one way or
> another and therefore promotes certain cultures over others. When
> people talk of tolerance of other cultures they're really talking
> about a specific set of 'acceptable' cultures which we are all
> familiar and comfortable with.
>
> Weihana.
That's because those "other" cultures are heathen barbarians and don't know
how normal people behave :).
Brian Dooley
>
>"Brian Dooley" <bri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>news:5vjc665a8tpd49unn...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:27:46 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>> <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <i40nj4$j2t$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Geopelia wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Brian Dooley" <bri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>>>> news:f47766l0oc5f13m0n...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>> Stick the buggers in the army and they'll learn to get along.
>>>>
>>>> Quite right!
>>>
>>>Until they commit a My Lai or an Abu Ghraib, or a Katyn ...
>>
>> If they do commit an atrocity it will be an additional reason for
>> getting along together.
>
>Of course. And something to boast about when they all get drunk.
>But I suppose it depends on how they see their victims.
>As something less than really human, that don't matter?
>
Surely not us British.
Brian Dooley
Perhaps they didn't bother with the girls, and anyway what could
you have been illegal with?
Geopelia
Nothing I can think of in the course of our normal duties.
"Put the gun on target to blow up that fishing boat!" is highly unlikely.
I suppose they could have tried to involve innocent girls in some bit of
petty thieving going on, but that would be on the catering
or the clerical side.
Geopelia
Let's hope not, anyway. Dropping bombs doesn't count as the bomber crews
didn't see the victims, and were suppose to aim at military targets.
Should someone now refuse to drop, or shoot, a nuclear missile now we know
what will happen to hundreds of civilians?
Brian Dooley
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 15:56:11 +1200, "Geopelia"
<phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
Which is a bit different from, "Befehl ist befehl".
Geopelia
> On , , Sat, 14 Aug 2010 23:18:08 +1200, Re: What racism is the acceptible
> sort?,
> "Geopelia" <phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Brian Dooley" <bri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>>news:5vjc665a8tpd49unn...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:27:46 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>> <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <i40nj4$j2t$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Geopelia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Brian Dooley" <bri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>>>>> news:f47766l0oc5f13m0n...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stick the buggers in the army and they'll learn to get along.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite right!
>>>>
>>>>Until they commit a My Lai or an Abu Ghraib, or a Katyn ...
>>>
>>> If they do commit an atrocity it will be an additional reason for
>>> getting along together.
>>
>>Of course. And something to boast about when they all get drunk.
>>But I suppose it depends on how they see their victims.
>>As something less than really human, that don't matter?
>
> he had
> been a soldier but wasn't aware of where or for what until one day he told
> me he
> had fought as a mercenary under Mike Hoare in 5 Commando. Before that he
> had
> been in the Australian army. After he few drinks when he was really
> relaxed, he
> would talk of what had happened. As you said it was a tremendous bonding
> experience especially after he showed me pictures of the atrocities that
> had
> been performed, posing with severed heads, gutted bodies, dismembered
> bodies
> etc. He never admitted to any of them himself, only that he had been there
> while
> they occurred and he was in the photos to prove his loyalty to the group.
> I
> guess they did see the natives as below human especially as he described
> what
> they did to their enemies, Simbas I think they were. He said the
> mercenaries
> atrocities were more of a "tit for tat" reaction.
>
If the enemy commits atrocities why not commit some back?
The difficulty would be making sure you got the right culprits though.
Ted
> "Friar Scooter" <5c00...@gomail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4gpe66977gqn3eeib...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On , , Sat, 14 Aug 2010 23:18:08 +1200, Re: What racism is the acceptible
> > sort?,
>
> >>"Brian Dooley" <bria...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> >>news:5vjc665a8tpd49unn...@4ax.com...
>
> >>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:27:46 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> >>> <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
>
> >>>>> "Brian Dooley" <bria...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
Religion, perhaps:
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for
a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone
strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if
someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak
as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who
wants to borrow from you."
> The difficulty would be making sure you got the right culprits though.
... and if you got the wrong culprits, or maybe there were in fact no
culprits and it was all invented, then you perpetuate a cycle of
retribution. A method often resorted to by the evil.
Geopelia
"Ted" <ted....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:108e1765-eb78-4862...@n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Religion, perhaps:
-----------------
Consider the circumstances. Palestine was a Roman province. The Romans had
rules for the "natives" (Jews) that superseded the laws of Moses (An eye for
an eye etc)
A man could be made to go one mile with a Roman who required it, probably to
carry some of his gear.
And it would not be wise to resist anything a Roman did. You could end up
crucified.
--------------------
> The difficulty would be making sure you got the right culprits though.
... and if you got the wrong culprits, or maybe there were in fact no
culprits and it was all invented, then you perpetuate a cycle of
retribution. A method often resorted to by the evil.
----------------
But it would show those who might be tempted to become culprits that it
certainly would not pay!
ChristianKnight
>
> ... and if you got the wrong culprits, or maybe there were in fact no
> culprits and it was all invented, then you perpetuate a cycle of
>
> - Show quoted text -
Very Good reference.
Christ's love
ChristianKnight
> "Ted" <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
My interpretation is if possible be humble alert and retain dignity
stay alive and grow stronger healthier swifter from the experiance.
No Angry confrontation is a safe junction.
Christ's love