Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
ShiaChat Mod

Black Lives Matter [OFFICIAL]

ShiaChat Mod

Note: This topic is of a sensitive nature dealing with current events, with a range of opinions presented, which some readers might find objectionable. Please refer to credible sources when assessing any factual claims presented. Racist language of any kind will not be tolerated, per ShiaChat guidelines.

Message added by ShiaChat Mod

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, hasanhh said:

This prompted me to remember a WSJ article in the 80s where the paper was reporting on the hiring boycott many  corporations had towards lvy League universities, espeically Harvard and usually excepting MlT because the graduates had such poor social views (as the corporations saw it).  There will now be a boycott of hiring from radical and liberal colleges.

I can only hope. The philosophy and worldview coming out of these colleges is degenerate, disgusting, & wholeheartedly bad for the nation. Parents are paying & kids are taking out tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans to be taught to hate this country & being indoctrinated into fruity, pie-in-the-sky utopian fantasies that have no real basis in reality and these are the people who are going to be teaching your sons & daughters that they can "change their gender"

Edited by Abdul-Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahmed Haneef;

London Shi'ite Scholar: 'Aryanist' Churchill, British guilty of the same crimes as the Nazis (+Video)

https://en.abna24.com/news//london-shiite-scholar-aryanist-churchill-british-guilty-of-the-same-crimes-as-the-nazis-video_1052086.html

Quote

Haneef explained that while Churchill had been fighting the Nazis in Europe, he and his ilk were committing the exact same crimes in Africa, India, the U.S., and the Americas.

AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA):  In an interview that was posted on the YouTube channel of AhlulBayt Islamic Mission (AIM) on June 19, 2020, under the title "The Black Struggle for Justice in the USA," London Shi'ite Islamic scholar and activist Ahmed Haneef said that certain historical figures are idolized today even if their views regarding non-white people were "worse than the [views of the] Nazis." Haneef gave the example of Winston Churchill, who he said had an "Aryanist" and "supremacist-type" ideology that is minimized today because Churchill had defended Britain against the Nazis in World War II. Haneef explained that while Churchill had been fighting the Nazis in Europe, he and his ilk were committing the exact same crimes in Africa, India, the U.S., and the Americas.

Ahmed Haneef: "What you have, are people who are idolized, even if their views about non-white people are sometimes worse than the [views of the] Nazis.
https://en.abna24.com/news//london-shiite-scholar-aryanist-churchill-british-guilty-of-the-same-crimes-as-the-nazis-video_1052086.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attention Comrades . . .

The Stupid People's Liberation Front in cahoots with the Democratic People's Republic of North Amerika

prodive for YOUR  Re-Education the following, 42 minute instructional video:

https://www.dw.com/en/the-red-children-childhood-under-mao/av-54024042

To assist you in your required politically correct note taking . . . take notice of the following as you study:

Bourgeois is now Rascist

Raiding Rascist Homes was -and now is- a "popular pastime"

Like the latest fashion, this political violence is the thing to do.

The 4 0lds --old culture, old ideas, old ways and old people (over 30)-- anything that symbolizes old authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2020 at 5:37 PM, hasanhh said:

Raiding Rascist Homes was -and now is- a "popular pastime"

Like the latest fashion, this political violence is the thing to do.

It turns out that in his private correspondence, Charles Dickens espoused some quite racist views against the native peoples of the British Empire, he said some genocidal things about the Indians after the mutiny and he thought the Irish were particularly uncivilised. So apparently reading Dickens is now a sign of being a racist.

His defenders say that he didn't believe in racial differences between the various people but that some cultures were inferior and that British Victorian culture was the best and didn't understand why people wouldn't civilise themselves and adopt it.

Either way, my Dad is from Pakistan and my mum from Ireland and I honestly couldn't care less about what his opinions were, he was still a great author.

Down with safe space culture!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, slavery was a thing (a terrible and horrible one at that) in the US until we fought a war to end it. Thousands of men died to end the institution of slavery & It's a great thing that they did, because now there is no more (open) slavery in the US (there's still trafficking in the US and worldwide)

What's your point?

Edited by Abdul-Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A social media post has resurfaced from a Black Lives Matter Toronto co-founder in which she apparently argues that white people are “sub-human” and are “recessive genetic defects.”

Yusra Khogali wrote the post on what appears to be her Facebook and attempted to use a genetic explanation involving melanin production to explain why white people are “defects.” It has now gone viral after it was shared by scholar James Lindsay.

“Whiteness is not humxness,” reads the statement. “in fact, white skin is sub-humxn.”

“White ppl are recessive genetic defects. this is factual,” the post later says. “white ppl need white supremacy as a mechanism to protect their survival as a people because all they can do is produce themselves. black ppl simply through their dominant genes can literally wipe out the white race if we had the power to.”

Khogali says that white people have a “higher concentration of enzyme inhibitors” which suppresses melanin production adding that melanin is important for a number of things such as strong bones, intelligence, vision and hearing.

She even says, “melanin directly communicates with cosmic energy.”

In another post, Khogali tweeted, "Plz Allah give me the strength to not cuss/kill these men and white folks out here today."

After being criticized for the tweet Khogali responded by saying, "I am not a public official. I am not a police officer. The state does not entrust me with violent weaponry. I have never contributed to the mass targeting of a community. All I have done is used a turn of phrase, a rhetorical flourish, to voice my frustration and dared to be a person calling for justice."

The posts have since been deleted following heavy backlash.

https://thepostmillennial.com/blm-toronto-leader-believes-white-people-are-sub-human-calls-them-genetic-defects

Keep in mind that according to the lunatics now running the asylum, this doesn't classify as racism. At most, you could call it bigotry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

 

Keep in mind that according to the lunatics now running the asylum, this doesn't classify as racism. At most, you could call it bigotry.

This is a pretty standard belief for all non-white racists as well as deviant white liberals 

Edited by Ali_Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Ali_Hussain said:

This is a pretty standard belief for all non-white racists as well as deviant white liberals 

Yeah, although I think it’s only fairly recently that people have openly tried to force this redefinition in everyone else. They claim that you can’t call it racism unless it is done by a more powerful group towards a less powerful one. To most people this has nothing to do with defining racism, but these far-left academic types are obsessed with power imbalances. It’s the only lens through which they are able to see the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

They claim that you can’t call it racism unless it is done by a more powerful group towards a less powerful one.

There is some merit in that argument, actually.

I've been meaning to write a blog post about African Americans vs. other minority groups in the U.S. and one of the reasons I have come up with for the relative success of the latter is that they are more racist than African Americans.

I don't mean racist in any pejorative sense, what I do mean is that some groups have a natural inclination to trade (often on preferential terms) with others of a similar race, language, or even just geographic background. There's a whole academic literature on the trust (the lubricant for business) that exists between people based on such characteristics.

Perhaps the long history of slavery broke down the bonds that would be needed for such characteristic based trust to develop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Haji 2003 said:

There is some merit in that argument, actually.

Could you explain what you see the merit being? Racism is a pretty commonly understood concept, and most people don’t understand it as having anything to do with power structures. For example, the sense in which you use racism below isn’t predicated on that.

Personally, I don’t understand why it would be sensible to define racism as only being possible if done by an ‘oppressor’ group against an ‘oppressed’ group. If for no other reason than you would need to start by ranking all racial and ethnic groups in order of ‘oppression’ to decide who can and cannot be racist (can a Chinese person be racist towards a Pakistani?). It is also the case that power dynamics are very localised. Even if the majority population is white, you tend to have areas which are predominantly non-white, and where a white person could be at a disadvantage (think of a single white kid in an all-nonwhite school). Yet the upholders is this new orthodoxy would tell us that this single white kid is still not capable of experiencing racism.

1 hour ago, Haji 2003 said:

I've been meaning to write a blog post about African Americans vs. other minority groups in the U.S. and one of the reasons I have come up with for the relative success of the latter is that they are more racist than African Americans.

I don't mean racist in any pejorative sense, what I do mean is that some groups have a natural inclination to trade (often on preferential terms) with others of a similar race, language, or even just geographic background. There's a whole academic literature on the trust (the lubricant for business) that exists between people based on such characteristics.

I don’t really see the issue with this. It seems like normal human behaviour to put more trust in people you have more in common with, and makes a lot of rational sense. And as you yourself say, it’s not necessarily anything to do with race.

1 hour ago, Haji 2003 said:

Perhaps the long history of slavery broke down the bonds that would be needed for such characteristic based trust to develop?

It’s not clear to me why that would be. After all, it could just as well be argued that the common experience of oppression would be a powerful binding factor. The very long history of antisemitism in Europe didn’t seem to do much to break the bonds of trust between Jews after all. Generally I find that too much weight is put on this idea of the effects of the long periods of slavery, without it ever being precisely explained how exactly these effects are supposed to be felt today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Could you explain what you see the merit being?

When a minority/oppressred group undertake it, it's a form of affirmative action.

7 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

The very long history of antisemitism in Europe didn’t seem to do much to break the bonds of trust between Jews after all

This is incorrect. There have been periods of European history when they have been oppressed and there have been periods when they have flourished economically and culturally. There have been no periods of American history when blacks have flourished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

When a minority/oppressred group undertake it, it's a form of affirmative action.

I think there may be some misunderstanding here. Here is an example of how the theory works: if a white person makes an argument based on genetics for why black people are inferior, that is considered racism, because the white person belongs to the 'oppressor' group, while if a black person makes a mirror image argument, then that wouldn't be racism, because they belong to the 'oppressed' class, and axiomatically can't be called racist.

See for example:

Quote

Assumptions and stereotypes about white people are examples of racial prejudice, not racism. Racial prejudice refers to a set of discriminatory or derogatory attitudes based on assumptions deriving from perceptions about race and/or skin colour. Thus, racial prejudice can indeed be directed at white people (e.g.,  white people can’t dance) but is not considered racism because of the systemic relationship of power.  When backed with power, prejudice results in acts of discrimination and oppression against groups or  individuals. In Canada, white people hold this cultural power due to  Eurocentric modes of thinking, rooted in colonialism, that continue to reproduce and privilege whiteness.

http://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism

 

27 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

This is incorrect. There have been periods of European history when they have been oppressed and there have been periods when they have flourished economically and culturally. There have been no periods of American history when blacks have flourished.

What is incorrect? I didn't claim that Jews in Europe had it as bad as Blacks in America (although the medieval period was pretty brutal, and the threat of persecution was always real even during the better times). The point was simply that a shared history of oppression doesn't necessitate that the bonds of trust break down. I would be interested in hearing a causal argument for how that would happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

What is incorrect?

That there was a long history of antisemitism in Europe.

It ignored the fact that there have also been periods where Jews have done very well indeed. In his monumental biography of Hitler, Ian Kershaw points out that in pre-war Berlin nearly all the department stores were owned by Jews. The amount of capital needed to achieve that requires a benign environment for some considerable period of time. No doubt even in such periods there may have been some anti-semitism in some quarters of society, but I would liken it to the levels of anti-semitism in todays United States, present, but currently inconsequential in the overall scheme of things.

29 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

The point was simply that a shared history of oppression doesn't necessitate that the bonds of trust break down. I would be interested in hearing a causal argument for how that would happen.

African Americans were taken from their communities, then in the U.S. they were traded and the nature of their captivity precluded the development of ordinary social and community structures. I think it's pretty safe to say that anyone exhibiting any leadership qualities would find themselves being lynched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

I think there may be some misunderstanding here. Here is an example of how the theory works: if a white person makes an argument based on genetics for why black people are inferior, that is considered racism, because the white person belongs to the 'oppressor' group, while if a black person makes a mirror image argument, then that wouldn't be racism, because they belong to the 'oppressed' class, and axiomatically can't be called racist.

This theory is ahistorical in content, presuming all groups are on equal footing relative to one another to force a logical consistency. Of both mirror examples, only one side has yielded significant actionable consequences in a real world context, while the other is negligible in comparison in the macro sense.

Why the insistence of crowning both with the same term then? And if one admits both are “racist”, then how does one subsequently go to qualify and quantity the obvious dissimilarity in impact? What additional term could be used? Or is the reality that no term is used, and it’s all obfuscated because “everyone can be racist”, so therefore everyone is off the hook, even the worst offenders? When everybody is guilty, nobody becomes guilty. Circular whataboutism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

argument based on genetics 

Shockley did this, but he was a physicist. His premise about why so many blacks in the cities were mentally retarded in the 1970s was false. As soon as leaded gasoline was eliminated, the lead-ingested (from breathing) mental retardation rate crashed . . . virtually eliminated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Reza said:

This theory is ahistorical in content, presuming all groups are on equal footing relative to one another to force a logical consistency. Of both mirror examples, only one side has yielded significant actionable consequences in a real world context, while the other is negligible in comparison in the macro sense.

Why the insistence of crowning both with the same term then? And if one admits both are “racist”, then how does one subsequently go to qualify and quantity the obvious dissimilarity in impact? What additional term could be used? Or is the reality that no term is used, and it’s all obfuscated because “everyone can be racist”, so therefore everyone is off the hook, even the worst offenders? When everybody is guilty, nobody becomes guilty. Circular whataboutism.

Racism has a well-understood meaning, and it wasn't until the 1970's that people started to try to redefine the word, and only very recently that this gained any real currency outside of academia. In answer to your question about how we qualify it, well how about by adding a qualifier, like 'systemic'? And no, just because everyone as the ability to be racist, it doesn't let racists off the hook. I don't know where you got that idea from.

This article is from last month:

Quote

In a blow to arguments that end with “well, this is the dictionary definition of racism”, the dictionary definition of racism is being revised.

Editors at Merriam-Webster confirmed on Wednesday that they will revise the word’s definition after a campaign by a 22-year-old Drake University graduate, Kennedy Mitchum.

Mitchum wrote to the dictionary asking it to update its definition. She said that people often use the dictionary definition of racism to argue that something is not racist, on the basis that racism requires a personal dislike of someone based on their race to be real.

In an email to Merriam-Webster, Mitchum wrote: “Racism is not only prejudice against a certain race due to the color of a person’s skin, as it states in your dictionary,. It is both prejudice combined with social and institutional power. It is a system of advantage based on skin color.”

The definition, which incorporates the idea that prejudice alone is not racism (rather, racism requires a system of institutional power behind it in order to function) was put forward by the sociologist Patricia Bidol in the 1970s.

[...]

Editors added that although the dictionary aims to reflect the real-world usage of a word, rather than a particular viewpoint, “we have concluded that omitting any mention of the systemic aspects of racism promotes a certain viewpoint in itself … It also does a disservice to readers of all races.”

The decision has come amid a wave of international activism after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, which will probably leave some questioning whether there is a place for activism in the dictionary. 

But Sokolowski said that there had to be a place for it.

“Activism doesn’t change the dictionary,” he told the New York Times, adding: “Activism changes the language.”

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/merriam-webster-racism-definition-revise-kennedy-mitchum

Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power

So is this what we want? Common words redefined to reflect the agendas of left-wing academics and activists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Reza said:

The war in Iraq has been a few decades, but its ripple effects are unquantifiable and will be felt for generations. So how do you think centuries of slavery will be by comparison?

The African identity, language, religions, social structures were all forcibly removed and forgotten, something that no other group experienced of any comparible magnitude. Does the effect of this need to be spelled out, or is it not obvious?

Please do spell it out. How does it actually impact someone? I want concrete scenarios in which it holds a person back.

A group's original identity, language, religions, and social structures, all tend to be lost in the generations after voluntary immigration as well. It's not like African Americans don't have a common culture. They also arguable have a language, African American English. And just like everyone else, they belong to a variety of religions, as I'm sure their African ancestors did. However, they have also developed their own forms of Christianity, Islam, and even Judaism (sort of).

Quote

African-American culture is rooted in the blend between the cultures of West and Central Africa and the Anglo-Celtic culture that has influenced and modified its development in the American South. Understanding its identity within the culture of the United States, it is, in the anthropological sense, conscious of its origins as largely a blend of West and Central African cultures. Although slavery greatly restricted the ability of African-Americans to practice their original cultural traditions, many practices, values and beliefs survived, and over time have modified and/or blended with European cultures and other cultures such as that of Amerindians. African-American identity was established during the slavery period, producing a dynamic culture that has had and continues to have a profound impact on American culture as a whole, as well as that of the broader world.[1]

Elaborate rituals and ceremonies were a significant part of African-Americans' ancestral culture. Many West African societies traditionally believed that spirits dwelled in their surrounding nature. From this disposition, they treated their environment with mindful care. They also generally believed that a spiritual life source existed after death and that ancestors in this spiritual realm could then mediate between the supreme Creator and the living. Honor and prayer were displayed to these "ancient ones", the spirit of that past. West Africans also believed in spiritual possession.[2]

At the beginning of the 18th century, Christianity began to spread across North Africa; this shift in religion began displacing traditional African spiritual practices. The enslaved Africans brought this complex religious dynamic within their culture to America. This fusion of traditional African beliefs with Christianity provided a commonplace for those practicing religion in Africa and America.[2]

After emancipation, unique African-American traditions continued to flourish, as distinctive traditions or radical innovations in music, art, literature, religion, cuisine, and other fields. 20th-century sociologists, such as Gunnar Myrdal, believed that African-Americans had lost most of their cultural ties with Africa.[3] But, anthropological field research by Melville Herskovits and others demonstrated that there has been a continuum of African traditions among Africans of the diaspora.[4] The greatest influence of African cultural practices on European culture is found below the Mason-Dixon line in the American South.[5][6]

For many years African-American culture developed separately from American culture, both because of slavery and the persistence of racial discrimination in America, as well as African-American slave descendants' desire to create and maintain their own traditions. Today, African-American culture has influenced American culture and yet still remains a distinct cultural body.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_culture

I'm not quite sure some of you are accurately representing the state of African American culture and tradition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

That there was a long history of antisemitism in Europe.

Wow. I really don't know what to say to that. I can't believe you quite mean this, so you might want to rephrase it. It's not that difficult to find the many, many instances of discrimination, forced evictions, mass killings, etc, that Jews endured in Europe for around 2000 years. Whether or not some Jews did well in the midst of all that hardly changes the fact that there is a long history of anti-antisemitism. Maybe you can tell me when the relatively short period of antisemitism was then. 

Quote

It ignored the fact that there have also been periods where Jews have done very well indeed. In his monumental biography of Hitler, Ian Kershaw points out that in pre-war Berlin nearly all the department stores were owned by Jews. The amount of capital needed to achieve that requires a benign environment for some considerable period of time. No doubt even in such periods there may have been some anti-semitism in some quarters of society, but I would liken it to the levels of anti-semitism in todays United States, present, but currently inconsequential in the overall scheme of things.

I'm sorry, but this is a completely insane statement. There are so many examples that could be brought to refute this, but I will just give a few examples.

Quote

 

Jews were subject to a wide range of restrictions throughout most of European history. Since the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215, Christian Europeans required Jews and Muslims to wear special clothing, such as the Judenhut and the yellow badge for Jews, to distinguish them from Christians. The practice of their religions was often restricted, and they had to swear special oaths. Jews were not allowed to vote, where vote existed, and some countries formally prohibited their entry, such as Norway, Sweden and Spain after the expulsion in the late 15th century.

[...]

Jewish involvement in gentile society began during the Age of Enlightenment. Haskalah, the Jewish movement supporting the adoption of enlightenment values, advocated an expansion of Jewish rights within European society. Haskalah followers advocated "coming out of the ghetto", not just physically but also mentally and spiritually.

In 1790, in the United States, President George Washington wrote a letter establishing that Jews in America share the same full equal rights, including the right to practice their religion, with all other Americans.[5]

On September 28, 1791, revolutionary France became the second country in Europe, after Poland 500 years earlier, to emancipate its Jewish population. The 40,000 Jews living in France at the time were the first to confront the opportunities and challenges offered by emancipation.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_emancipation

A hundred years after France emancipated the Jewish population, they had the infamous Dreyfus affair, which coincided with a period of strong anti-semitism.

Quote

The social context was marked by the rise of nationalism and of antisemitism.

The growth of antisemitism, virulent since the publication of Jewish France by Édouard Drumont in 1886 (150,000 copies in the first year), went hand in hand with the rise of clericalism. Tensions were high in all strata of society, fueled by an influential press, which was virtually free to write and disseminate any information even if offensive or defamatory. Legal risks were limited if the target was a private person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair#Social

 

In the United States, they still had quotas on the number of Jewish students admitted to some of the most prestigious universities until the 1960's.

Quote

Certain private universities, most notably Harvard, introduced policies which effectively placed a quota on the number of Jews admitted to the university. According to historian David Oshinsky, on writing about Jonas Salk, "Most of the surrounding medical schools (Cornell, Columbia, Pennsylvania, and Yale) had rigid quotas in place. In 1935 Yale accepted 76 applicants from a pool of 501. About 200 of those applicants were Jewish and only five got in." He notes that Dean Milton Winternitz's instructions were remarkably precise: "Never admit more than five Jews, take only two Italian Catholics, and take no blacks at all."[16] As a result, Oshinsky added, "Jonas Salk and hundreds like him" enrolled in New York University instead.[17] Physicist and Nobel laureate Richard P. Feynman was turned away from Columbia College in the 1930s and went to MIT instead. See also Numerus clausus in the United States.

Yale University's informal admissions policy to restrict the school's Jewish student body to around 10 percent ended in the early 1960s.[18]

 

Of course that doesn't mean that some Jews didn't extraordinarily well, and amassed tremendous wealth, but that isn't mutually exclusive with there being antisemitism within society. Using that logic, there certainly can't be much racism in American society, given that you have Black billionaires, a Black president, widespread adoption of Black culture, etc, etc.

 

Quote

African Americans were taken from their communities, then in the U.S. they were traded and the nature of their captivity precluded the development of ordinary social and community structures. I think it's pretty safe to say that anyone exhibiting any leadership qualities would find themselves being lynched.

This doesn't explain how the effects would be felt in today's world. African Americans were after all able to establish a successful civil rights movement, who's leaders showed plenty of leadership. Why isn't that more relevant than what happened hundreds of years ago?

 

Anyway, we've got off on a tangent from the original point you were responding to, which it seems to me you simply misunderstood.

Edited by Haydar Husayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

It's not that difficult to find the many, many instances of discrimination, forced evictions, mass killings, etc, that Jews endured in Europe for around 2000 years.

Indeed it isn't and I am not disputing the above.

The important level of essential detail I wanted to add (and which you persistently ignore) was that there have also been long periods of European history when Jews have prospered economically and culturally.

There has been no such let up for African Americans.

It's a very simple point of difference.

As for the reference to Harvard etc. yes that is racism.

And the examples you cite have obviously coped with racism better than African-Americans. My contention above had been that all other racial groups seem to have that resilience partly because their within-group racial identification seems stronger than that of African-Americans.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

Indeed it isn't and I am not disputing the above.

The important level of essential detail I wanted to add (and which you persistently ignore) was that there have also been long periods of European history when Jews have prospered economically and culturally.

I would like you to be more precise in this statement. When were these long periods?

 

48 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

There has been no such let up for African Americans.

It's a very simple point of difference.

African Americans aren't prospering economically and culturally? I would submit that African Americans culture is far more accepted than Jewish culture ever was. There are also plenty of extremely wealthy and prosperous African Americans. Maybe once you pin down which period of European history you are referring to, we can make more accurate comparisons.

 

48 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

As for the reference to Harvard etc. yes that is racism.

And the examples you cite have obviously coped with racism better than African-Americans. My contention above had been that all other racial groups seem to have that resilience partly because their within-group racial identification seems stronger than that of African-Americans.

What is the evidence for that statement? In my previous post I provided what I think is evidence to the contrary. This feels like conjecture to me, and I'd be interested in knowing how many African American scholars would agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

I would like you to be more precise in this statement. When were these long periods?

 

Ownership of 50% of a country's clothing industry by less than 4% of the population does not happen overnight.

 

Quote

 

It is widely accepted that a disproportionate number of fashion- related businesses were Jewish-owned, though exact statistics differ greatly (Jews made up no more than four percent of the German population even in Berlin, which was home to roughly 160,000 Jews in the 1920s, or one-third of all Jews in Germany).3 Jewish men such as Valentin Manheimer and Herrmann Gerson, many of them immigrants from Eastern Europe, are credited with launching Berlin’s Konfektion [ready-to-wear] industry: their salons and department stores sold mass-produced clothing at fixed prices already in the late nineteenth century.4

...

Today, most scholars agree that eighty percent is a vastly inflated number and that the percentage of Jewish-owned clothing design and manufacturing businesses is closer to fifty percent.

 

Fashioning Jews : Clothing, Culture, and Commerce, edited by Leonard J. Greenspoon, Purdue University Press, 2013. p114

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

I would like you to be more precise in this statement. When were these long periods?

Throughout most of European history, The Church forbade Christians from banking. They did not control the lending practices of Jewish Europeans, however, some states prohibited Jews from owning land. This led to many Jewish people turning to lending at interest to make a living, and it turned out to be quite lucrative and the practice spread.

Additionally, because The Church gives Jews a place of some honor, European Jews were rarely prohibited their cultural and religious practices. 

The same can not be said for the African forced diaspora. As parts of the industrial agriculture machine, they were denied even their humanity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, notme said:

They did not control the lending practices of Jewish Europeans, however, some states prohibited Jews from owning land.

In countries such as Lithuania, Poland and Russia the occupations of distilling, tavern-keeping and tax farming have also been noted.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=D9BNcKGBkVkC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=r6Aj1DB5wBcC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

I can't make claims for other countries since I've not read about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This interesting article documents how African Americans developed a high school in the U.S. long before whites did and achieved results with a minimum of external funding. Booker T. Washington’s approach was more influential among blacks than any other method, especially before World War I. The key: up until 1960 the black nuclear family was dominant. Then the NAACP began lobbying and weakened the self-sufficiency of the black community and black nuclear family, thereby undermining the development of a virtuous black middle class. Forced integration and political liberalism did the job.

The Civil Rights Movement and the Collapse of the Black Nuclear Family

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Northwest said:

Then the NAACP began lobbying and weakened the self-sufficiency of the black community and black nuclear family, thereby undermining the development of a virtuous black middle class. Forced integration and political liberalism did the job.

I would argue that the lack of stable jobs for black men in the south did far more harm to "nuclear family" and black community than integration and liberalism.

And I really can't hold "nuclear family" as an ideal anyway. I've lived it all my life - it's isolating and denies children a range of role models. I maintain that "it takes a village to (properly) raise a child." Individualism and its offshoots are unnecessary divisions and keep us weak and poor. I know there are flaws in the extended family system too, but I feel that it's closer to ideal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Northwest said:

This interesting article documents how African Americans developed a high school in the U.S. long before whites did and achieved results with a minimum of external funding. Booker T. Washington’s approach was more influential among blacks than any other method, especially before World War I. The key: up until 1960 the black nuclear family was dominant. Then the NAACP began lobbying and weakened the self-sufficiency of the black community and black nuclear family, thereby undermining the development of a virtuous black middle class. Forced integration and political liberalism did the job.

The Civil Rights Movement and the Collapse of the Black Nuclear Family

Salam, 

Do you remember that was some inference that I was somehow anti-semetic for claiming that there is a nefarious link between Jews and African-Americans?

When you read the article did certain things not jump out?

"Unfortunately when the NAACP with its early backers from a specific ethnic religious groups that began demanding government management for dealing with the problem, the success of the Booker T. Washington movement was targeted."

"The collapse of the black family we alluded to in an earlier article is inextricably linked to the rise of the Civil Rights Movement"

"By 1973, programs like the Children’s Defense Fund which was created by Marian Wright Edelman, wife of Peter Elderman, attacked the nuclear family by seeing

“children not as the offspring of individual mothers and fathers responsible for rearing them, but as an oppressed class living in generic, nebulous, and never-to-be-analyzed ‘families.’ "

"But in 1960, during the counter-culture revolution, Spelman College’s heritage was completely turned around. And one of the individuals behind this revolution was then Professor of History, Howard Zinn."

If you read further back, the lesbian who first decided to change the meaning of racism, Patricia Bidol-Padva also coincidentally is a member of said group.

 

...So as I said, I understand that for many people the issue is the generalisation, but I really don't understand how people can look at the history of modern America and then call people anti-Semites for stating the obvious, in that case the article is anti-semetic and should also be discarded.

This is an Islamic forum, clearly Islam does not agree or indorse the Jewish/BLM views on racism, racial supremacy, so-called white guilt, the nuclear family being a tool of white oppression or any of the other rubbish people are defending on this thread. Yet without a modicum of shame you have Muslims openly defending these positions. That is why it is important to highlightlight where these ideas stem from so that people might actually question their validity rather than being swayed by embarrassingly stupid appeal to emotion arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...