The infamous SVP poster calling for the ban
Today, many people are outraged at the Swiss people’s decision to ban minarets from their skylines, a decision made by referendum.
From the outset, let me say that I am wholly opposed to this decision, just as I am opposed to the burqa ban in France, Egypt’s ban on building churches, several Muslim countries’ bans on conversion, and Saudi Arabia’s banning of female hair. I fundamentally believe in the right of anyone to practice their religion, anywhere (though I certainly prefer they keep it to themselves). I should also say that two wrongs don’t make a right: I’ve heard plenty of statements along the lines of “good for the Swiss, they’re standing up to Islam” from people who, were the tables turned, would call inequality if a majority-Muslim nation does the same thing.
That said, much of the outrage today seems to be directed solely at the Swiss, with much emphasis on the fact that Switzerland is a democracy, and the referendum was voted on by the people. It would seem that Switzerland is being held to a higher standard than those Muslim countries with similar practices; Fair enough, you might say, those Muslim countries with similar laws are not democracies. What people seem to be forgetting is that democracy can have undesirable results: Hitler was approved by an 85% vote of the people, for example, and everyone’s favorite example—Hamas—was elected by popular vote almost four years ago.
So why do so many people hold Switzerland to a higher standard? Is the assumption that a country which gives the freedom of voting to its citizens a better country? Mind you, I’ve never actually been to Switzerland, but having lived nearly 25 years in the United States, I can say with absolute certainty that there have been a great number of poor democratic choices made by the people in my lifetime, and undoubtedly many more will follow. But here, when we complain, we are waved off with the statement, “But it is the will of the people.” And what if the people are just not right?
I find this incident particularly ironic: What a lot of Europeans and Americans seem not to realize is that, often, Muslims have left their own countries and emigrated to the so-called West in search of better opportunity, or more freedom. Bigoted types, when ranting about Muslims in Europe, often use the tired old claim that “they should go back where they came from.” What this totally ignores is that where they came from may have been somewhere where they lacked the freedom to practice Islam as much or as little as they wanted. Or more often, that “where they came from” is in fact where they are: Plenty of Swiss Muslims were born in Switzerland and know no other country as their home.
Nevertheless, it was not the Swiss Muslims who made the decision to ban minarets. It was 58% of the voters, a 58% vote from racists who think that somehow banning minarets will do something other than anger Muslims, driving them farther toward the fringe and for some, toward more extreme beliefs.
Democracy is only as righteous as its citizens. And if the citizens of a country are racist, democracy will reflect that.
Related posts:
- Democracy Betrayed
- Weekend Reading: Noted Arab Citizens Call on Israel to Shed Jewish Identity
- Would Abdul Rahman Be A Martyr for Afghan Democracy?
- The Only Democracy in the Region Just Banned Arab Parties
- Palestinian Citizens of Israel: Govt. Policy Does not Discriminate
"In a democracy, two wolves and a sheep are in the room, and everybody votes on what's for dinner. In America, the sheep has a gun."
Posted by Hanitizer | November 30, 2009, 1:44 amBut here, when we complain, we are waved off with the statement, “But it is the will of the people.” And what if the people are just not right?
Well, Jillian, that's why we don't have direct democracy. We elect people to represent our interests, and those representatives are the ones who are supposed to be voting (on our behalf) on the important issues. It's a good system, but unfortunately people are often "not right" when it comes to casting their vote on who they want to represent them! And there's probably no getting around that. Or would you support an IQ test or some other qualifier before people are allowed to vote? Because, the US had such criteria in the early days and everyone says that as discriminatory, now!
It was 58% of the voters, a 58% vote from racists…
You think 58% of adult Swiss are racists? Seriously? Because, I keep hearing Switzerland used as an example of the perfect modern society lol.
Anyway, I wish you'd link some articles when you make posts. I don't want to discuss this with you because its the first I've heard of it.
Posted by programmer craig | November 30, 2009, 4:10 amCraig, all you need to do is Google "Swiss minaret" and you'll find a slew of news articles from various sources – isn't that better in your mind than me choosing the source?
Or would you support an IQ test or some other qualifier before people are allowed to vote? Because, the US had such criteria in the early days and everyone says that as discriminatory, now!
Heh. It was literacy tests, I believe, and that was indeed discriminatory because at the time, that disqualified more people of color than not. I mean, do I wish in my little head that we could require people to at least learn about the candidates before voting, thus preventing people from casting one-issue votes? Absolutely. But that's impossible. Still, I have no doubt it would target conservative Middle America the most. You know, the type of folks who are against abortion and so cast their vote for whatever idiot yaps about savin' the babies?
You think 58% of adult Swiss are racists? Seriously? Because, I keep hearing Switzerland used as an example of the perfect modern society lol.
I think most white people are racist, Craig. We all are. It's a matter of recognizing it (and our white privilege) and making intentional decisions to NOT be racist.
And for the record, I'm tired of Europe being upheld as "less racist" than us. In Europe, they still use blackface to make a point (prime example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jul/… People of color still face obstacles in the U.S., but it's nothing like the way Arab and African immigrants are treated in Europe nowadays.
Posted by JillianKF | November 30, 2009, 12:36 pmCraig, all you need to do is Google "Swiss minaret" and you'll find a slew of news articles from various sources – isn't that better in your mind than me choosing the source?
Or would you support an IQ test or some other qualifier before people are allowed to vote? Because, the US had such criteria in the early days and everyone says that as discriminatory, now!
Heh. It was literacy tests, I believe, and that was indeed discriminatory because at the time, that disqualified more people of color than not. I mean, do I wish in my little head that we could require people to at least learn about the candidates before voting, thus preventing people from casting one-issue votes? Absolutely. But that's impossible. Still, I have no doubt it would target conservative Middle America the most. You know, the type of folks who are against abortion and so cast their vote for whatever idiot yaps about savin' the babies?
You think 58% of adult Swiss are racists? Seriously? Because, I keep hearing Switzerland used as an example of the perfect modern society lol.
I think most white people are racist, Craig. We all are. It's a matter of recognizing it (and our white privilege) and making intentional decisions to NOT be racist.
And for the record, I'm tired of Europe being upheld as "less racist" than us. In Europe, they still use blackface to make a point (prime example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jul/… People of color still face obstacles in the U.S., but it's nothing like the way Arab and African immigrants are treated in Europe nowadays.
Posted by JillianKF | November 30, 2009, 12:36 pmStill, I have no doubt it would target conservative Middle America the most. You know, the type of folks who are against abortion and so cast their vote for whatever idiot yaps about savin' the babies?
As opposed to the base of the democratic party, which votes for whoever promises them the most free stuff? lol.
I think most white people are racist, Craig. We all are.
That might have been a true thing you said there, if you had said "most people" instead of "most white people". Whites are not particularly racist. Though I'd agree that discrimination against people who are different is part of human nature. Some kind of instinctive survival mechanism, no doubt.
It's a matter of recognizing it (and our white privilege)
White privilege now, is it? So how do you explain all the egregious bigotry in parts of the world where there are no substantial numbers of whites, and no "white privilege"?
…and making intentional decisions to NOT be racist.
A lot of times people who aren't otherwise racist *become* racist because they had an intensely bad experience (or more than one) with people of that race. Whatever bad whites did to you, Jillian, you might wanna try following your own advice and make an intentional decision to give us another chance. I knew a white girl like you a long time ago who was so angry towards whites she moved halfway across the world, and even before she took that step she would date anyone BUT whites, and she didn't hang out with whites. Only reason I ever knew her at all is my wife was Chinese. I'm not trying to analyze you here or anything but your bias is quite obvious. If you don't want to take corrective action maybe you could at least try to hide it a bit better. For future reference
Posted by programmer craig | November 30, 2009, 2:41 pmI don't hate white people, Craig. And when I refer to "white privilege," it's with the recognition that white privilege is a choice that some people of color make too (think of Danny Thomas, who is Lebanese, whitening his name, or the "whitening" of Jews in America in the past few decades). White people don't have to exercise their white privilege, but most aren't aware of it at all.
Also Craig, I'm not angry nor am I avoiding white people. I live in Boston, perhaps America's whitest big city (maybe that's not true, I don't know). I just recognize privilege.
Whites are not particularly racist
Craig, lots of people practice discrimination. Lots of people are bigoted. In America, however, only white people (and those who intentionally or unintentionally pass for white) can exercise white privilege. I'm talking about institutional racism.
As opposed to the base of the democratic party, which votes for whoever promises them the most free stuff? lol.
I'm not a fan of the democratic party either. Yes, I voted for Obama, but not because I thought he'd make a freaking dent in America's wretched foreign policy, but because I thought that he would make mostly right decisions domestically. And while the financial decisions have been mostly disastrous, as a woman, I am proud that he ditched Bush's disgusting global gag rule (for example).
Posted by JillianKF | November 30, 2009, 3:12 pmWhat is white privilege anyway, and what can you do with it that other people can't do?
Is it some sort of unfair advantage, that must be corrected? Is it something wrong? Or is it something naturally occuring… which The Bell Curve seemed to demonstrate with empirical statistical analysis… causing it to be rejected.
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 30, 2009, 4:38 pmAs opposed to the base of the democratic party, which votes for whoever promises them the most free stuff? lol.
Getting a little off-topic here, but you are absolutely right. And the plan for the liberals is to get as many people as possible dependent on the government, for healthcare, and for as much as possible, bringing in socialism and redistribution of wealth… then it will be almost impossible to elect someone who might "take it away"
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 30, 2009, 3:33 pmIt's a matter of recognizing it (and our white privilege) and making intentional decisions to NOT be racist.
So you are advocating something called "white guilt" as well as the idea that whites owe something to non-whites simply because they are not white. That's strange.
Here is an article from 2001: Arab Racism And Imperialism In Sudan (Africa)
And of course the problems in Sudan continue. The International Criminal Court in The Hague on March 4, 2009, issued an arrest warrant for President Omar al-Bashir on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. Isn't it strange how all the Arab leaders banded together supporting Bashir and rejecting the warrant?
There are definitely race issues in the world today, but not the ones you mention.
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 30, 2009, 3:21 pmIt's a matter of recognizing it (and our white privilege) and making intentional decisions to NOT be racist.
So you are advocating something called "white guilt" as well as the idea that whites owe something to non-whites simply because they are not white. That's strange.
Here is an article from 2001: Arab Racism And Imperialism In Sudan (Africa)
And of course the problems in Sudan continue. The International Criminal Court in The Hague on March 4, 2009, issued an arrest warrant for President Omar al-Bashir on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. Isn't it strange how all the Arab leaders banded together supporting Bashir and rejecting the warrant?
There are definitely race issues in the world today, but not the ones you mention.
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 30, 2009, 3:21 pmOh, so the race issues I bring up are just nonexistent?
Typical.
Posted by JillianKF | November 30, 2009, 3:35 pmNot saying they are nonexistent. By There are definitely race issues in the world today, but not the ones you mention I mean that as far as I can tell, the race issues that need the most attention are in Africa.
But yes you make some good points about racism, I just don't agree that whites in particular need to make extra effort to not be racist more than other groups. While on the subject, have you noticed how black racism has been sort of culturally acceptable, such as in sitcoms, where the black guy might beat up the white guy if he said the wrong thing, and that was OK?
Anyway I don't think race and religion are as important as other things when it comes to politics or ideology.
I don't think the minaret ban is racist. Perhaps it is felt that Switzerland is open for people to come and join them in their "Swissness" and contribute to it and improve it, not dominate it and take it over. It's more cultural or political than racial, I think. And you cannot deny that some of the people involved with Islam are concerned with domination.
Typical? Typical of what? lol I didn't mean to be dismissive of the issues you brought up, maybe just to show some disagreement and the reasons why.
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 30, 2009, 4:26 pmThere are definitely race issues in the world today, but not the ones you mention
So you actually mean "but not ONLY the ones you mention," right?
White people do need to make more effort because they benefit most from white privilege. On an INDIVIDUAL level, I agree that people of all colors hold responsibility, but when it comes to institutional racism? Sorry, it's white folk who need to come to terms.
Posted by JillianKF | December 1, 2009, 3:27 amThe Bell Curve
Posted by eagle007blogger | December 1, 2009, 3:54 pmYeah, I'm fully aware of that racist piece of garbage. I also don't believe in IQ as the only measure of intelligence.
Posted by JillianKF | December 2, 2009, 2:47 amI think most white people are racist, Craig. We all are. It's a matter of recognizing it (and our white privilege) and making intentional decisions to NOT be racist.
Most white people are racist, Jillian? What about most Blacks and Hispanics, are they racists too? How do you know this? White privilege is a fiction for middle class white liberals who are uncomfortable about the class privileges they enjoy and therefore need to believe that the hated working class white trash rednecks also enjoy these privileges, and it is they who should be punished for exercising them. To any working class white person who has lived through the realities of poverty in this country, as I have, it is almost laughably absurd to hear about "white privilege" when we understand better than anyone that the only color that matters in America is green. It never ceases to amaze me that the people spouting this white privilege stuff and telling me I need to be conscious of my white privilege invariably come from a higher socioeconomic background than I do, yet are completely oblivious to the class privileges they enjoy.
There is no such a thing as white privilege. There is such a thing as class privilege, with the latter being a more accurate model for how the world works than white privilege for the obivious reason that throughout history white people have been a small minority confined largely to Europe. Yet in every single country and culture from the dawn of history we see that there has always been an often hereditary ruling elite in power that has jealously guarded its power and privilege, usually to the detriment of the mass of society. There is no society in history where this dynamic doesn't apply, and the only differences are the means and the degree to which the ruling elite will go to maintain their control. Seeing things in terms of class gives you a model for social hierarchy and how it is maintained that works jiust about anywhere, but the white privilege model, at best, only works in white-dominated countries and is a poor fit even there, as the mass of white people are not part of the middle class or ruling elite and do not enjoy the privileges they are alleged to enjoy. As a working model of how the world operates, "white privilege" is near useless.
The ruling elite in this country is of course predominantly white. But they would rather people vent their rage at white people as a whole than at them specifically, and I firmly believe that is what a lot of this white privilege bullshit is designed to do. If all our problems are about race and white racism, then white people are the enemy, and Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities need to unite against us in a race war to win their rights. But if it's all about class, then the ruling class is the enemy, and Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities have a common interest in uniting with whites against the ruling elite. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which of those two scenarios the ruling class would prefer to see. The first is the classic divide and rule strategy that keeps the litttle people fighting against each other, and the latter has us uniting to fight against them. You think that might be part of the reason the "liberal" media and the "liberal" university you went to relentlessly pushed this fiction on you? Naaaah.
The populist People's Party, as far back as the 1890s, recognized this dynamic. Though largely a Southern party comprised of bona fide rednecks, it was one of the fist political parties in America to adopt a bi-racial platform advocating unity among the black and white working class. But elitist liberals tell us that populists are all racists and fascists, just look at that scumbag Glenn Beck. That's what a populist is.
The preamble to the platform of the People's Party is as near relevant today as it was back then. Does this sound like the platform of a racist or fascist party?
http://trollblog.wordpress.com/2009/04/04/746/
"You are kept apart that you may be separately fleeced of your earnings. You are made to hate each other because upon that hatred is rested the keystone of the arch of financial despotism which enslaves you both. You are deceived and blinded that you may not see how this race antagonism perpetuates a monetary system which beggars both."
Now compare this to the anti-white, anti-working class, pro corporatist rhetoric spewing forth from elitist liberals who support the Democratic party. Does this rhetoric serve social justice, or is it an attack on it?
Posted by Sean2009 | December 1, 2009, 3:25 amDo you really think there's no such thing as white privilege? While I think you make a point about white liberals dismissing working class white people, I think you're doing people of color a serious disservice.
And BTW, Sean, I probably don't come from a higher socioeconomic background than you. I was raised working class.
Posted by JillianKF | December 2, 2009, 2:49 amDo you really think there's no such thing as white privilege?
Yes, I think there is no such thing as white privilege, only class privilege. Racism and discrimination against Blacks doesn't translate into automatic privilege for working class whites. I don't arrive at this conclusion arbitrarily, but from actually examining the claims of those who support that it exists. First off, it doesn't help that two of the primary exponents of the "white privilege" theory are Tim Wise and Noel Ignatiev, who are two of the most execrable anti-white racist scumbags I've ever had the displeasure of reading. Ignatiev, in particular, has an intense and obvious hatred for whites and even calls for the destruction of the white race. He blames the sorry conditions that blacks have endured in this country on the Irish of all people, even though we were ourselves an oppressed people in this country considered by the ruling WASP elite to be beneath the blacks. So yeah, I know it's wrong to shoot the messenger and all that, but anybody who hates me for being white AND Irish isn't likely to be very convincing on anything else.
The other issue is that when I have challenged people to give me meaningful examples of how "white privilege" benefits the white working class, they have consistently been unable to do so. Peggy McIntosh's article "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack," seems to be considered the definitive article on white privilege. It lists a number of examples of what she perceives to be "privileges" that only Whites enjoy. Most of the stuff she lists is either absurd, easily debunked or blatantly trivial. A few reflect serious examples of racism, but even there cannot be said to be privileges of whites. Absence of discrimination is not a privilege any more than not being blind is a privilege. Conspicuously absent in her analysis is any mention of the middle class privileges she enjoys, which impact negatively on both the white working class as well as Blacks. Foremost of these is nepotism and patronage, which is the means by which many in the middle class monopolize job opportunities and systematically shut out the working class. Blacks also practice nepotism against other Blacks within the framework of affirmative action, where black jobs are immune to white nepotism. Why no mention of this?
I am certainly willing to change my views if anyone cares to convince me. A few meaningful examples of how "white privilege" benefits the white working class would help. I may not be able to accept the idea in full, but at least I can grasp where you're coming from.
While I think you make a point about white liberals dismissing working class white people, I think you're doing people of color a serious disservice.
I think you are doing the white working class a disservice by advocating the fiction that they enjoy the same privileges based on nothing but their skin color as the ruling elite in this country. Can you seriously claim every white moron in the country with a C average can get into Harvard the way Bush did, or are most such privileges strictly class-based? How does continuously pitting blacks and whites against each other as adversaries based on trivial nonsense like that McIntosh stuff benefit either? Shouldn't we be emphasizing unity to confront the elitist rape of our country going on right now, rather than haggling over who feels more comfortable at a party of the opposite race?
And BTW, Sean, I probably don't come from a higher socioeconomic background than you. I was raised working class.
I don't know anything about your background, Jillian, but the fact remains that most of the people I hear pushing this theory are middle class. It has been my experience that most middle class people are pretty clueless about the realities of poverty in America—black or white—and it is hard for me to believe anyone who has lived that Hell would mistake it for a privileged existence. I can only conclude you had an unusually easy go of it that doesn't fit the norm.
Posted by Sean2009 | December 2, 2009, 4:07 pmoh its you again programmer craig, lurking about (and still alive i see…hmmm unfortunate.), hassling these good folks.
don't you have some neo-zionazi gala to go to, where you can bash muslims and arabs to your hearts content without annoying the hell out of the rest of humanity. You can talk about how enlightened and freedom loving (ha!) and liberal you are, whilst you abuse your dark-skinned servant.
you sad sad little man (man: understatement).
Posted by anticraig | November 30, 2009, 12:52 pmOh, Craig, we do have local direct democracy (on referendums)…Why do you think it's not a crime to smoke pot in Massachusetts anymore?
The Swiss vote is similar to a state-wide referendum given the size of the country.
Posted by JillianKF | November 30, 2009, 3:36 pmFor the record: the U.S. has representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy.
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 30, 2009, 4:49 pmYes, we have referendums in California as well. There is no federal referendum system, though.
Posted by programmer craig | November 30, 2009, 10:40 pmBy the way, Jillian, did they ban the building of mosques? Or just the minarets?
Posted by programmer craig | November 30, 2009, 4:14 amOnly minarets, but those four already in existence may remain. The decision was meant to be symbolic – there was a poster (http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/11/200911… showing a woman in niqaab (note: most Swiss Muslim women, like most French Muslim women, do NOT cover their faces) and a bunch of missile-looking minarets. Propaganda much?
Posted by JillianKF | November 30, 2009, 12:30 pmOnly minarets, but those four already in existence may remain. The decision was meant to be symbolic – there was a poster (http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/11/200911… showing a woman in niqaab (note: most Swiss Muslim women, like most French Muslim women, do NOT cover their faces) and a bunch of missile-looking minarets. Propaganda much?
Posted by JillianKF | November 30, 2009, 12:30 pmby the way, programmer craig, do you think? Or do they supply you with a script?
Posted by anticraig | November 30, 2009, 12:55 pmJillian, I agree with you on all what you said, especially on democracy. I see it as a tool not a goal to acheive something which In fact, reflects people's opinion so it's about them not democary. Needless to mention the religion rights by the way!
Posted by Hicham Maged | November 30, 2009, 4:54 amThanks Hicham! Have you written your piece yet?
Posted by JillianKF | November 30, 2009, 12:36 pmYes I did since many hours ago but I was lazy enough to link for ovet Twitter!
Posted by Hicham Maged | November 30, 2009, 8:37 pmJillian: you are automatically dismissing the reasoning of the majority who voted in support of this measure… that it is not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture. They see minarets as symbolizing a political-religious claim to power, which challenges fundamental rights.
Building codes, zoning, and that sort of thing are naturally under the control of the government. So this just enforces a building code that the majority of the people supported… the free people did not want the skyline filled with something they fell symbolizes political-religious claim to power.
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 30, 2009, 1:35 pmThey see minarets as symbolizing a political-religious claim to power, which challenges fundamental rights.
Just because it's their perception does not make it okay.
Posted by JillianKF | November 30, 2009, 3:30 pmWhy should they be subjected to something they perceive a certain way, whether you agree with the perception or not, in their own country? I say it would not be OK to force something like that upon them.
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 30, 2009, 4:06 pmWhose country, exactly?
Posted by JillianKF | November 30, 2009, 5:32 pm//They see minarets as symbolizing a political-religious claim to power, which challenges fundamental rights.//
I live in a Muslim majority country and there are huge crosses that can be seen dotted around the capital city; and most people i'm sure are repulsed by this sight. However if the Muslim democratic government decides tomorrow to pull down all the crosses, you wouldn't hesitate to call us bigots. Of course the only reason you come up with excuses to defend your countrymen(white Swiss) is because…. they are your countrymen! Anyone would do the same
Posted by OooKhalid | November 30, 2009, 4:09 pmJillian, it is good we have begun to come to grips with the levels of our own racism, but it is hardly lacking in Muslim countries as well. Racism is an ugly part of the human condition, not just to privileged whites.
Are the Swiss standing against Islam, or standing for Islam as expressed through Swiss values? i will have to ask a Swiss friend and get back to you. One who has worked in refugee resettlement for twenty years.
Most of the mosques I have seen in the US are not constructed with minarets, has there been a similar conversation going?
Does Austria have a similar ban, I wonder? Just as the Crusades are a part of today's memory in Jordan, so was the siege on Vienna. I do not think that Austrians nor the Swiss would welcome such a visible remainder of that period in history, any more than building churches that look like Crusader castles in Jordan.
Having worked with refugee resettlement in Europe, I can say that most Europeans know very well that Muslim refugees came fleeing oppression of several varieties. If to some a minaret is symbol that what those refugees fled is now being brought into their own land, I can understand some concern.
Muslims, whether Sunni, Shi'a or Sufi, are completely free to worship in Switzerland. I don't believe the lack of a minaret hinders that freedom. Bint Battuta has an interesting link.
I think there is something a bit odd in saying that this decision will cause Muslim anger which will cause extremism. Isn't that saying Muslims are not capable of handling anger rationally?
Posted by kinzi | November 30, 2009, 2:30 pmGreat insight, you make good points, something to think about.
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 30, 2009, 2:49 pmKinzi – Institutional racism in majority white countries is what I was mostly referring to. Racism in majority white countries comes from white people, because white people have the power. Do Arabs practice racism in their own countries against minorities? Absolutely. But that's not the point of this post, and if I were discussing the Arab majority oppression of Morocco's Amazigh (which I have on this blog, though not for some time), I would've mentioned that.
There are mosques in the US with minarets, and there are those without. Some Muslim friends say that minarets aren't important; it's the place of prayer that matters. I think a lot of it has to do with construction and funding in the US, honestly. There's a huge mosque with a minaret in Roxbury, Massachusetts (Boston), but the one in my neighborhood of Boston is really just a converted home…you wouldn't know it was a mosque if it weren't for the crescent and star over the door.
I don't, and will not accept the Swiss decision to ban minarets. Perception of what they symbolize and what they actually symbolize are two different things, and this is quite obviously a racist act.
I think there is something a bit odd in saying that this decision will cause Muslim anger which will cause extremism. Isn't that saying Muslims are not capable of handling anger rationally?
I said "some Muslims" and no, I don't think that's odd at all. Anyone who is consistently oppressed, pushed, and discriminated against will get angry…some people will choose to fight back using the system, or through peaceful protest, and others will become more extreme. What do you think is happening in the United States right now? Conservatives, tired of what they perceive to be their silencing, are become more and more openly racist. I see it every single day.
Posted by JillianKF | November 30, 2009, 3:20 pmconsistently oppressed, pushed, and discriminated against will get angry…some people will choose to fight back
In that case, how did you feel about the way Muslims acted during the great cartoon debacle?
You are saying that minarets do not symbolize Islamic domination and the bringing of Sharia law… but some Muslims themselves say that they do. Why is the perception that you have what they "actually" represent?
You said the minaret ban amounts to racism, which it doesn't, so what you are seeing every day from Conservatives is probably not racism either. The big liberal take-over of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives and their incompetence and insanity are swinging the U.S. back to the right big time.
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 30, 2009, 5:18 pmIn that case, how did you feel about the way Muslims acted during the great cartoon debacle?
Like imbeciles.
but some Muslims themselves say that they do.
And what about the rest, the majority, who just want to practice their faith?
The big liberal take-over of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives and their incompetence and insanity are swinging the U.S. back to the right big time.
On that point, we strangely agree.
Posted by JillianKF | November 30, 2009, 5:33 pmI would like to mention institutional racism of Arabs against black, which is of a much more crucial nature.
The International Criminal Court in The Hague on March 4, 2009, issued an arrest warrant for President Omar al-Bashir on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur.
Arab leaders back 'wanted' Bashir
Arab leaders have concluded their annual summit by showing their support for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir who is wanted for war crimes.
The Arab League said it rejected the International Criminal Court's decision to issue a warrant for his arrest.
These issues are obviously more critical than whether or not there are some minarets in Switzerland.
Sudan 'extermination' as aid cut
The chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court has accused Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir of "exterminating" refugees by expelling international aid agencies.
Posted by eagle007blogger | December 2, 2009, 7:48 am//I don't believe the lack of a minaret hinders that freedom.//
You made a good point. But i don't think the issue at hand is whether a minaret is an essential part of a mosque and worship. There are mosque architecture way back at the beginning of Islam and 12/13th century where minarets were not part of mosque architecture.
Its just that the European psyche has changed drastically in the past decade. 58% of Swiss believe minarets to be a threat to their lives. That's more than half; that's huge. I'm sure even then, most of the 58% are decent people with no racist tendencies(like your friend helping the refugees). But they felt threatened enough to vote against a superficial symbol of Islam! The fact that they are somewhat receptive to the racist right is something to ponder over, for those Muslim citizens of the West. A West where Muslims are perceived as a threat to their lifestyle and culture.
The minaret issue is just the latest in a long line of controversial European decisions like
1) banning of scarves worn by Muslim women to educational institutes,
2)refusing Muslim Turkey membership at the EU, even tough it was more eligible then those latest EU members
3)and not to talk about bombing and saber-rattling only the Muslim states in 'The Axis of Evil" group.
21 century Mujedar community in Europe is not something that can be ignored anymore to the history books. We must remember that Christian Spain allowed those Mujedars which were "moderates" to live peacefully for about half a century (albeit a few restrictions like going to mosque first, afterward then even praying at home) until they were forced to convert to Christianity.
That is what worries Muslims everywhere. Europe which was at the forefront of establishing and exporting Enlightenment and Secularism, is now slowly turning into a Great White Bigot of the yesteryears.
Smart Muslims in the West who see the signs are selling off their assets and coming back home. Because pretty soon you will be given the choice like Mujedars were given, assimilate or suffer the consequences.
Posted by OooKhalid | November 30, 2009, 4:55 pmIts just that the European psyche has changed drastically in the past decade
Gee, I WONDER WHY ?
Why feel threatened by such rational people?
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 30, 2009, 5:23 pmEagle.
1)That was very insensitive of you posting caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) on a public forum like this
2)The people protesting with their hate filled placards and torches, belong to an extremist political organization called the Hizb-ut-Tahrir which feeds on the frustration and raw emotions of common Muslims. They are banned in most Muslim countries but are flourishing in Europe and obtain most of their financial resources from there.
Posted by OooKhalid | December 1, 2009, 8:43 amMaybe you shouldn't look at stuff like that. Grown ups only.
Posted by GNAA | December 1, 2009, 3:34 pmoh yes, because everyone respects democracy…*cough* hamas (voted by a majority, legitimate government) *cough*…
A minaret isn't a political-religious symbol exclusively to Muslims…Christ, have they (the idiotic voters) forgotten that Gothic architecture was inspired by these "evil" minarets…
If this was directed to all religious structures (Sikhs, Hindus, Christians, Jews, and Muslims) then i would agree with you eagle man, but clearly, as the statements by those who proposed the ban, this is directed at one group of people within Swiss society. (if they only knew, these European values where learnt from the experiences of Islamic conquest of Southern parts of Europe who protected and expanded on the lost Greek knowledge…ah the ignorance of idiots…like programmer craig…the bane of my existence and nominee for dumbassry of the week).
so spare me this respect of what other "free" (ha!) people feel when clearly the line gets drawn when it comes down to "the other" (Palestinians, Iranians, Africans, and etc.).
Posted by anticraig | November 30, 2009, 2:38 pmI would have to disagree on what a minaret is.. it's an Islamic symbol.
The Swiss people did not vote against the "other" – they didn't vote against Muslim people (wow that would be wacky), they voted against a symbol of conquest. Switzerland has opened its doors to these people and not restricted their religion. Muslims in Switzerland are able to practice their religion alone or in community with others, and live according to their beliefs just as before. They can continue to construct mosques.
Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf said that her country supports religious freedoms, and she said Sunday's referendum vote banning the building of new minarets was not "a referendum against Islam … but a vote directed against fundamentalist developments."
Consider what French politician Marine Le Pen said… "elites should stop denying the aspirations and fears of the European people, who, without opposing religious freedom, reject ostentatious signs that political-religious Muslim groups want to impose."
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 30, 2009, 3:00 pmSo steeples then, are okay? I don't want a Catholic church built in my neighborhood, it symbolizes papal oppression of women.
Posted by JillianKF | November 30, 2009, 3:14 pmTake it up with your local zoning commission
Posted by programmer craig | November 30, 2009, 3:17 pmHonestly, I'd rather just let everyone live and let live, and not bother me with their religious bullcrap.
Posted by JillianKF | November 30, 2009, 3:31 pmMe too. But I used to like hearing the Church bells on Sunday morning when I was a kid. I haven't heard Church bells in at least 20 years. If ringing of Church Bells can be banned in a Christian country like the US (noise laws presumably?) then why should it be considered discrimination to ban something like minarets on the grounds that they are what amounts to an eyesore to a majority of the public? Personally I don't mind fancy houses of worship – even muslim ones. I actually think they are kind of cool. But I don't think it's bigotry when a majority of the population objects to ostentatious displays of a religion they don't subscribe to. And really… here in the US where some people are trying to get Christmas displays and public celebrations banned, you would complain when Islam is shown the same disrespect Christianity is? Speaking of that, how come I've never seen you complain about the way Christian holidays like Christmas are under attack in the US, Jillian? It seems a bit weird you are so upset about what happens to Muslims in another country like Switzerland but not about what happens to Christians right here in the US. You like Muslims better than Christians or something? That's bigotry
Anyway… here in the town I live in they have very strict zoning laws. This is an old stage coach stop and nothing can be built unless it has a "western" aka cowboy motif and gets approved by the zoning commission before construction. And you know what? I'm FINE with that! Makes for a very interesting town to live in
I can't wait for somebody to build a cowboy mosque here. I wouldn't mind at all, though I'm not sure we have enough Muslims to fill it.
Posted by programmer craig | November 30, 2009, 10:55 pmSetting certain guidelines on the structures of places to worship is problematic, innit?
To say that, sure you are free to worship is not the essential point here (which actually, there has been difficulty in that regards from the onset as denial of land rights for these mosques have occurred – you should note that in Swiss, with a population of about 400,000, there are only 4 mosques).
I will agree with you if this is an issue of voting against a symbol of conquest (which basically means that you would then offer complete support to wacky countries like Saudi Arabia who, unfortunately and unIslamically ban Churches to be built, because the cross is a symbol of the conquest and the crusades), yet I would argue that it is not truly a symbol of conquest, no more so than a dome is.
The essence of the debate is not the minaret in Switzerland, or the hijab in France, or freedom or what other nonsense. This is all cosmetic. Its all dressing for the meat of the subject: manufacturing a European identity that is defined as opposed to "symbols" or "cultures" that are different, whether its Islam (presently), Jews (in the past), or whatever scapegoat next.
I do think, again, as those who have proposed the ban (and you can find the quotes on BBC) is an unsubstantiated fear of "Islamization" which is utter silliness. It is high time that Europeans, like the Swiss, understand that Islam is part and parcel of their society and culture, just like many nations in the West Asian region (here I'm looking at mainly the Gulf States) should not ban other religions and allow freedom for their own people and others.
And consider this if you are going to quote Le Pen, allow me then to quote him too: "There wasn't anti-Semitism in France."
Ha!
Posted by anticraig | November 30, 2009, 3:23 pmThe essence of the debate is not the minaret in Switzerland, or the hijab in France, or freedom or what other nonsense. This is all cosmetic. Its all dressing for the meat of the subject: manufacturing a European identity that is defined as opposed to "symbols" or "cultures" that are different, whether its Islam (presently), Jews (in the past), or whatever scapegoat next.
Precisely. It's about adhering to a white perspective of the way things should be.
Posted by JillianKF | November 30, 2009, 3:40 pmby the way, programmer craig is a douche.
Posted by anticraig | November 30, 2009, 3:24 pmOr maybe the Swiss just didn't wanna feel taken over by Muslims?
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 30, 2009, 4:44 pmAgain, I haven't been to Switzerland, so if I may use France for a moment as an example:
The French TOOK OVER North Africa. Now they're upset about Muslims taking over France. What comes around goes around.
Posted by JillianKF | November 30, 2009, 5:34 pmThe country we are talking about lol The Swiss country. You know, where the SWISS PEOPLE voted? In their own country?
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 30, 2009, 5:37 pmRight, but how do you define a Swiss person.
Posted by JillianKF | November 30, 2009, 6:48 pmHow do YOU define a Swiss person in Switzerland? Are you going to play with semantics until you find a way to say that they didn't vote in their own country? lol
Posted by eagle007blogger | December 1, 2009, 3:45 pmI want to know your definition of a Swiss person. You're clearly missing my point here.
BTW, only 55% of the total population voted.
Posted by JillianKF | December 2, 2009, 2:50 amDear Anticraig, somehow my extended comment was just lost as it was being submitted. Ya'saara. Hope to re-create it tomorrow.
Posted by kinzi | November 30, 2009, 8:14 pm(here was the part still on paste)
Dear Anticraig, Is it problematic? In the US, there are building codes that affect every structure, whether house of worship or MacDonalds. In my home town, (and in Vienna) there were very strict regulations governing the appearance and architectural integrity of an area. From what I remember of my real estate development days, it was quite difficult to get zoning ordinances to accommodate building a new church in an area. Churches meet in warehouses and theatres, it sounds like the same thing is happening in Switzerland.
(rest later)
Posted by kinzi | November 30, 2009, 8:15 pmKinzi, I think you and I both know that this is more targeted than that.
Posted by JillianKF | December 1, 2009, 3:25 amyes, Jillian, I lost my complete comment in cyber-space. I've written a post about it on my blog. This does have quite a bit to do with it, not zoning laws alone, but the fact that identity is very important, and that which is seen reflects identity. Knowing many Swiss, and having lived next door for years, I am sad that you have painted them with the racist brush. That said, I hope you know that I appreciate your perspective and look forward to your posts.
Then again, I don't extol them as a model for all democracy, and the neutrality thing is a bit self-servingly overrated.. They are as much failed human as anyone else…but I will still choose a badly done democracy for human rights over any other system on the planet. I've spent much time in Communist, Socialist and Islamically dominated countries, and that has cinched it for me.
At one point you mentioned somewhere above how many conservatives are angry. I saw a figure at 71%, but I don't see threats, violence or anything more than lots of words and peaceful demonstrations.
There were no demonstrations or violence at the Swiss Embassy today, and I don't believe that angry Muslims will go there. I think that Swiss Muslims have what it takes to react peacefully and use democracy well to promote their desires. The whole idea of giving Muslims what they want or they will make problems is pretty insulting to Muslims, imo.
Anti-Craig, as an American I believe becoming diverse is a good thing, but embracing multi-culturalism to the point that the traditional reflection is watered down to nothing is not. Europe has no desire to be the culture-less melting pot America is. It is right to tell a country that welcomes refugees that they must be willing to give up national identity for the favor?
That will guarantee resentment and further division.
Skin color is not the narrative of the two Swiss women I communicated with on the subject. It has more to do with fear of losing ground gained for their freedoms. One mentioned that the examples of immigrant communities' treatment of women leave much to be desired. Some Europeans are not excited about having to provide additional protective services for women who are not treated lawfully by their families. Some are watching England provide shari'a type domestic laws which circumvent laws laid down to protect women, and wondering how to avoid it.
Another, who lives here, wonders why there is no movement to allow minority communities in Muslim countries the same freedoms that are being demanded in Swissra? I appreciate your mention of that. It is not a surprise that immigrants are fleeing these countries, and changes at home would both improve the image and respect-level, and probably stop the brain-drain of talent leaving those countries. It may even improve the economic issues.
I don't think this vote is as much a blow to humanity as killing of homosexuals in Iraq and Christian converts in Somalia or gem and arms trades leaving African children starving, or Gazan children still homeless.
(I hope you won't think I am a douchebag, but there are aspects of programmer craig that I have enjoyed as he comments. He has certainly livened up the comments section, no?)
Hope you will come and visit my blog too, although it is not as exciting as Kabobfest.
Posted by kinzi | December 2, 2009, 3:29 pm"There were no demonstrations or violence at the Swiss Embassy today, and I don't believe that angry Muslims will go there. I think that Swiss Muslims have what it takes to react peacefully and use democracy well to promote their desires."
I don't have time to respond to everything, but to me, this point hurts even more. I don't know well enough to know it's true, but assuming it is, then what the Swiss voters did is even worse.
I enjoy eagle007 much more than craig, personally, but to each her own. Also, excellent use of the word douchebag.
Sorry for not replying sooner; the "subscribe to replies" doesn't really work for me, for some reason. I'll check back again later when I'm not about to board a plane.
Best,
Jillian
Posted by JillianKF | December 5, 2009, 9:53 pmDear Kinzi,
Actually, if this was an argument about zoning laws i would support it, because its about an issue that is mundane and bureaucratic. yet, again, taking into context of how the proposers of the ban presented the reasons of the ban and who they are leaves matters of zoning and architecture out of the equation. Again, this is not applicable to all other religions, and the posters (like the one presented above on the post) was not universal rather it was utilizing negative imagery of ONE faith.
again, as J asked, who is a Swiss? When we ask this, what image comes to mind, is it a white person with blonde hair, or is it a brown person? a black person? That is an important question, because when defining the Swiss identity, and in extension the European identity as a whole, many do not allow it to incorporate other cultures, religions, or even till this day, skin color to the narrative. THIS is the essential point that is underlining all this. The idiot programmer craig and eagle whatevernumber, and the rest blindly supporting this ban are acting as if they believe about human rights, freedom, and all that jazz but only when it suits them.
I have said this before, and I will say this many a times if need be: The European identity has to come to terms with the fact that it is multiracial, multicultural, and multireligious, and minarets, crosses, the star of david, or whatever symbol (and lets be honest here eagle, all symbols are seeped in socio-political and historical messages) should not be banned. And I say this to the idiotic countries in the West Asian region, especially Saudi Arabia and Israel (both embarrassments to humanity that they are, and both will fall terribly) as well.
This is a blow to the progression of humanity, not only in Europe, but in West Asia, and the world.
Sincerely,
Anticraig
P.S. programmer craig is an ass and needs to learn some class, truly he is a pathetic excuse of an organism.
Posted by fed-up craig | November 30, 2009, 10:50 pmIt is easy to put blame of the ignorant, intolerant Swiss on this, but perhaps it is time for Muslims to start realizing that what has been done in the name of Islam is finally starting to show in reactions of people of the free world. And this is just the beginning. The problem with western democracies is that we try to avoid confrontation at all cost and this gives a feeling that they are weak and undetermined. But this goes only to a point. Push us over this point and people are ready to start making sacrifices for their lifestyle. Unless Islam itself takes care of its radical lunatics and get them in reign, Muslims have to accept that all Islam is going to be considered threat. Signs are already strong throughout Europe.
Posted by ArnoP | November 30, 2009, 11:29 pmI know that – I'm saying a California referendum has as much, or more, impact than a Swiss one, population-wise. (Obviously, I have no idea what the pop. of Switz is and am too lazy to look it up)
Posted by JillianKF | December 1, 2009, 12:52 amSpeaking of that, how come I've never seen you complain about the way Christian holidays like Christmas are under attack in the US, Jillian?
Oh Craig, I do. But this is Kabobfest, an Arab-American blog where we comment on Arab and Muslim issues, primarily.
Actually, I was kind of pissed at Best Buy last week – they wished Muslims a Happy Eid, a year after they put the kibotz on wishing Christians a Merry Christmas. Now THAT'S stupid. Both or neither.
Craig, I'm all about equality. I despise all religion equally, to be perfectly honest.
Posted by JillianKF | December 1, 2009, 12:54 amThis is why I don't vote.
The pressure is too much man.
Posted by SanaKF | December 1, 2009, 1:44 amAre you Swiss?
Posted by huh? | December 7, 2009, 12:06 amIch bin eine Swiss?
Posted by SanaKF | December 7, 2009, 12:26 amThis "group warfare," competition for collective powers from the government, is always going to create problems. Just another reason for separation of state and church. A government that kept out of religious matters would neither restrict Islam nor feel the need to be falsely reassuring about it. I noticed this trend is increasing in Europe from Holocaust denial to Scientology.
Posted by Moataz | December 1, 2009, 8:25 ammore unfortunate is that Muslims feel the need to ask the government for acceptance in the first place
Posted by Moataz | December 1, 2009, 8:26 amCorrection: 55% of eligible voters.
Posted by JillianKF | December 2, 2009, 2:50 amThe voters that cared enough to vote did so. Probably a lot of Swiss people don't care one way or the other if there minarets going up. How would you define THOSE Swiss people who don't give a rats ass either way? hmm
But please do tell, what was your point? About defining people?
Religion doesn't define you, because you can switch to any religion you like (well except for some Muslims who would be killed for apostasy). Let me ask you a question: what do you think of when someone says that they have a Swiss heritage… or they say "my grandma was Swiss"? What comes to mind?
Posted by eagle007blogger | December 2, 2009, 7:35 amEurope has no desire to be the culture-less melting pot America is.
lol. Kinzi, you've been gone from the US too long! The US is not culture-less! We have several very distinct and very recognizable cultures here, and they are all uniquely "American"
Posted by programmer craig | December 2, 2009, 4:00 pmHeh-heh, Craig, well, that could be. You have to go spend a summer in Vienna, there is this mutual ebb and flow of the day, of commute by train, of meals, of Sunday walks in the woods ending with a heurigen dinner. Somehow it beats comparing tattoos at the ball game over Coors.
Sorry for sounding like a snotty ex-pat, I do love America and all it's cultures. Must mean it is about time to come back to the home-land for a visit.
Then complaining about not being able to find good hummous.
Posted by kinzi | December 2, 2009, 6:45 pmHi Kinzi… never been to Vienna but I lived in Germany for about 6 months and the only thing I really noticed that was significantly different is that Germans don't have any sense of humor. Or maybe it's just so "off" that I don't get it
I felt right at home in London. If I didn't know better I'd think it was part of the US. Which is weird because i really enjoy looking down on the British lol
Maybe you aren't aware of American culture because you are used to it? And so when you observe something that is quite different you think that's a strong culture? Dunno! And I don't know what your background is, but I don't think you'll find anything like American anglo culture anywhere else in the world. Also, I don't think you'll find anything like African-American culture anywhere else in the world. That's not to say those examples are necessarily good, mind you, but they are very distinctive and uniquely "American"!
Posted by programmer craig | December 3, 2009, 2:10 amI think what more specifically frightens western societies in regards to Islam is not this foreign religion itself, its not simply bigotry. It is the idea of passively opening up to a religion which preaches in its holy text the cultural imperialism of other people.
I agree that a group of religious adherents can not be judged by its holy book alone but when you observe places like London or Dearborn for that matter, you see an example of Muslim immigrants and muslim americans who have used their numbers as a license to turn their surroundings to a backwards society just like back home.
And dont think I'm just speaking from my ass, I'm from "back home" and I know what ugly cultural representations have been brought. Like Dearborn for example, where muslim hospital patients, both old and young sometimes refuse help from nurses and doctors who are wearing a cross, something i have witnessed personally.
Or London where extremists preach very openly about their hate for the country they live in, openly and violently like they do back home, on the streets, on the loud speaker hanging from the minarets themselves. Again something I have witnessed personally.
Now I know these people do not represent the overwhelming majority of Muslims but they do represent a very very large and vocal minority a minority that climbs closer to 50% each day.
So instead of asking how the Swiss could vote in such a way, you should ask how the Muslim populace has contributed to this fear and what can be done by Muslims to fix it.
Posted by Desert Monkey | December 2, 2009, 4:32 pmSean, I have trouble believing I actually agree with something you wrote! My parents were hippies and my dad made it a point of pride that he wouldn't send any child of his to private school (my dad was a bit like Jillian I bet! Too bad my dad didn't ahve to go to the schools he sent me too, he mighta learned a little something!). And since we lived in North New Jersey and later in Manhattan and Yonkers that meant that I went to some of the crappiest (and most dangerous) public schools in the country. I would seriously like to see Jillian tell some of the Irish or Italian kids I knew back then about their "white privilege".
Posted by programmer craig | December 2, 2009, 4:34 pmok: 1) What is European identity without Islam. Not only is there a significant population within Europe, but even the ideas of enlightenment, philosophy, medicine, culture, could not be as it is today without its roots from Islam. Let's be serious here. History has shown this. To define European identity as exclusive from Islam is sheer nonsense. Similar experiences with Judaism and Jews is an example of this. And Europeans have to get over this "fear" of "angry muslims" (because seriously, People who are Mulism are "angry" because of politics, try living in a society that has been bombed by Israel, Colonized by European countries, etc…not much fun.)
2) the assumption that in Muslim countries minorities can not express their religion is not entirely correct. Yes, countries like Saudi Arabia dont, but they really dont allow other muslims to express themselves, and are actually an embarrassment for Muslims and arabs. Syria is an excellent example of how Christians are part of society, incorporated into the government. Church bells ring, SO to have generalized statement of all Muslim countries is unfair, and smarks of the typical racist perspectives of Muslims.
Posted by anticraig | December 3, 2009, 10:54 amKinzi, the killing of homosexuals is equally a blow to humanity whereever they maybe. However, again the assumption that this is more vicious in the Muslim world again is ignorant (i suggest Joseph Massad's Desiring Arabs on that topic.) It is all a blow to humanity, everything like this is a failure of humanity progressing. I do think that the Swiss are racist indirectly, they dont have to say it but one can deduce the subtexts from the argument. (like programmer craig, who is a liberal racist as is eagle, which is whatever for me, if thats how they want to live their lives, let them, its their failures.)
Secondly, you want to talk about women's rights, lets be clear. This is a patriarchal world, one culture is not worse than the other: take into account that 26 women are killed by men in the United States per WEEK. so the debate is not clear cut. This is not a debate about racism in the middle east (which there is), and even that logic is stupid. SO if they are racist, then its ok for the swiss to be. come on people grow the fuck up and think here. and in fact, if we are going to tackle the nature of racism in the Middle East, its a different animal (not meaning that its better) then the type of European racism. and again, for any of you whitey's out there to actually come out and say there is no white dominance of the world….wow. you need help. seriously. this does not justify racism between other races, or towards whites. they are wrong. and to say that western democracies do not do violence or any of that shit. COLONIZATION people, it hasnt been that long ago you know. and still no compensation has been made for any of it. no apology, nothing.
Posted by anticraig | December 3, 2009, 10:55 amno programmer craig does not make things interesting.
because his points are fraught with fallacies, racist generalization, a lack of actual thought.
its like having a conversation with a monkey, you have to constant duck from the utter shit flung at you.
Posted by anticraig | December 3, 2009, 10:58 amDesert Monkey, and whoever else with this line of argument.
You are not living "back home", so clearly you are not aware of the tapestry of debate that is thriving here against racism, against close-mindedness, against the stupidity. However, do not ever confuse legitimate outrage on the killing by Israel, America and European nations of people living in this side of the world. THAT is ultimately the drive for fundamentalism. NOT the culture, NOR the religion.
And let us be honest, the continuation and existence of these dictatorships and ultra-conservative religious groups could not be here, if not for the massive aid and protection by certain countries (i.e. Wahhabism, one of the biggest evils in this world, equal to Zionism, could not have been achievable without British support in the earl 20th century, and continual American support and protection since 1970.)
Read ya bitches, read.
Posted by anticraig | December 3, 2009, 11:03 amCraig has a fan here! Too bad that "anticraig" hardly makes any sense.
Posted by craigfan | December 3, 2009, 7:46 pm