Other states may or may not be racist. That doesn't detract from the fact that Israel is. I've also given several examples of racist policies.
And how is Israel racist is again? And the overall argument is kind of weak when you never point out the racism of Israel's enemies. I'm sure white people in the 50's said things like "the fact that [insert white guy's name] did the same thing doesn't take away the fact that [instert black guys' name] did it."
Specious question. You could ask the same of South Africa a few years back. The criteria of distinction is race, as such it is a racist policy. When was the last time a racist policy was announced as such; even the Nazis had their rationalization. I was under the impression a few years back that Palestinians are expected to pay tax, but cannot vote. Is this accurate?
Wrong, it is not specious at all. If the Israels restrict movements for Palestinians for security reasons, it is extremely disingenous to call them racist for it. In that case, the US is racist because we have no instituted stricter requirements for people from certain countries. And our policies towards Cubans is favorable, if they reach our land we let them in, I guess we are racist to anyone except Cubans. The comparison to Nazisis just way off base. Why on earth would the Israelis have any interest whatsoever in exterminating the Arabs? That is the Arab goal of Jews, not the other way around. That example is not relevant here. If they can't vote, then I suppose it was the Israelis themselves who voted for the Arabs serving in the Israeli government.
In SW Houston, there are people from all over the world: China Vietnam India Senegal Nigeria Pakistan Sri Lanka Mexico etc Just about every country that I can think of from Central America and South America. Recent immigration to the US from Western Europe has been fairly slow lately, so I don't meet many people from there. Restaurants and other businesses in the area have signs in the native languages of the customers they are seeking. The legal system in the US is fairly stable and the recent immigrants don't have the influence to change it to what they were accustomed to in their native countries. When you speak of the Roman Empire and then compare it to the United States........you are using the territorial boundaries of the US as the Demarc and the reach of the Roman Empire as their defining demarc. If we are using the reach/influence of the US, then it would extend beyond the territorial boundaries and would likely be as diverse as what the Roman Empire had. Was the Roman Empire able to accomplish its full extent/impact in laws, language, city planning, currency etc in a timeframe of less than 100 years that seems to be the general agreement for the US on the world stage? In regards to the many centuries, it seems like the US would have more entrenched culture (city planning, currency, language, laws etc) to overcome (within its <i>Empire</i>) than what the Roman Empire faced roughly 2000 years ago when it was expanding. You mention that the Roman Empire was assimilating people during a time well before the rise of nationalism (pre 19th century), so wouldn't it be easier to change/impose/modify the culture of people still in the infancy of arriving at a collective national culture? I would be interested in seeing the Roman Empire attempt to impose its culture on present day places such as: Saudi Arabia Pakistan United States etc For the colored lines, reply with a quote to this post and look at the very bottom that uses blue twice. <hr color=blue><hr color=blue>
Racism is defined as discrimination based on race. Pure and simple. While their is a distinction between having differing immigration policies based on nationality and an internal legal distinction based on race , I would agree that our current policies are racist, including that towards Cubans. Racism doesn't have to include a negative assessment of a particular race, just an assumption of a particular characteristic beyond physical features related to race, or a differing treatment based on same. The statement " I think Asians are smarter." is a racist one. Again, the Nazis are like this trip wire with some people...Did I say they were exterminating the Arabs? Did I even say that Israel was like the Nazis? I said that no nation practicing racist policies openly admits that their policies are purely a matter of just not liking a particular race, not even the Nazis. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly made racial generalizations about Arabs in this thread, saying that all Arab nations would murder any Jew on sight, which is simply untrue. And the question about the voting was a serious one, not a sideswipe...I really didn't know. Were Palestinians recently given the vote, because I am pretty sure that at the time I heard this they weren't, but it's a little hazy.
Actually, it was over YOUR head. I thought MacBeth would find it funny, which he obviously did. You'd think from your post you'd only been here a few months. Oh, wait...nevermind.
In terms of the races of residents within the Empire, Rome included peoples from all over the known world, albeit many as slaves. But I meant actual inclusion; the cultural assimilation of an Albanian who wants to come here is hardly equatable to assimilating Albania proper, with all of it's historical and cultural areas, shrines, regions, etc. intact. Several nations have been comprised of a wide diversity, and the US is becoming less and less known for this, partly becaiuse of the prioritization on melting in rather than preserving pre-existing culture...One of the most common comments by American visitiors to Toronto or Montreal is the cosmopolitan and multi-cultural nature of the cities in relation to the States, and in my experience that is true, outside of New York. Most major American cities have oneo or maybe two dominant ethnic groups, but in Toronto for example there are all kinds, and there are at least 12 different ethno-centric areas of the city which celebrate thier heritage. ROme was in some respects way more culturally accepting that the US. For example, when they conquered a certain region, rather than force the locals to worship Roman gods, the Romans would merely adpt those local deities into their belief system so as not to exclude anyone, and build temples for them in Rome itself. On the other hand Rome was less permissive of any cultural diversity which got in the way of the machinations of the system; Rome was above all else about practical function, even it's holy leaders of lore were based on bridge builders ( Pontifex) as that was a reflection of a practical function...and if your cultural diversity acted like grit in the massive engine, they dealt with you pretty harshly. In terms of area of influence and territorial boundaries, not at all. Almost all of the many states which surrounded the Empire proper were client states, as Rome prefered to maintain a buffer zone between themselves and possible invasion; the excpetion being along much of the border with the German states, but even many of these tribes paid tribue to Rome, and were under some inflence. But there are literally dozens od other nations not included in the empire which were under Rome's zone of influence. In terms of our spreading of culture, laws, language, etc. you are forgetting something pretty important; most of the work was done by the British. English was the most wide spread language in the world when we were still a backwoods. Adversarail judicial systems, market economy, governorships, christianity, city planning, industrialization, education, etc...these main staples of American culture were passed on, in only slightly different shades, by the greatest exporters of that culture the world has ever seen; the British Empire. Compared with their cultural exports, we have accomplished little. To a degree there is some pralel with the Macedonians and Rome, but only towards the east, and the distictions in language, laws, etc. were far greater between the Greeks and the Romans than between the US and Great Britain. Nation states actually make assimilation much easier, culturally, as they have already been homogenized to a degree, have one standard language, currency exchange, etc. When dealing with a region that at one time might have contained 10 different tribes, with different customs, language, goda, and including internal conflict, the cultural absortion is much more difficult on many levels.
Of course they are. It's just not as big of a problem. Moreover, I didn't actually make an argument as to what one should do about the situation. Or as to "who is right." But to argue that Israel is not racist, is foolish. Screw the freedom of movement issue. We're talking about horrific deprivation of state resources vis a vis another group on an ethnic basis. It's racist. You can say "both they're worse." I'm not arguing that right now. I used to stand up for Israel, but I don't bother anymore. They're committing a slow, gradual holocaust, and don't get called to task for it because 1. their lobbyists are better 2. Israel has been our friend in the region, and 3. Israel has some elements of democracy. I don't understand your rage at me. The things I have pointed out are simply true. You can come to your own feelings about public policy. Feel free to believe that even though Israel is, by definition, a racist state... they're still the lesser of the evils involved. But don't try to spare your own conscious by making it out to be other than it is. Sometimes we have to choose the best of bad alternatives. I think that Israel crossed the line years ago, but I'm willing to concede that there's a good counterargument. But take the argument that's functional, as opposed to the one that's self-delusional.
I realize the impact of the British as our predecessors in spreading language & culture. Not all people from India speak Hindi, so they will often resort to English to overcome that barrier. As far as larger nation/states being easier to change in the cultural area compared to smaller entities, I disagree. I don't see how they could change/incorporate the cultures of places such as Pakistan and India to the Roman Empire without tremendous effort & bloodshed. Enough critical mass in population & trend in those countries that change would be harder to accomplish. Also, it seems that you are implying that the US government is actively trying to impose its <i>culture</i> (language, currency, legal system, city planning etc) as the Roman Empire did. From what I understand of Central America, the US dollar is accepted as currency in many places because of its presence in the local economy, but not because the US government dictated that it happen. Movies, videos and music from the United States spreads language & other aspects of American culture throughout the world, but I never thought of it being imposed by the US government on foreign countries. If we use your Albania proper example, wouldn't there be less <i>history/culture</i> for the Roman Empire to overcome 2000 years ago than the US would face in the late 20th - early 21st century? Here is an example from a nearby area in the Balkans: The word: <i>Kosovo</i> still has tremendous meaning to Serbs and it was a battle that was fought over 6 centuries ago. With a greater possibilty of emotional events to overcome because of a 1900 - 2000 year longer timeline that the British & US have faced in the past several centuries versus what the Roman Empire faced roughly 2000 years ago, it seems like the British & US had/have a more difficult task to perform.
What reason is there to not allow Palestinian farmers access to water, or to give more water to Israeli settlers than to Palestinians? How will not allowing Palestinians to dig water wells have anything to something other than race or birth. It has nothing to do with terrorism at all. How would charging Palestinians one price for water and ISraelis a different price for it have anything to do with anything other than race or birth? Those policies are solely based on the birth of the person involved and aren't measures that in anyway threaten the security of Israel. Did you think Apartheid was based on race, or were there other reasons for that too?
Can you explain again exactly why they are racist? I wanted to know more specifically how they are. Macbeth mentioned that Nazi Germany hid their true intentions. Does Israel have some other intentions we don't know about? It's just not enough to state a few policies. There are many states that have policies based on race, and that does not mean the state is racist.
Apartheid of course was based mostly on race. Were the black people a declared enemy of the whites? Were they carrying out suicide attacks?
I am not answering for haven, MC, but merely want to clarify something. What I said was that the Nazis did not openly admit the entire issue was racial hatred, but that they rationalized their actions. This does not mean that they hid their true intentions, as they probably bought into their own rationalization, or at least many of them did.They ligitimately believed that the Jews were a threat to the German people, both in terms of taking over the financial structure, and in terms of what they saw as polluting the genepool. My point is that the root of all of this, and the distinction along which it fell was racist, but the advocated reason for their policies themselves was not merely racial hatred, but rather security...from a certain race.
Oh, absolutely. At least insofar as the SA government stated at the time. The rationale for the townships, the justification for the military ptrols, etc. was always depicted by the SA government as security. There wasn't suicide bombers, per se, as the South Africans didn't have the access to reasonably wealthy and sympathetic neighbouring states that the palestinians have, but there were several occurences of terrorist-style bombing ( hell, mandela himself was involved in some), violent uprisings, etc., and each one was used as more reason for the SA's actions, just like Israel's.
Fine. But it is also worth mentioning that the Arab "hordes" which British soldier, Lawrence of Arabia lead to defeat the Ottomans to free the land of Arabia were not capable of running the modern society which they inheritied. The key piece of history supporting my point of view here is the sack of Damascus. Both the British and Lawrence's Arab army were in a race to take Damascus away from the Turks. The British air force firebombed the city of Damascus, but before their ground troops could secure the city, Lawrence's Arab army beat them to it. The problem was, Lawrence's army was comprised of various nomadic tribes from the Arabian peninsula who were (1) still living in the stone age, and (2) in complete disagreement about which "tribe" should make the decisions in managing the city of Damascus. In fairness to the Arab army, their tribal disagreements never let us see whether they were capable of managing and running a city the size of Damascus as they quarreled and fought among each other over which tribe controlled what part of the city. The end result was that the city's water supply, hospitals, electricity, etc. went unmanaged and all systems failed. In the end, the Arab Council as it was called went to the British for help. Basically, Faisal made a deal with the British in which the Arab Council would turn all control of the city's utilities over to the British while saying publicly that the city was still under Arab control......basically a deal which allowed the British help the city of Damascus keep functioning while the Arabs got much of the credit for it (something I might add the that the Saudis of today are very good at as at my father's company in Arabia, most management positions are held by Saudis who in deed do not manage, but sit in their plush offices while their job is performed by westerners or far easterners below them). So my point is, the Arabs had Damascus, but their own inadequacies on the modern stage forced them to depend on their British occupiers. Much of the same is true throughout the post-Ottoman Arab world of the early 20th century.
Interesting. Please point out several other terrorist attacks that took 3500 lives. I'm not familiar with instances of terrorism by non-state actors on this scope. Please enlighten us. The tyranny of which you speak is most unlikely here for a variety of reasons. The system is one. The lack of a homogenous culture and race is another. Makes us much different than Nazi Germany or Lenin's Soviet Union or Rome or Athens. Strange but in each example you give, the situation DID work itself out without some nefarious tyranny taking over the country. In many instances, specifically in crises (WWII, Korea for example), civil liberties are curtailed to meet the greater needs of security for the people. In each instance, just like in the examples you give, the liberties are restored when the crisis passes. You aptly name your thread, because you are Chicken Little. We are superior. You shouldn't be so afraid of acknowledging it. Biggest economy, biggest military, comparatively most freedoms vis-a-vis any country our size, and overall pretty high on freedoms compared to ANY other country. Most innovative. Most likely to lead the transition from nation-states to 'what's next.' Nothing wrong with calling out Bush for a lie, any more than it was wrong to call out Nixon for a lie, or Clinton for a lie. But that they lied hardly means we are on the precipice of some totalitarian rule. And I wonder how someone can argue both that the fall of mighty states is inevitable, AND that 'understanding history' will enable us to prevent it happening to us.
1) Are you serious? The total body count for terrorism in the rest of the world would be well over 50 times 9-11...or are you suggesting that those deaths didn't mean as much because they happened fewer at a time? My point is that Europe, the Middle East, etc. have been used to the repercussions of terrorism for a long time now, and haven't done what we've done out of fear. 2) The system is what has been threatened, and as such not a check on things as you suggest...and what has homogenous culture to do with anything, even if it were true, which it isn't as the USSR contained at least as many cultures, if not more, than we did, and the Romans contained more relative to the times, and maybe even period. I agree that German culture might have been an influence on the Nazis rise, but only slightly, and that's the exce;tion, not the rule. Farily weak safeguards. 3) The restriction on liberties at the times you mentioned were A) more clearly defined in terms of time, B) Of much less invasive natures, except for the treatment of Japanese Americans, which we have acknowledged was wrong, and C) Not all returned. ANd to say that they 'worked themselves out' doesn't ensure that they always will, avoids the significance of these, and especially WWII equates incompatible situations. We have never seen anything like the Patriot Laws, we have never engaged in pre-emptive warfare, we have never openly excused our government misleading us into war, and we have never had this incredibly bad of a relationship with the world, including our allies. Pretend it's all the same old same old if you want...nothing dangerous about that. 4) "We are superior. You shouldn't be so afraid of acknowledging it. Biggest economy, biggest military, comparatively most freedoms vis-a-vis any country our size, and overall pretty high on freedoms compared to ANY other country. Most innovative. Most likely to lead the transition from nation-states to 'what's next.' " Wanted to repeat that paragraph as it sums up the exact attitude I'm, talking about. The first two are accurate, but could have been said of Hitler's germany among several others which fell victim to the kind of thinking demonstrated here. The next one is arguable, the 4th one lsess so, the last two completely speculativeand subjective. Bu tthe underlying priciple is again we will be the best because we are the best...completely defies history. 5) But part of the point is, despite Clinton and Nixon's lies being about less impactive and destructive things, the odds are that Bush won't be called out whereas they were...and that's the danger sign I'm talking about: Make it external and we're fine with it, so long as we feel safer. I agree that if Bush is called to account for his actions I will breath a lot easier, but will he be? 6) The fall of mighty states is inevtiable...and addressing our issues now could very easily prevent that happening now...do you really need me to explain how these aren't mutually exclusive?
