Really – we could go on forever, and for the next round do the Atlantic African Slave Trade vs. the Genocide and Dispossession of the Natives of the Americas. Or do a trans-historical one of the Spanish Inquisition at their peak vs. the Taliban at theirs.
So yes, what is the prize? What is accomplished? Being able to reflect on your own society’s sin and shame is a good thing, but what use is it to determine if they were greater than someone else’s?
It’s one thing to be expected to recognize the plank in your own eye before you call out the mote in your neighbor’s, but what if you* both *have planks?
It’s an especially odd definition coming from such a strong proponent of Scientific racism since the Tutsis and the Hutus were largely invented “tribes” about as genetically distinct as Oklahomans and Kansans.
If I didn’t know any better I’d think he was conceding the idea of biologically defined races was a discredited myth that it would be very foolish to believe in.
Oh, I somehow don’t doubt Pedant’s read that racist asshole Razib Khan’s fatuous study on Hutu/Tutsi ancestry: He analysed the genetics of precisely one3/4 Tutsi, and concluded they weren’t Bantu at all. A masterwork of science, I’m sure you’ll agree :rolleyes:
But I think his point will possibly be that they see each other as different. But that’s still not racism - intergroup Black-on-Black violence is no new thing in Africa.
Well, yes, they were racist or more strictly, they were subracist - the racist classification in vogue at the time certainly saw Semitic people as “notNordic” - so while Jews are White in the simplest “Black-Brown-Yellow” race model, they are stilla different race in the larger race model favoured at the time. But Hutus *didn’t *see the Tutsis as not Black - they saw them as “Not Hutu”, a much finer distinction.
No, it wasn’t. But *every *ingroup-outgroup conflict isn’t a racist one, and it confuses the issue to think of the Rwandan genocide as primarily a racist one.
The Iowa Electronic Market, an experimental research futures market, trades all sorts of current-events derivatives. However, after 9/11 they got into a bit of hot water for trading futures on potential terrorist attacks and war outcomes, so they don’t do that any more as far as I’m aware of.
Yeah, an article titled “Genocide and **Communism **Threaten South Africa” is going to be my source for hard facts too. The '80s are very retro right now. Stanton’s downgraded SA to a 5 again, BTW. Not that he’s without his critics - remember when he was hounded out of the State Department for banging the genocide drum re: Iran/Israel? Everything looks like a genocidal nail to him. Never mind that the SA murder rate is nowmuch lower than it was before Apartheid ended. Like that article shows, race baiters use distorted statistics and even outright made-up numbers to attempt to make their points (Hey, just noticed it’s kind of like how Rushton just outright made up his own stats too. This seems to be a pattern for you, not being able to tell good statistics from crap.)
And I’ve covered the farm murders enough times on this Board. And it was *you *posting bullshit then, too. How many times are you going to post the same race-baiting shit, before you see it doesn’t stick? And I’d love a cite for that “boiling water down the throat” attack. It’s not one I’ve read about. (One that comes from a journalist, not from a racist site like censorbugbear or thetruthaboutsouthafrica.)
Note I’m not denying farm attacks happen, and that often there’s brutality involved (people tortured to reveal where their valuable are, for instance, or killed to remove any witnesses) - I’m denying it’s primarily or majorly racially motivated. Simple fact is - Whites own all the farms. If people are going to get attacked on farms, it’s going to be Whites.