< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 360 OF 360 ·
|Dec-09-17|| ||twinlark: The New Testament may not have the violent blandishments of the Koran, but the following issue demonstrates IMO how largely irrelevant this is becoming:|
Namely that evangelical maniacs...err...Christians in the US are loving the recognition of Jerusalem as meeting the initial criteria for the Apocalypse, the Biblical end of days aka the end of the world that will come to pass at the Battle of Armageddon so that Jesus can come back to earth and punish all evil doers (ie non believers including Jews).
It's ironic that evangelical Christians are mainly Zionists, not because they like Jews, quite the opposite, but to fulfil these prophecies which will actually result in the death of all Jews who don't convert.
|Dec-09-17|| ||optimal play: <twinlark> I agree that throwing money at the problem, without due concern about how it is spent or how it is accounted for only worsens the problem and generates corruption, both within the bureaucracy and the aboriginal communities. That's what has been happening with no real solution in sight.|
I think 'misguided fiscal paternalism' would be a more accurate description of the federal government's policy towards Indigenous Australians than deliberate genocide.
The general consensus now seems to be that the aboriginal communities should have been consulted from the beginning and their full compliance obtained regarding implementation of the Little Children are Sacred Report.
<What are the material benefits of this amount of money being spent? There isn't even a treaty?> Why are those two questions linked? They're completely separate issues.
There are negligible material benefits or social improvement to Indigenous Australians based on the amount of money being spent, but that won't improve with any kind of treaty.
I agree that Turnbull could have handled the Uluru statement better, but wasn't the original intent of the so-called "First Nations Convention"
to discuss the constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians? But then they unexpectedly popped up with that "permanent Indigenous advisory body"?
<How can you possibly know who would sit on this committee?> The usual suspects: Stan Grant, Noel Pearson, Geoffrey Clark, Marcia Langton, Michael Mansell, The Dodson Brothers, you can probably guess the rest.
<And why would you mock light skinned Aborigines?> I'm not mocking them but it's generally the light skinned aborigines who are sitting on all these high-paid government committees while full-blooded indigenous Australians continue to languish in poverty in the outback.
All Australians want to see a vast improvement in the quality of life for our Indigenous people, but when you see the usual clique of light-skin aborigines always in the media complaining, and the only solution they can come up with is another committee, then it's hard not to feel cynical about their bombast rhetoric.
<The New Testament may not have the violent blandishments of the Koran ...> Nor the Old Testament for that matter.
Whilst any violence in the Old Testament is historical, in that it records what happened during the ancient history of the Israelites, the violence in the Koran is directive, in that it tells its adherents to carry out acts of violence against non-muslims today, wherever they are.
The rest of your post is nothing but 'whataboutery".
"Oh ... well ... umm ... err ... what about those terrible Christians, hey? They're a bunch of maniacs who hate Jews!"
Come on <twinlark>, you're better than that, mate.
|Dec-09-17|| ||twinlark: <optimal play>|
<But then they unexpectedly popped up with that "permanent Indigenous advisory body"?>
Unexpected for whom? And so what? Really don't see your point.
<<How can you possibly know who would sit on this committee?> The usual suspects: Stan Grant, Noel Pearson, Geoffrey Clark, Marcia Langton, Michael Mansell, The Dodson Brothers, you can probably guess the rest.>
Maybe, maybe not, but that is up to the Aborigines, and I'm not sure why you feel you can predict let alone judge such outcomes. The aboriginal population is relatively small, so their spokespeople are a small group, for sure. Bit like the spokespeople of any group, probably. There are always new leaders coming through: https://www.creativespirits.info/ab...
The idea of a constitutionally based advisory body didn't get off the drawing board so there is no possible way to know how the advisory body would have been selected. Even if you're right, these people would die off, retire, resign etc and be replaced by others as the constitutional amendment to enable such a body would outlive them and the rest of us.
<<And why would you mock light skinned Aborigines?> I'm not mocking them but it's generally the light skinned aborigines who are sitting on all these high-paid government committees while full-blooded indigenous Australians continue to languish in poverty in the outback.>
You're assuming they would be sitting there without the consent of their "full blooded" (ie darker skinned) compatriots. And yes you did doubt their aboriginality when you posted:
<The usual bunch of white-skin suburban 'aborigines' fixated on identity politics>
It's quite patronising. As long as the selection or election process for appointing members to the advisory body is democratic and transparent, then it would be up to the aboriginal electors, light skinned and dark skinned alike, to choose those who will represent their views.
|Dec-09-17|| ||twinlark: Part 2:
<There are negligible material benefits or social improvement to Indigenous Australians based on the amount of money being spent, but that won't improve with any kind of treaty.>
Says who? Oz is the only Commonwealth country that does not have a treaty or treaties with any of its indigenous inhabitants. For the benefits that aborigines think might stem from a treaty, read the following:
<The rest of your post is nothing but 'whataboutery".
"Oh ... well ... umm ... err ... what about those terrible Christians, hey? They're a bunch of maniacs who hate Jews!">
Whataboutery? Not really. The evangelicals (as distinct from the rest of Christianity, let alone humankind) are a menace to the world, working as they do for the Rapture, Armageddon, or the End of Days or whatever conception of ultimate paradise jollies these ideologically driven morons along in their pursuit of exclusive and righteous salvation.
Evangelicals lobbied Trump to declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel, because of the abovementioned biblical imperative. The following is typical:
<There are no fewer than 50 million evangelicals in America who, according to research, are convinced of the literal truth of Biblical prophecy. A recent survey found that 82 per cent of white evangelicals believe that God gave Israel to the Jewish people; a conviction shared by just 40 per cent of American Jews. Among these evangelicals there are those who believe in the prophecy of the “End of Days” foretelling Jewish control of all Jerusalem, a war of civilisations, and a choice of Jews to either embrace Christianity or die in the wrath of God.>
The evangelicals are Trump's hard core supporters, along with white supremacists - it seems the protest voters have distanced themselves from Trumps antics. The decision to recognise Jerusalem catered to the arsewipes as well as distracting from an increasingly painful and proximate probe...<visayanbraindoctor>, until recently happy to give Trump the benefit of the doubt where there was none involving Hillary, wondered whether Trump might let off a small nuke somewhere near DRK as a further distraction.
My worry is that rather than allow himself to be impeached, which seems increasingly likely, he would rather hit the big red button and go out in a blaze of nuclear rapture. I just hope there is someone to disable this bastard before he can get to the nuclear football.
|Dec-10-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark: It's ironic that evangelical Christians are mainly Zionists, not because they like Jews, quite the opposite, but to fulfill these prophecies which will actually result in the death of all Jews who don't convert.>|
I find the above belief terribly ironic.
<The evangelicals (as distinct from the rest of Christianity, let alone humankind) are a menace to the world, working as they do for the Rapture, Armageddon, or the End of Days or whatever> and
<1. The human race would have the ability to exterminate itself (nuclear weapons)
2. A Jewish homeland had to be reestablished in the Middle East (Trump has now proclaimed Jerusalem the capital)
3. There must be two leaders: The end-time king of the North and king of the South
“At the time of the end the king of the South shall attack him; and the king of the North shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter the countries, overwhelm them and pass through. He shall also enter the Glorious Land [the Holy Land], and many countries shall be overthrown” (Daniel 11:40-41).
4. An end-time union of European nations (European Union)
5. End-time rise and fall of Israel and Judah
6. The gospel will be preached in all the world (YouTube)
7. Instant worldwide communications and God’s final witnesses (The internet)>
From evangelical usually pro-rapture Christians, I know of criteria 2 to 5. The key in relation to Trump's latest action is criterion 2. However, from my own discourses with them, I do know that many of them already believe that #2 has been fulfilled since Israel gained official Independence after WW2.
Note the quote from the Old Testament. I find that American based 'evangelical' Christianity is the subset in Christendom that most often cites the OT, which is far more militant than the NT. Mainline churches always tend to cite the more peaceful NT first and more often. I believe that this has concrete consequences on Christian comparative theology. American Evangelicals and their offshoots IMO are the most aggressive in missionary work (which is probably why they are called evangelicals in the first place), and the most hostile to people that they deem as unbelievers.
These doctrines have taken a very specific turn among some Evangelical groups. It takes some complex reasoning to begin with NT passages and end up with the above. I think their particular theology came into existence when they handpicked certain NT passages and admixed militant OT passages in.
Regarding Islamic fundamentalism, just imagine if the NT contained orthograde passages ordering the reader to commit acts of violence. Evangelicals would be literally beheading, crucifying and dismembering unbelievers. Not only Evangelicals but some of the mainline churches as well.
It's debatable of course, but I believe that if the USA and USSR were both predominantly Muslim (and especially if they were of different sects), humanity would most probably have already experienced a nuclear WW3. The Koran says <God has bought the souls and possessions of the believers, and promised them paradise in return. They fight in God's cause, and they kill and are killed. It is a true promise given by Him in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Koran.>
With a divine mandate like that, a true believer with a finger on the nuclear button, and desirous of paradise, would have a far greater probability of pressing NUKE than a Hindu, Buddhist, or Christian.
|Dec-10-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark: Trump might let off a small nuke somewhere near DRK as a further distraction.>|
Yes I think this has now become a distinct option for Trump. I still do not think he will launch a nuke at Russia though. His recent actions in Syria of cutting off weapons to Nusra (as confirmed by most secular Syrians in the internet) and his relatively friendly meeting with Putin indicate IMO that he is still in the realm of sanity. (Unlike HRC who was openly announcing she will shoot down Russian planes, and in general wanted to escalate the Syrian war.)
|Dec-10-17|| ||optimal play: <twinlark> <Permanent Indigenous Advisory body> The First Nations Convention at Uluru was supposed to be another step in the long-running debate on the constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians. Fair enough, that has wide ranging support.|
But instead of constitutional recognition they unveiled a proposal for some Permanent Indigenous Advisory body!? Turnbull was blindsided and wouldn't have a bar of it. My point is that they overplayed their hand and have now probably set back the movement towards constitutional recognition.
Aborigines are equal citizens and have an equal vote with all Australians and thus already have equal representation in parliament. A special race-based committee would contravene our non-discriminatory principles, and I'd bet that most of those highly-paid cosy positions would end up going to white-skin suburban 'aboriginals' who are about 1/16th indigenous and nothing would improve for Australia's full-blooded outback aborigines.
<yes you did doubt their aboriginality when you posted: <The usual bunch of white-skin suburban 'aborigines' fixated on identity politics>> Yes, I suppose I was mocking them, but who is worse off? Light-skin suburban aborigines who are 1/16th indigenous or black outback aborigines who are full-blooded?
I just don't think these aboriginal "representatives" are doing a great deal to help aborigines in general. For example, after the abolition of ATSIC, the NCAFP was formed in 2010 but then dissolved in 2016 because the government argued that the Congress was not functioning as a representative body. In fact many aboriginal people in remote communities didn't even know it existed years after it was established!
<As long as the selection or election process for appointing members to the advisory body is democratic and transparent, then it would be up to the aboriginal electors, light skinned and dark skinned alike, to choose those who will represent their views.> During elections for the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples — the body aiming to represent the views of Aboriginal people nationally — less than 13.5% of eligible voters cast a vote.
<Oz is the only Commonwealth country that does not have a treaty or treaties with any of its indigenous inhabitants.> So what?
A treaty implies the cessation of hostilities between two warring parties. Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous Australians are not at war. Indigenous Australians are full and equal citizens. A treaty wouldn't improve anything.
<Whataboutery? Not really.> Yes really.
<visayanbraindoctor> and myself were engaged in an interesting and informative exchange of ideas regarding the nature of Islam and its entanglement with the West by a well-respected and leading Islamic scholar in Indonesia. There was no Muslim-bashing or Islamophobia but an honest and critical look at the impact of Koranic-inspired Islam in the 21st century.
You declined to become involved in our discussion, but obviously felt uncomfortable about some pertinent points relating to Islamic violence. So you belatedly tried to divert the discussion with "Hey look over there! There's some crazy Christians! Aren't they terrible?!"
Nice try twin, but no-one's buying it.
|Dec-10-17|| ||optimal play: <visayanbraindoctor> <I think their particular theology came into existence when they handpicked certain NT passages and admixed militant OT passages in.> Yes, it doesn't reflect mainstream Christianity and is based on a confusing misreading of certain biblical texts.|
<Regarding Islamic fundamentalism, just imagine if the NT contained orthograde passages ordering the reader to commit acts of violence. Evangelicals would be literally beheading, crucifying and dismembering unbelievers. Not only Evangelicals but some of the mainline churches as well.> Good point!
You've nailed a basic and very important difference between Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism.
All religious fundamentalism is wrong, but some are a lot more dangerous than others.
<It's debatable of course, but I believe that if the USA and USSR were both predominantly Muslim (and especially if they were of different sects), humanity would most probably have already experienced a nuclear WW3. The Koran says <God has bought the souls and possessions of the believers, and promised them paradise in return. They fight in God's cause, and they kill and are killed. It is a true promise given by Him in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Koran.>>
Precisely why Iran cannot be allowed to become nuclear.
Stalinist North Korea is bad enough, but at least Rocket-man-Kim isn't anticipating a trip to paradise for starting a nuclear war!
|Dec-10-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <optimal play: Whilst any violence in the Old Testament is historical, in that it records what happened during the ancient history of the Israelites, the violence in the Koran is directive, in that it tells its adherents to carry out acts of violence against non-muslims today, wherever they are.>|
I posted several times on this several scrolls up. I call it <orthograde> directives.
<Annie> posted some exceptions. In the OT, there are a couple of orthograde commands to execute <witches>. In general though you are right. OT violence usually consists of narratives of past violent events.
I think you should scroll up above to the original discussion on this.
There are also several outstanding differences between NT and Koranic theology. These two books are approximately the same length, and I highly recommend that you read both of them line for line.
1. The word <love> isn't mentioned in the Koran. <Love> is an important theme in the gospel of John.
2. The Koran is much stronger than the NT in advocating justice and <giving alms>. However, there is no passage that promises paradise for those who engage in these, unlike for martyrs. (God has promised paradise for those who slay and are slain for his cause.) The emphasis on justice without love, plus specific Koranic punishments for specific crimes, makes up for a penal code that can be deemed as quite cruel in modern societies.
3. God in the Koran is transcendent- far away, can't be approached easily or at all. God is immanent in the NT- made into man, we can talk to him, etc..
4. The Koran has a very negative attitude toward women. You can do with them as you please since they are loot if captured in jihad (legalized rape), a man can beat his wives if they displease him (legalized assault), a man can marry several women, a man can divorce a woman by saying so for any or no reason at all, women have to cover themselves, no woman is mentioned by name except Mary, a man is provided women in paradise, etc.. NT for its time is uniquely pro-woman. It commands husbands to love their wives- essentially turning a marriage from a contract (which it essentially is in the Koran ) into a covenant. The apostle to the apostles is described to be a woman (the other Mary). Between the lines, one can glean that many of the financial supporters of Jesus and the disciples were women. There is mention of a woman deacon and other female authority figures.
5. Paradise in the Koran is quite a material world. It's described specifically as a place with silver dwellings, fountains and streams of milk, companions of the female (and the young boy, which can be a shocker to non-LGBT Christians) sort, etc.. Hell likewise is described as a specific place of fire, where you are forced to eat thorns or your feces, drink boiling water, etc.. forever. Nothing much on the descriptions of these in the NT. I believe that this enhances the appeal of paradise and the fear of hell for Muslims.
|Dec-10-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: 6. The Koran is very strong in the prohibition of sects. There should only be one form of religion. (NT does not discuss this issue much.) The obvious problem is that if my view of Islam differs from yours, I can always label you as sectarian, and you in turn can label me as the sect. Given the numerous orthograde violent commands in the Koran, we could then cite them in justifying killing each other.|
7. The way to spread religion is by war in the Koran. <Make war until God's religion reigns supreme.> (Also struggle or jihad has no equivalent in the NT at all.) Unbelievers are subjected to capital punishment. There is some leeway for People of the Book, mentioned specifically as Jews, Christians, Sabaeans, but they have to pay a jizya 'tax', (until they convert). (Modern society would see this as extortion.) In marked contrast, there is NOT a single orthograde NT passage that orders the reader to commit violence. Propagation of religion is achieved by convincing unbelievers by verbal means- talking to them in their own languages in the Pentecost passage (which makes the NT remarkably pro-minority- it respects the languages of minorities and encourages evangelists to preach in them.)
8. Muslims and potential Muslims are to be greeted by the word <peace>. However, I cannot find passages that define this word, and it's obviously NOT reserved for unbelievers, idolaters, infidels, apostates, as these are to be killed.
9. The attitude toward Christians and Jews of the Koran is generally quite hostile, and they are mentioned by name. <Do not say three, God is but one; God forbid that he should have a son.> Christians are polytheists with three gods. <Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your friends or you will become one of them.> <Jews shall be your most obdurate opponents, Jews are cursed by God, etc..> The NT is also hostile to Jews, but not as much as the Koran. The NT hostility can be specifically deduced to stem from Jesus' conflict with the Jewish authorities and official Jewish teachings at that time. Koran is hostile to Jews in past, present, and future tense.
10. The talion law is upheld by the Koran, but discarded by the NT.
11. There are passages in the Koran that can be read as encouraging deception/ lying under certain conditions. (Probably the origin of Taqiya.) There is none in the NT.
12. Many of the suras are written almost like a legal code. This also occurs in the OT, but not in the NT.
There are more, but these IMO these are the ones that create a lot of trouble between Muslims and followers of other religions, and modern secular society.
|Dec-10-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <optimal play: Precisely why Iran cannot be allowed to become nuclear.>|
I agree, but in general I am against any proliferation of nukes.
After having said that, I must also point out that the Shiites and Iran have not done any proven terrorist act in the name of religion in the past two or three decades. In the middle east, the Shiites have done quite a lot to stop the proliferation of Wahabbi (Sunni fundamentalist) groups.
Again debatable but IMO they have done the world a great service in this matter. (Actually if you read up on secular Arab Cristian chatter in the internet, you'll find out that most Arab Christians are deeply grateful to some of the Shiite groups for saving them from Wahabbis.
It's hard to explain these things in one go, unless you have read a lot of alternative media. You could scroll up and in your free time review the extensive stuff already posted before.
|Dec-10-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <Hey look over there! There's some crazy Christians! Aren't they terrible?!>|
Actually I think <twinlark> stated his opinion of a particular group of Christians, not all. Specifically it's this group
<The evangelicals (as distinct from the rest of Christianity, let alone humankind) are a menace to the world, working as they do for the Rapture, Armageddon, or the End of Days or whatever>
that believes in
<1. The human race would have the ability to exterminate itself (nuclear weapons) 2. A Jewish homeland had to be reestablished in the Middle East (Trump has now proclaimed Jerusalem the capital) 3. There must be two leaders: The end-time king of the North and king of the South
“At the time of the end the king of the South shall attack him; and the king of the North shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter the countries, overwhelm them and pass through. He shall also enter the Glorious Land [the Holy Land], and many countries shall be overthrown” (Daniel 11:40-41).
4. An end-time union of European nations (European Union) 5. End-time rise and fall of Israel and Judah
6. The gospel will be preached in all the world (YouTube) 7. Instant worldwide communications and God’s final witnesses (The internet)>
|Dec-10-17|| ||optimal play: <visayanbraindoctor> Thanks so much for your very interesting and informative posts on this topic.|
As you have so clearly pointed out, there are stark differences between the Bible and the Koran.
Most notably, the <orthograde> nature of violence in the Koran as distinct from the <historical> nature in the Old Testament, and the complete absence in the New.
Thank you for pointing out the previous discussion on this and I will certainly scroll back and read over it.
Your clear and concise parallels of each topic, ie love, God, women, Paradise, differing sects, violence, peace, intolerance, lex talionis
deception and legality, enable a direct contrast and comparison between the Islamic Koran and the Christian Bible.
It's vitally important that many more people understand the nature of Islam and how it is interpreted through the Koran.
Your insights into this subject shed a great deal of light on matters that are often confused and misunderstood.
The message is getting out but there's still a lot of people who mistakenly think that Islam is a religion of peace and that there's nothing to be concerned about.
The wilfully ignorant will still reject irrefutable evidence, but most people with an open mind are eager to learn and know the truth.
<I am against any proliferation of nukes.> Who isn't?
<Actually if you read up on secular Arab Christian chatter in the internet, you'll find out that most Arab Christians are deeply grateful to some of the Shiite groups for saving them from Wahabbis.> I didn't know that!
<Actually I think <twinlark> stated his opinion of a particular group of Christians, not all.> Fair enough.
But it's still "whataboutery"
|Dec-10-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <optimal play: highly-paid cosy positions would end up going to white-skin suburban 'aboriginals' who are about 1/16th indigenous>|
I am not sure but if I got your meaning right, we have 'equivalent' problems. Philippines has a 'National Commission of Indigenous Peoples'. This NCIP is IMO one of the most corrupt government organizations in my country. Let me tell it from personal experience.
One afternoon, a patient came to my clinic for consultation on headache. After I had made a diagnosis and prescribed meds, we had a little chat. He said he was a high officer of the regional NCIP; and that he was a member of a small local ethno-linguistic group. (A small locally limited ethno-linguistic group is called a <tribo (Spanish) or tribe (English)> in the Philippine setting.)
I immediately switched to talking in one of our region's smaller minority languages. He did not understand me. I asked him if he knew of any minority language at all. He did not. I was already thinking: This guy claims to be a member of an ethnolinguistic people. Why the hell does he not speak their language?
It turned out that one of his grandfathers was a member of that tribe, and that's it. He essentially was a political appointee.
I then mentioned to him that I was glad that the NCIP had government funds for tribal scholars. However, I mentioned that I had met several scholars of his tribe, and they did not know how to speak the tribal language too. He could not give me any answer and just looked surprised. He knew as well as I do that may of these scholars got their scholarship by virtue of being sons and daughters of politicians, not by being genuine members of an impoverished and marginalized 'tribe'. He knew I was criticizing the NCIP but in a polite manner.
I then suggested to him that knowledge of a tribal language should be an important criterion in accepting a scholar. But we both knew that this would never come to pass, because it would automatically disqualify many of the children of politicos. (And because he owed his position to same politicos.)
Claim to being a member of a small ethnolinguistic group (called a <tribe> in the Philippine setting) is a major racket by which politicos can grab land by claiming ancestral rights and scholarships for their children.
(BTW I am not a member of these small tribes but I work my head off trying to preserve their languages and with it their existence. See links to some of the videos I have made for them in my profile page.)
One other time a college student also came to my office. He wanted a discount for his uncle, saying that they were poor tribal members, and that he was an NCIP scholar. I knew immediately that they simply had political connections. I again started talking in one of our region's minority tribal languages. Huh? He could not understand me. I was a bit irritated and told him that since he was already graduating thanks to the claim being a member of a local tribe, he should at least promote their languages in order to preserve their existence as ethno-linguistic groups. Maybe start by learning their languages?
|Dec-11-17|| ||twinlark: <optimal play>|
<But it's still "whataboutery">
I had previously agreed with <visayanbraindoctor>'s comments about Indonesia and Islam (at twinlark chessforum (kibitz #9358)), about which you had initially sought opinion from myself, so the "whataboutery" you're accusing me of has no launch point.
Please don't foist this bullshytte on me again.
|Dec-11-17|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <optimal> <The wilfully ignorant will still reject irrefutable evidence>|
Without knowing it, fundamentalists often give themselves away by exhibiting and often projecting onto others the following..
As <optimal> has fairly and admirably demonstrated, this is a widespread phenomenon across many monotheistic religious cults, religious cults that proclaim to offer the one and only "true path".
|Dec-14-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: I've been monitoring the reactions of Arab leaders regarding Trump and his Jerusalem move.|
Their usual cursory politico's talk seems to be dying down. My thoughts:
1. Somehow they knew it was coming and were prepared to accept it.
2. It caught them by surprise, but then what can they do? Go to war against the US? How?
So I think the decision will stay and get normalized soon in spite of internet articles claiming it will trigger a war or something.
US can pretty much do anything it wants to do unless it is actively opposed by Russia or China.
I think much of the US anger at Russia stems from Russia's actions in Ukraine and Syria. Suddenly US leaders realized that the second clause in the above statement is also true.
|Dec-15-17|| ||twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>|
I think Trump's Jerusalem "declaration" will play out on a a larger scale than stirring up immediate conflict although there was of course the immediate impact in Palestine.
The following article from the Times of Israel might prefigure the times to come. If Turkey and Lebanon recognise East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, and in the wake of the Arab:
I cannot see the establishment of embassies in East Jerusalem by those opposed to the US recognition of Jerusalem as the undivided capital, as Israel will simply reject such building requests out of hand. I'm sure Netanyahu sees Trump's action as a major victory for Israel, one that will not be diluted with the actions of Palestine's allies and sympathisers.
<On Wednesday, Ankara hosted a meeting of 57 Muslim nations that rejected the decision and called for recognition of a Palestinian state whose capital is East Jerusalem.>
Then a large scale realignment and hardening of alliances could result, none of which will be to the benefit of the US.
Trump's action serves to diminish the US as an honest broker and makes it clear, as so many have opined, the it no longer cares about a two-state solution or for that matter any solution except the one-State-ruled-by Israel solution.
The fallout from this will be enduring.
|Dec-15-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>|
I think Trump's Jerusalem "declaration" will play out on a a larger scale than stirring up immediate conflict although there was of course the immediate impact in Palestine.>
The reaction of Arab leaders was not as strong as I expected especially the Saudis and other Gulf states. So I suspect they knew it was coming.
It's actually Turkey that organized that meet <On Wednesday, Ankara hosted a meeting of 57 Muslim nations that rejected the decision and called for recognition of a Palestinian state whose capital is East Jerusalem.>
This implies that the Gulf Arab states are still firmly behind the US. Erdogan's Turkey on the other sees US influence as fading, and is projecting itself into a leadership role in the Middle East.
As I've posted many times, there is a strong movement in Turkey that craves to revive its Ottoman glory days. To further this goal, it's fence sitting right in the middle of the USA and Russia.
At first Erdogan's Turkey sided solidly with the Obama-HRC administration in the Syrian war, in order to annex northern Syria. When it found out that Russia would not allow this, and that US was incapable of preventing the Russians from crushing the logistics of the jihadists it supported, Turkey blithely abandoned most of them and is now cooperating with Russia. With a straight thick face (after causing so much death and suffering in Syria) it is now making overtures to the Syrians. (Syrians in the internet generally welcome this, as it means less supplies and foreign jihadists can reach Syria via Turkey, but they also unanimously think Turkey is an unreconstructed backstabber; and they know quite well that it was only the Russian intervention that saved from from being swallowed into a Southern province of a neo-Ottomanistan.)
So Turkey now seems to have one foot on the Russian side of the fence.
On the other hand, Erdogan was not stupid enough to issue threats against Trump. Turkey still is with NATO, and will continue to do so until it sees that US is about to collapse, and then and only then will it turn (and 'backstab' the US of course). If Turkey thought that US is completely inutile, that Ankara conference would be issuing threats and ultimatums to the US.
But there WAS an anti-Trump conference. During its heyday in the 1990s, the US was so powerful that I seriously doubt there would have been any official conference at all. Everyone would have been terrified of a US backlash.
Both the leaderships of US and Russia must know that Erdogan is playing them against each other, and so far it seems that Russia is winning.
So times are changing, but not passing a tipping point yet. The Ankara conference shows that that.
BTW from what I can see of Americans' reactions in general, I still think that most of them support the <Trump Jerusalem declaration>, albeit passively. So far as I can glean the people who are criticizing Trump are NOT against the move per se, but are just worried about Muslim reaction. That's a far cry from thinking that the move is inherently 'bad'. I believe it's mainly because much of the American center have been so polarized by the non-stop videos they see in the internet of Muslim fundamentalists shouting God is great every time they blow up civilians that they seem to be 'silently' approving of the move. If this had happened in the 1970s, that same center would see Trump's move as inherently immoral (or 'bad').
|Dec-16-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <<twinlark> Don't worry, if anyone should feel insulted, it should be me. With with my median epicanthal fold and probably a significant proportion of North East Asian ancestry, I would definitely fit the definition of being a <chink>, but I'm not offended at all. <Colonel Mortimer> clearly used the term in order to emphasize a point in the field of economics, and not as a racial slur.>|
<twinlark: Agree with this also, but the problem is the group identified in this article <who will not change>, except on an exception person by person basis..
The problem is this group will keep the white supremacists in power in the US>
<twinlark: The massacres and the shoot on sight philosophy that extended settlement had done its job.>
It occurs to me that some of these discussions on race are bouncing off my head. I may be underestimating the racial issue because I tend to see it from my culture. I just read a Wikipedia article on races and here is what is says about the Philippines.
<As opposed to the policies of other colonial powers such as the British or the Dutch, the Spanish colonies were devoid of any anti-miscegenation laws. Moreover, the Catholic Church not only never banned interracial marriage, but it even encouraged it.
The Spanish implemented incentives to deliberately entangle the various races together in order to stop rebellion..
The fluid nature of racial integration in the Philippines during the Spanish colonial period was recorded by many travelers and public figures at the time, who were favorably impressed by the lack of racial discrimination, as compared to the situation in other European colonies.
Among them was Sir John Bowring, Governor General of British Hong Kong and a well-seasoned traveler who had written several books about the different cultures in Asia, who described the situation as "admirable" during a visit to the Philippines in the 1870s.
The lines separating entire classes and races, appeared to me less marked than in the Oriental colonies. I have seen on the same table, Spaniards, Mestizos (Chinos cristianos) and Indios, priests and military. There is no doubt that having one Religion forms great bonding. And more so to the eyes of one that has been observing the repulsion and differences due to race in many parts of Asia. And from one (like myself) who knows that race is the great divider of society, the admirable contrast and exception to racial discrimination so markedly presented by the people of the Philippines is indeed admirable.
Another foreign witness was English engineer, Frederic H. Sawyer, who had spent most of his life in different parts of Asia and lived in Luzon for fourteen years. His impression was that as far as racial integration and harmony was concerned, the situation in the Philippines was not equaled by any other colonial power:
"... Spaniards and natives lived together in great harmony, and do not know where I could find a colony in which Europeans mixes as much socially with the natives.
Not in Java, where a native of position must dismount to salute the humblest Dutchman. Not in British India, where the Englishwoman has now made the gulf between British and native into a bottomless pit."
In the present times, Filipino mestizos do not socially separate themselves from other Filipinos, making them the only Eurasians to do so.>
More than half of my closest maternal relatives have some obvious mestizo traits (no one knows from where), and they never think of themselves as any other race aside from being Filipinos and Visayans. This seems to have been the rule at the era of the American colonial period, the Philippine revolution, and the Spanish era. (Although misled nationalists have been busy inventing a divide where there is none.)
IMO the main 'racial' issue in my country is discrimination based ethno-linguistic differences, not on race.
<twinlark: slowly starving indigenous cultures to death, starting with their languages and moving on from there, and ensuring that they never regain their equilibrium.>
Now this too is a humongous problem in my country alright. One reason why I made and uploaded these videos. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC...
|Dec-16-17|| ||OhioChessFan: <twinlark: Namely that evangelical maniacs...err...Christians in the US are loving the recognition of Jerusalem as meeting the initial criteria for the Apocalypse, the Biblical end of days aka the end of the world that will come to pass at the Battle of Armageddon so that Jesus can come back to earth and punish all evil doers (ie non believers including Jews).>|
I'm in a distinct minority in the Christian world in that I think absolutely nothing regarding the nation of Israel today has any application to Biblical prophecy. Per your comment, I have a problem with people thinking God needs their help to accomplish His will. It's a rather feeble God they acknowledge if they think their efforts are helping God's cause. As for the nation of Israel, I am puzzled why people think an entire nation that essentially rejected the Messiah would still be the recipient of God's blessings.
|Dec-16-17|| ||twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>|
Thanks for that explanation of Spanish policy of integrating the various cultures. Needless to say, the opposite was the case in Australia, creating a lasting and negative legacy that affects everyone in this country, even if unwittingly.
The dispossession and genocide of Aborigines was ferocious and unremitting especially in Queensland, underpinned in the earlier decades by convict labour (ie state funded slaves working for the private sector), and the sugar slaves of Queensland from the islands (the forced servitude of Kanakas): http://www.qhatlas.com.au/content/s..., all of whom were used by white pastoralists and farmers.
The dark skinned/light skinned dichotomy is not such as issue as I think was painted by <optimal play>, for the simple reason that aboriginality is generally determined by community acceptance rather than by biology.
There are many light skinned aborigines that are fiercely proud of and defend their aboriginality and their mob (indigenous term for clan) even though they could easily integrate into the white community, while there are some darker skinned aborigines that determinedly attempt to fully integrate with the mainstream community, although I would say with less success than they strive for as dark skin is dark skin in this country, and always marks a person for discrimination.
To say Australia harbours far too much racism is still unfortunately true, and has become more so in recent years in the wake of dogwhistle politics of the One Nation party and and to some extent the conservative Liberal-National coalition government. Racism extends well beyond targeting just the indigenous communities as the following article reveals: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-...
That's not to say aborigines are free from corruption, intra-racial politics and all the other ills that bedevil the rest of society. In some ways, these problems are accentuated by their Fourth World status with all its attendant ills.
|Dec-16-17|| ||twinlark: <OhioChessFan>|
I had the thought that perhaps these evangelicals think of these events as signposts to the ever-approaching Rapture/Apocalypse. But the extent to which they try and bring about these events fully underscores the point you are making.
On top of which I honestly cannot get into the heads of people who devoutly pray for the end of days, regardless of whether they think they will necessarily go to heaven when the Rapture engulfs all. The monstrous hubris and chauvinism that attends this attitude seems more like a serious collective mental illness than anything explicable by faith or reason.
<As for the nation of Israel, I am puzzled why people think an entire nation that essentially rejected the Messiah would still be the recipient of God's blessings.>
There are just so many things wrong with that whole situation. Perhaps the notion that they are God's Chosen People (what does that say about the rest of us?) explains something, but not why people who are not in this select group buy into this scheme which relegates them to inferior status.
|Dec-16-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>|
Thanks for that explanation of Spanish policy of integrating the various cultures.>
Actually, it's the first time I read that article several hours ago. It seems to explain why Fils have such an attitude. I found this to be quite a shocker:
<The Spanish implemented incentives to deliberately entangle the various races together in order to stop rebellion: - It is needful to encourage public instruction in all ways possible, permit newspapers subject to a liberal censure, to establish in Manila a college of medicine, surgery, and pharmacy: in order to break down the barriers that divide the races, and amalgamate them all into one. For that purpose, the Spaniards of the country, the Chinese mestizos, and the Filipinos shall be admitted with perfect equality as cadets of the military corps; the personal-service tax shall be abolished, or an equal and general tax shall be imposed, to which all the Spaniards shall be subject. This last plan appears to me more advisable, as the poll-tax is already established, and it is not opportune to make a trial of new taxes when it is a question of allowing the country to be governed by itself. Since the annual tribute is unequal, the average shall be taken and shall be fixed, consequently, at fifteen or sixteen reals per whole tribute, or perhaps one peso fuerte annually from each adult tributary person. This regulation will produce an increase in the revenue of 200,000 or 300,000 pesos fuertes, and this sum shall be set aside to give the impulse for the amalgamation of the races, favoring crossed marriages by means of dowries granted to the single women in the following manner. To a Chinese mestizo woman who marries a Filipino shall be given 100 pesos; to a Filipino woman who marries a Chinese mestizo, Ioo pesos; to a Chinese mestizo woman who marries a Spaniard, 1,000 pesos; to a Spanish woman who marries a Chinese mestizo, 2,000 pesos; to a Filipino woman who marries a Spaniard, 2,000 pesos; to a Spanish woman who marries a Filipino chief, 3,000 or 4,000 pesos. Some mestizo and Filipino alcaldes-mayor of the provinces shall be appointed. It shall be ordered that when a Filipino chief goes to the house of a Spaniard, he shall seat himself as the latter's equal. In a word, by these and other means, the idea that they and the Castilians are two kinds of distinct races shall be erased from the minds of the natives, and the families shall become related by marriage in such manner that when free of the Castilian dominion should any exalted Filipinos try to expel or enslave our race, they would find it so interlaced with their own that their plan would be practically impossible.>
What the? You got paid for marrying outside your race? Specifically: <To a Chinese mestizo woman who marries a Filipino shall be given 100 pesos; to a Filipino woman who marries a Chinese mestizo, 1oo pesos; to a Chinese mestizo woman who marries a Spaniard, 1,000 pesos; to a Spanish woman who marries a Chinese mestizo, 2,000 pesos; to a Filipino woman who marries a Spaniard, 2,000 pesos; to a Spanish woman who marries a Filipino chief, 3,000 or 4,000 pesos.>
No wonder there was little phenotypical discrimination. Everyone would have been craving to marry a foreigner (if you're native) or a native (if you're foreigner). Even 1000 pesos at that era was probably worth a lot of money. Probably enough to build a small house for spouse and children.
It worked of course. As I noted in one of my posts above, some of the children of mixed marriages, by the genetic law of independent assortment, would have distinct but varying features. A sister might pass of as a Mediterranean Europoid type of person, her brother an Oceanian, a second sister an Indian, a second brother a Northeast Asian, and the remaining 4 siblings Southeast Asian. Naturally the phenotypically Southeast Asian ones could hardly discriminate against their own siblings for being 'foreign looking.' Phenotypical racial discrimination would quickly tend to a minimum in such a society.
I wonder what would have happened if the British implemented such a policy in Australia?
|Dec-16-17|| ||twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>|
<I wonder what would have happened if the British implemented such a policy in Australia?>
Government control over the conditions of marriage was always a major policy weapon in the service of social engineering in Australia, but it moved in a direction diametrically opposite to that in the Philippines.
Aboriginal Protectors (sic) had direct control over whom Aborigines could marry, decisions being made on the basis of whatever the imperatives were of the various colonial governments. This legacy was so enduring it has persisted into my lifetime:
<In my family, it's only one generation ago that we were prevented from choosing our chosen partner to marry – not because of sexual orientation, but simply because of our race, our Aboriginality.>
Similar restrictions on gay and lesbians were only lifted this month.
But to answer your question, it would have depended upon the nature of settlement in Australia. The doctrine of "terra nullius" had virtually denied Aborigines their recognition as human beings let alone as a group of cultures to be treated with (there is still no treaty anywhere in Australia).
Had the colonies followed the instructions of the British Government, the trajectory probably would have followed something more like in the US, Canada and New Zealand - not nice, lots of conflict and some genocide but some improvement on what happened here where entire nations were wiped from the face of the Earth in massacre after massacre, with the remnant populations heavily regulated in Aboriginal ghettos ("missions"). You all ready know the fate of the hundreds of unique languages that developed in Australia.
So I tried to work backwards to try and work out what needed to have happened for the Spanish-Filipino scenario, and it inevitably comes back to the nature of early colonial Australia being a penal settlement. It all stems from this inauspicious start to this country.
Moreover, Australia was not a place that experienced significant immigration from Asia during its early decades, something that only changed with the gold rush and the influx of Chinese workers. Their experiences with discrimination are well documented. In fact it was not until <this year> that the Victorian Government apologised to the Chinese community for the treatment of Chinese immigrant workers in the 19th century: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-...
The influx of Chinese workers sparked the "Yellow Peril" campaign of fear and the racist politicians of the time, regrettably in the Labor Party, introduced the White Australia policy which was not rolled back until after I reached the age to vote in 1973: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White...
After WWII, Australian soldiers were prohibited from marrying Japanese women, or if they did, they were prevented from returning to Australia.
And on and on until the 1960s when these regressive policies began to be wound up, culminating in the popular vote and legalisation of same sex marriage a few weeks ago.
So at every step of the way, the direction in which the Philippines was made to face was never a remote option in this country. Also a large part of the problem, even notwithstanding everything I've said above is that the lifestyles and cultures of incoming whites and indigenous people were so far apart and so unrelated that regular or institutionalised marriage was inconceivable.
Had the Spanish solution occurred, I would like to think that there would have been closer liaison between the black and white communities and that the vast knowledge of the locals could have been used to mutual benefit. Many times in our colonial history, Aborigines and settlers worked productively, including on remote stations, but the xenophobia and greed that came with British settlement trumped it all.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 360 OF 360 ·