Mail Condemns Guantanamo Abuses

stevebaby

Are you trying to say that americans are a separate race?
OMG

__________________
I'm Rooting for Chiara!
Drink!Feck!Arrse!Girls!
bastard

EoinC

Good work, JH.

Scotty_Dog

It's a definition straight from the dictionary. Are you trying to say that an individual cannot be racist towards a certain nationality? I believe it is the appropriate term.

__________________
"There is alot of blather here that does not float the hooey barge." boudreaux 11/22/2005

stevebaby

So afro-americans,hispanic americans,native americans,asian americans,caucasian americans,...all the same race...right?

__________________
I'm Rooting for Chiara!
Drink!Feck!Arrse!Girls!
bastard

Scotty_Dog

As the readily available definitions I provided read, racism is not limited to differences in genetically transmitted physical characteristics alone. Racism can be directed toward a nationality.


Take the second definition of each word, and make one sentence by substituting the word "race" by it's actual definition (in bold):
Discriminatory or abusive behavior towards people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution.


If a person (Limerickman and others) makes discriminatory remarks about the people of a particular nation, simply because of the common nationality, then it is racist.


If you believe there is a more appropriate word, please tell me. To me, racist clearly fits the bill.

__________________
"There is alot of blather here that does not float the hooey barge." boudreaux 11/22/2005

lyotard

i have often thought these blurry distinctions exist to permit us to believe somehow there are degrees of inhumanity, ways to categorize behaviours that are at times essentialy the same.

for instance, in the us, one can be tried for a "hate crime" if certain of these conditions apply, whereas the same crime would go punished to a lesser degree if not racially based. but the crime can be, indeed, the same.

or the example of "genocide" as defined by perpetrating atrocities upon a group, while at the same time, the us can invade and target, both intentionaly and indiscriminately, civilian populations incuding people who just happen to inhabit a certain area, women, children, hospitals, ambulances, schools, wedding parties and so on.

these violent actions are deemed as justified on foreign soil
(defined here as "outside the us")
while with few exeptions (waco firebomings, "move" bombings in philadelphia), would not be legally permitted within the us.

so then the us affords it's own citizens of rights (at least in an ideal sense)
that it denies those who were unlucky enough to have been born elsewhere.

this makes it very possible for individuals to be against the us, and it's national policies of unprovoked agression, while not targeting these objections towards the resident of the us, at least not to the same degree.

in the future perhaps there wil be all inclusive terms to replace these, such as
"humanicide" over genocide, and those planning to commit such acts would be guilty of conspiring to commit these acts before they were able to carry them out.

this would offer a deterrent to the considerable waste of effort in preparing for and conducting invasions, that could otherwise be spent for humanitarian benefit.

the use and oversight of internationaly appointed world court could make this viable in a legal sense.

__________________
"i think it would be a good idea"

-mahatma gandhi, upon being posed the question
"what do you think of western civilization?"

EoinC

A problem lies in the fact that perpetrators of such acts seldom ratify agreements giving legal powers to International Courts.

lyotard

ah yes, these would then be the "rogue nations" we hear so much of, then?

seems the us is among those who would fit the bill...

__________________
"i think it would be a good idea"

-mahatma gandhi, upon being posed the question
"what do you think of western civilization?"

EoinC

I think that you are correct in your definition, SD. The modern interpretation of racism is not restricted to divisions of race only. There is something of an expectation amongst the English-speaking Western Nations that, within that group, jousting with and generalising about each other is an acceptable practice.
For example, many Australians (I am not claiming it to be a majority or otherwise) refer to us Kiwi's (in a derogatory manner) as being a Nation of Sheep-shaggers. Unfortunately it is difficult for us to clear our collective name, because it is true.

Scotty_Dog

Lyotard, I completely agree with the bulk of what you have stated above. Yes, even some of the anti-U.S. government/policy remarks.

However, my comments thus far are primarily based on Limerickman's obvious racism and discrimination towards U.S. citizens as a whole, separate from any political, govermental, or religious leanings. Again, simply because they are from the U.S.


See below:
----------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by limerickman
I have my doubts as to the validity of a lot of American views about what goes on in the rest of the world, Carerra.

and

Quote:
Originally Posted by limerickman
I agree with Fred - they're ill equiped to discuss the Near/Middle East situation too.

and

Quote:
Originally Posted by limerickman
I stated that your reliance upon your American friend may not be wise, given the lack of indpeth knowledge that most Americans appear to have about events and issues outside of their own country.

----------------------------

It is difficult for some people to grasp the fact that this too is racism. Don't believe me - simply replace the bold-typed words above with a known racial slur. It still reads in exactly the same way. There is no distinct difference simply because it is directed toward a nationality.


Yet, unbelievably, this is our chosen Moderator - policing "Your Bloody Soap Box" with an iron fist and a discriminatory mind. Power in the hands of .......................

__________________
"There is alot of blather here that does not float the hooey barge." boudreaux 11/22/2005

FredC

You're talking through your arse. Only yesterday the US told the UN to get stuffed because they wanted access to Guantanamo Bay. If the US thinks that holding people for five years without charges constitutes Human Rights, then no wonder everone these days has a pop at America.

__________________
The media is a self perpetuating publicity stunt.

MountainPro

racism?

no it isnt.

America is made up from a multitude of different races and cultures. The white people being predominatly European i.e Irish and Scots decendants. How can that be racism...

get a dictionary..

justified anti-american sentiment isnt racism.

__________________
HARD
.

Scotty_Dog

You believe I am "talking through [my] arse", because you are of the same opinion as Limerickman. And as such, you have made racist remarks too.

Lim's statements, of which I quoted earlier, have nothing to do with U.S. government policy and/or actions. The statements are discriminatory characterizations about the intellectual capacity of the citizens as a whole.

__________________
"There is alot of blather here that does not float the hooey barge." boudreaux 11/22/2005

wolfix

The BBC just reported that the UN did not want access because they were not going to be allowed to talk to prisoners. What is not common knowledge is that many of the prisoners have been released. And new ones have been brought in.

__________________
"I rule my world with a cellphone."