In the US, we have a habit of taking into account along with the nature of a crime, the race and sexual orientation of the involved parties. If the person is black, and they kill a white man, they can expect in the liberal states (more and more are becoming so) to serve less jail time, especially if the involved perpetrator is poor and socially opressed. If a gay man beats the crap out of a homophobe, it is considered more morally upright behaivor than the other way around. The other way around is called hate crime. This is ridiculous. In basketball, if someone fouls another player, a call is made based on the nature of a crime, and a penalty is assessed. If a white man kills a black man, he is instantly labeled as a racist, the story hits national news, and anyone who speaks out about black men killing white men too are labeled as racists, nazis, or KKK members. Should we start making black men not responsible for fouling white men in Basketball? If you answered no, then ask yourself why we allow this to happen in society.
In this vein, I would like you to know that even before September 11th there was an anti-muslim sentiment in pockets of the United States, and a more general feeling against the people who are not homogeneous within our culture. Does this justify the actions taken by Osama and his compatriots? If they are required to be brought to justice, why do we have such a minority ruled anti-white sentiment in the United States?
A hate crime is a hate crime, no matter what the colour or religion or gender or orientation of the parties involved. If you hurt someone simply because you don’t like them or what they stand for, it’s a hate crime.
Yes, we’re in a time when oppression is starting to be recognized, and one consequence seems to be that the former oppressors are now becoming the oppressed, as if the children are guilty of the sins of their parents and deserve to be punished for them.
It’s probably natural for there to be a bit of a see-saw tit-for-tat effect when that happens, but eventually it’ll even out and there will be something more like true equality under the law.
As for Osama’s brand of terrorism… all people notice is that someone killed a lot of people because of hatred. It’s not up to the mind-games of one judge and a couple of lawyers. This means that the people in general don’t believe that a ‘minority’ criminal should be punished less than anyone else. Besides, on a global scale, who are the minorities and who are the majorities? Comparing worldwide relations between Christians and Muslims to the civil rights situation in the US assumes that you’re thinking of straight white men everywhere as a majority, as former oppressors and current victims, which isn’t the case.
I don’t understand your question. Is it “Are the attacks against the US justified by the US’s raciest tendencies?”, or is it, “Does white guilt leave an excuse for the attacks against the US?”
I never said it was right. The backlash won’t be permanent, because we recognise that it isn’t right. We won’t turn a white upper class with black slaves into a black upper class with white slaves; we won’t become an oppressive matriarchy instead of an oppressive patriarchy; we won’t have heterosexuality seen as a perversion. Once we stop listening to the screaming fringe groups who enjoy the status afforded them by past victimization, we can all get on with enjoying real freedom.
And I do think they are fringe groups. The majority of women do not take unfair advantage of men by accusing them of sexual harassment. It happens, but if a majority of women did it, a majority of the men in the country would be in court cases right now. The majority of gays don’t counter-oppress straight folks or deliberately make them feel ashamed of being straight. The majorities within the minorities are level-headed and logical about it, and just want to be able to live without being impeded by their sex, colour, or orientation.
I don’t understand what the title of this thread has to do with the OP.
Al-Quada was proved to have master-mineded the 9/11 attacks, and have proudly claimed credit for same. The al-Quada leaders were hiding (primarily) in Afghanistan, and the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan refused to surrender them to the U.S. … so the U.S. went in to get them. We blame the Taliban, not from any racist tendencies and not from any theories of how basketball should be played, but because they harbored criminal terrorists.
I guess I need to add [Moderator hat on] that if this thread is about the connection of the Taliban and al-Quada, then it’s fine here. If this thread is about holding a group responsible for actions of the individuals in that group, then it belongs in the Great Debates forum. We’ll let 'er ride for a bit, and see where it goes, and then decide. [/Moderator hat off]
