Sorry for the double post but I found that according to legit sources that Hindu Kush is from Arabic for India’s Mountains.
I seem to recall two rabbis on Larry King Live (or some such thing) several years ago talking about the situation in the former Yugoslavia & other areas. One asked something like, “what part of ‘ethnic cleansing’ don’t you understand?” “Ethnic cleansing” does sound a hell of a lot like genocide, now that you mention it.
The gentlemen also said that in a few years, America would wakw up and realize that for all it’s talk about “something like the Holocaust will never happen again”, it HAD happened again, in Bosnia, with numbers that would exceed 6 million by a country mile.
Does anyone know what the numbers of dead are in the ethnic cleansing in the region in and around Bosnia-Herzegovenia?
PS- don’t even mention China. For all our platitudes about human rights, we still think that the average Chinese can afford American wheat and disk drives, so not only will we not take action, we will turn a blind eye. Count on it.
I was seriously wrong on only one point. Slaves left behind few descendents primarily because they were seldom allowed to marry or have children, not primarily because of harsh conditions—though their conditions were as harsh as those of any slaves throughout the world.
You, however, were seriously wrong on three points.
Muslim atrocities against Hindus
http://sudheerb.tripod.com/holocaust1.html
http://sudheerb.tripod.com/holocaust2.html
Composition of Islamic slave population
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.html
Translation or meaning of “Hindu Kush”
http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/hindu_kush.html
You need correction on a number of other points, but at present I have neither the time nor the inclination to do the footwork.
I leave it to the lurkers to decide which of us is more reliable as a source of information.
/hijack
Can anyone explain to me why historical Muslim cultures (Moor, Ottaman, etc) were typically more tolerant of other religions (granted, they were taxed higher, couldn’t hold certain positions - but, alot better than outright death) than most of the Muslim nations today?
What changed? This has always confused me.
thanks, folks, for some interesting discussion.
Polecat, i would never say that the West invented genocide, slavery, etc. i just want for people to see that it continues today. the West likes to portray Hitler as some evil, satanic anomaly of world history. but the Holocaust is not a singular event (although Zionists might like to exploit this idea). genocide has always been a part of history and it continues to be.
America will CONDEMN genocide if it is convenient to our political ends: Nazi Germany, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, Iraq slaughtering Kurds.
American will SUPPORT genocide if it is convenient to our political ends: Indonesian slaughter of the East Timorese, Guatamalen killing of indigenous people, Turkish slaughter of the Kurds.
please notice how pliable our “morality” is. Saddam Hussein was our ally. he killed Kurds and we looked the other way. later, he misbehaved and became our enemy. then, we looked back in time and he became a ruthless dictator who killed his own people. meanwhile, our ally in Turkey kills the very same Kurds and we never hear a peep from our government.
savage empires have been a sad blight on the history of humanity and i think we need to remember that they were never “acceptable” to those who suffered under them. perhaps the leaders and kings felt these were appropriate tactics, but if we look at their twisted morality and stamp it upon the majority, we are conducting leader-centric history that has little to do with reality.
interesting topic of slavery. hasn’t the definition of slavery varied widely in practice over the centuries? wasn’t it often closer to a system of apprenticeship in some places? sometimes even a form of adoption? i know Native American nations took “slaves” from war, but later adopted them into their families and granted them equal status. anybody an expert on this?
BunnyGirl, i think that Islamic fundamentalism has been exploited for political ends. the Muslims of Iran had a democratically-elected government that the CIA helped to overthrow in 1953 (is that date right?). decades of repression under the corrupt Shah destroyed legitimate opposition groups. along comes Khomeni and his fundamentalist, anti-Western message was able to unite the opposition and drive the Shah from power.
i think when people feel threatened, an inward-looking and xenophoic religion helps bond the group together for defense. it reduces the gray-scale world to the black and white of us versus them. strife in the Middle East has led to a rise in fundamentalism, but i can guarantee that the climate there is much less militant than our media would like you to believe. a rise in German Skinhead activity doesn’t lead us to believe that the average German is a closet Nazi. why is it so easy for us to believe that the average Arab is just waiting to be a suicide bomber? we need to examine how we have been conditioned.
guess i’m just naive for believing in the basic goodness of the common people of the planet. as for the world’s leaders–they are probably all scum. “government morality” is an oxymoron to me.
That is quite simply false. Where on earth are you getting your information? Under Islamic law there was nothing preventing either marriage or bearing of children by female slaves, the majority of the population. You’re conflating, perhaps deliberately, rules applied to males and females. As for few descendants, you seem to be operating under Lewis’ misconceptions on race etc. They are out of date. I refer you to John Hunwick’s (Northwestern Univ) recent survey articles in the Journal of African History. I’m afraid I don’t have the cites handy but they should be readily available.
On conditions, I restate that plantation slavery is widely held to be the most severe form of slavery, for a variety of sociological reasons. As slavery in the classical Islamic world was largely household slavery, mostly female, it was structurally different from that of the New World, which was usually largely male (the southern USA being a significant exception) and plantation. Household slavery is generally held, as stated before, to have been more moderate for the obvious sociological reasons. Of course Muslim household slavery was not (to generalize) easier or better than any other household slavery. I refer you to Orlando Patterson’s Slavery and Social Death for comparative study on a global scale.
I would hope that you have something more than Hindu agitprop at hand before saying I am seriously wrong.
Sigh, listen, this is modern, Hindu propaganda about Muslims. If you don’t have solid historical refernces, don’t bother. I wouldn’t cite to you Muslim agitprop against Hindus so spare me the other side’s crap. Both sides have serious modern axes to grind.
Quite simply, historically it is clear that after the initial conquest violence the Muslims rulers settled into exploiting the locals like all good feudal lords.
Bernard’s work is out of date. Check some of Hunwick’s recent articles for better matierials, which are based on more recent and thorough research. Frankly, Bernard didn’t know how to handle race at all, but he did some yeoman work in opening up the subject. I’d also refer you to Mohammed Ennaji’s work on Moroccan slavery for an excellent archivally based work. By the way, you will note that your assertions regarding both treatment and chilrden are contradicted: male slaves are noted as in practice being prohibited from marrying but they are the minority of the slave population and in any case you entirely neglect the widely accepted institution of concubinage.
Again, you’re citing a Hindu propaganda site. Please try to provide some scholarly citation or some citation or reference without a clear political axe to grind.
Whatever.
Well, if you want to cite to clearly biased sites with political agendas, I think that will be clear. These sites are being written in the context of the current strife between Hindus and Muslims, you should know that.
On Historical Muslim Tolerance:
Leaving aside ravings and rantings with political agendas, I think the easiest answer is wealth. It is much easier to be tolerant when you are wealthy and on top of the heap. Of course, theologically there are some structural imperatives in Islam to be relatively tolerant, as compared to Xtianity until very recent times. The current situation is the reaction of a culture or cultures --make that societies-- which feel threatened and oppressed. Good reasons and bad reasons for that.
Actually, Hapla, we see the holocaust as the logical conclusion to 2000 years of anti-semitism. We also see it as an event that will be repeated unless we take actions to prevent it.
SIGH Yeah. Sure. Fine. Whatever you say.
A lot of bad things happen in the world and some group is always having their rights violated. But I’m not willing to risk my neck trying to stop various groups from killing one another. And since I’m not willing to do it I can’t support sending our military to do it either.
How many people who support peace keeping actions were, or are, willing to enlist to support their cause?
Marc
you don’t honestly believe that the American military has ever participated in “peace-keeping actions,” do you? like we go and break up a fight and then hand out cookies to the children? i’m confused. did you read earlier posts that show how little our government cares about the “bad things” happening?
people who support military intervention are mostly misguided liberals. besides, the armed forces are made up of disposible, lower-class people–what else are they going to do if they’re not risking their necks?
Reminder - try not to use the word “holocaust” to describe wars, slavery and other things you find deplorable but which do not constitute mass extinctions based on ethnic, religious or political hatred. It demeans the victims of true holocausts, as in WWII-era Europe and in Cambodia.
Another nonrandom thought: ever wonder how many non-Iraqi childrens’ lives have been saved due to Saddam’s prolongation of sanctions against his country, thus keeping its aggression to a minimum?
HapaXL? If you want people to take your anti-American ranting more seriously, try to avoid using words like “Zionist”. It is my experience that left-wingers who use this word are also anti-semitic. If you want to avoid being inadvertantly associated with them, use other words.
Or perhaps you use it this way intentionally.
People like you are never satisfied. If we get involved, we are imperialistic. If we stay out, we are supporting genocide. If we try to find diplomatic solutions we are meddling where we don’t belong. If we try peaceful trade it is cultural imperialism. I would ask you to give us an example of your ideal American foreign policy might be, but I’m sure I’ve heard it all before.
Minor nitpick:
Threemae said a while ago:
Romans usually let their individual slaves free after a time in servitude, and their slavery wasn’t based on racism. Rome’s slaves were prisoners of war.
Also, America freed its slaves a generation after Britain did, along with most of the rest of Europe. But you are right, that proudly we conceived that slavery was wrong for moral reasons. (Hopefully it didn’t look like I was arguing that)
hapaXL: I urge you to read Rogue State, by William Blum. It’s a well documented, well thought out, rational book about the U.S.A’s atrocities and human rights violations over the last 50 years. It takes the U.S. and holds it to the light the U.S. has been holding towards other countries, and displays how hypocritical it is.
Also keep in mind Lemur866’s post just now. There is no concrete, one-size-fits-all, perfect way to stop these without ending human lives. I agree with many of your points, hapaXl, about how hypocritical and murderous the United States can be at times…but try and have an objective, rational opinion on it.
Oh, threemae:
Cecil has spoken. http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_066.html
i’ve just been accused of beating a dead horse, so i’m hesitant to post (once again), but there are a few points i wanted to tackle.
it kind of hurt to have my views labeled as irrational ravings. i thought i put a lot of rationality in there to cushion the violence of hearing ideas that differ greatly from the norm. guess i’ll have to try harder, but i am also trying to make this somewhat interesting reading. i’m thinking that longer, more even-handed responses would be imposing, dull and largely ignored. and i am passionate about the issues so it all comes out, but thanks again for reading if you managed.
Lemur866, i most definitely am not an anti-Semite, but i am definitely anti-State of Israel, which is a much different thing. opponents of Israeli policy are regularly branded anti-Semites because it helps deaden opposition. please understand how that can be exploited for political ends. i don’t think that the word “Zionist” should be taken as a synonym for “Jew.” there are plenty of Jews who have problems with Zionism and its consequences.
it probably wasn’t clear that i was referring to more conservative Zionists who have attacked African-American scholars for their use of the term “Black Holocaust,” Native American scholars for the use of the term “American Holocaust” (amazing book with this title, by David Stannard, by the way), on the grounds that the Jewish Holocaust is the only “real” genocide to ever take place. once again, it’s political manipulation: if you can establish the Jews as having been singularly persecuted, then they should be singularly rewarded with Israel. will the Rom people (you might know them as Gypsies) be getting their homeland anytime soon?
here’s my formula for great foreign policy. leave them alone. most tyrannies can only hold with our support. don’t overthrow their governments if they choose to become “Communist” (in practice, anything left of the Republican party). don’t get mad when those countries decide to nationalize their wealth and kick out corporations. watch as prosperity puts an end to virtually all ethnic tensions (i was laboring to say before that we cause the inequity that leads to most genocide). then we won’t have to send in our troops. but you’re absolutely right–i won’t be satisfied with any government action that will take place before the revolution! 
once again, short, simplistic and pretty worthless. but you get my gist, right?
Jello, it’s pretty funny you mention that book by William Blum. on another thread, i was just pushing people to read his book on the CIA, “Killing Hope.” “Rogue State” is currently on my half.com wish list.
trying my best to show that radicals aren’t all humorless crackpots…
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
False in detials: by all accounts after the initial violence of invasions, the Muslims did very little to try to exterminate Hinduism or Bhuddism. Rather they just taxed Hindus and other non-Muslims at higher rates – this was the general policy. All in all their record was, as compared to Xtians in the same time period quite tolerant. Not all that tolerant by our standards, but relatively speaking…
Rather late reply, I think this argument is already over, but anyway…
The policies of the Muslim invaders towards the Hindus depends on which invaders you’re talking about. The earliest invader, Mohmad of Ghazni were mainly interested in looting, not conquest. He did massacre thousands of Hindus in the process, though. Later, the Ghurs ruled Delhi, and they were heavily involved in slave trading of Hindus to Central Asia.
Muhammad Tughluq, the last powerful Delhi Sultan, was a religious fanatic who supposedly indulged in massacres of Hindus.
The Mongols came later. Tamerlane came first and sacked Delhi and massacred the inhabitants. The Moghuls (descendents of Tamerlane) came after the Lodis, and they were tolerant to varying degrees, mostly they were content just with charging higher taxes for Hindus, except Akbar, who abolished this. Aurangzeb was the most fanatical of this lot, but he didn’t really indulge in any large scale extermination.
Anyway, the main aim of the Muslim invaders was never extermination of the Hindus & Buddhists.
Hope this helped.
Sorry for continuing this off-topic discussion.
S.
Uh huh. So you advocate isolationism. No intervention in Bosnia, Kossovo, Iraq.
Can you name ONE country that “chose” to become communist? No, there are none. There are countries that were taken over by the communists, but there are no countries that chose communism.
Ahhhh…nationalizing wealth, kicking out the corporations makes a country wealthy? I would laugh if it wasn’t so sad. Yes, this has really helped North Korea, Cuba, Albania, China, Burma, and an endless list of African countries. No, nationalization of wealth simply means that the new elite that has taken over the country steals the capital goods from the owners. And then proceeds to loot them. Countries get wealthy through trade, through education, through savings, through capitalism. National socialism fails every time.
I agree that wealth is likely to ease ethnic tensions. It’s just that your prescriptions will cause poverty and slavery rather than wealth. WE caused these inequities? Look, you are laboring under the self-centered delusion that America is responsible for everything on earth. Perhaps you should read about what the world was like before America existed. No, we are simply the currently most wealthy/powerful country. We can’t even clean up Mexico. Perhaps what you mean to blame is this whole neo-Western global civilization that is developing. Well, America is just one part of it, a big part, but only a part. And our new global civilization seems to me to be an unqualified good.
My thought process if fairly linear so that’s how I will dislpay it.
US foreign (and domestic) policy is motivated by self interest. This is NOT unusual for any country. As a matter of fact, this is very good policy - if they didn’t promote their interests I very much doubt that anyone else would.
The US has supported some of the nastiest SOB’s on the planet (Pappa Doc).
But the question here isn’t why did the American government do nasty things in the past, it is why don’t they stop them from happening now. Answer - Clinton thinks money will solve every problem so he throws it out like it was water. The US currently gives about $9 billion (yes billion with a b) in ECONOMIC AND HUMANITARIAN aid each year. That doesn’t count the multiple other forms of aid that is passed around. As for military action or political sanctions, the US government (and most of the political movements) has put their people in a state of permanent, forced apology. They are too afraid to do anything lest they offend someone else on the basis of race, religion, sexual preference, hair style or or length of nose. This makes any action politically incorrect which roughly corresponds to political suicide. Sucks huh. What they truly need to do is tell the African-Americans, Indian-Americans, Jewish-Americans and American-Americans to shut the fuck up and deal with life. Nothing is ever fair for anyone so deal with it and move on. Stop apologizing for something that happened 200 years ago.
With the Sudan the comment has been made several times that nobody knows who is who. Who cares? Everyone is killing everyone else - seems to me that everyone is the bad guy. My question is this; Why doesn’t EUROPE take a look out the back door, recognize the conflict and get up off their asses to do something about it themselves? They don’t need the US’s permission to take an active stance.
The simple answer to why the US doesn’t do something about China is they are afraid that China will nuke the world, and personally, I can’t blame them a bit. They do stop backing up on policy though - makes them look weak.