1
   

Are the media missing yet another genocide?

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2004 01:09 am
Monday morning here, Adrian - I need such Laughing
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2004 01:13 am
BBB
If more people read the foreign press, they would receive news on a wider basis, not just that with American interests. Given the suck up to Bush behavior of the Media the last three years, I've turned to the foreign press to learn more about what was going on in the US. However, the Media is finally doing the job it should have been doing all along re US politics and the Iraq war. I've been following the situation in Sudan for several months with resigned sadness. These tribal wars are hopeless.

BBB
0 Replies
 
mporter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2004 01:18 am
Mr. Hinteler. If you will read my post again, you will notice that I used the pronoun I (Ich, if you will) not the pronoun You (du, I believe). I would never be so arrogant as some who would suggest that my speech or ideas be censored.

You wished to try my knowledge of foreign languages. As I said, I have none and would not be able to participate in conversation in a foreign language. I hope I have made that clear.
0 Replies
 
Wiyaka
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2004 02:07 am
Tarantulas wrote:
Yeah? When is the last time the Christians exterminated a race?


They seem bent on exterminating Native Americans yet. If cultural genocide isn't genocide what is it, assimilation into the dominant society? Why do you think there are still relocation programs in Canada, moving people off the land that these peoples have lived on even before the white invasion, all for timber,oil and minerals?

Why do you think that so many have gone through fostercare and residential (Indian) schools. Why do you think that so many children under the age of ten were carried off by governmental and church officials to these schools? Why do you think these same children were punished for speaking their native languages in these schools, forced to wear clothing foreign to them, forced to cut their hair and march in formation to classes and forced to eat food foreign to them and go to a church to learn a foreign spiritual belief? Was it to "save the the red savage" or was it to commit cultural genocide?

Take away a person's culture and they are less than they were. Right now, the Lakota language is spoken by only one person in ten on the Pine Ridge reservation, mostly elders. Few people follow the spiritual ways of the Lakota now, going to Ceremonies and Gatherings only for the feasts. This is the result of cultural genocide.

North American natives never had or used fermented beverage before white men (Christians) introduced it to them. Because they had no history of it's consumption, they are genetically more susceptible to addiction. This too, is a form of genocide. After all, alcohol kills in many ways.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2004 02:44 am
Setanta wrote:
The Sudan doesn't have the world's second largest proven oil reserves, so it must not be real to the Shrub.


Touche!
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2004 02:49 am
you are completely right Wilso, but huge problem is that those that are "touche-d" will never admit it. In modern fencing you at least have judges and electronic scoreboard Wink
They will just say that they cannot bring democracy and freedom to all world at the same time - now they are in Iraq, and Sudan will eventually come to order too.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2004 11:48 am
Slaughter of Sudanese falling on deaf ears
Slaughter of Sudanese falling on deaf ears
May 9, 2004

'The government wants to kill all African people,'' said one witness to the ongoing massacres in Sudan, where the army, allied with local Arab militias, continues to wipe out black villages, as well as burn, rape and loot with scarcely a finger lifted by the international community.

Last month, we called on the United Nations to act. This is not an internal conflict, as the U.N. might claim -- 100,000 refugees have fled across the border into Chad, part of 1 million made homeless in Western Sudan.

And the U.N. has acted, in its own unique way. A few days ago it elected Sudan to another term on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, just the kind of gross insult added to injury we have come to expect from that body.

Complaints from the United States -- whose delegation walked out before the vote -- were brushed off by the Sudanese representative, with a logic that is sadly common in the Third World, equating the offenses of a handful of U.S. soldiers in an Iraqi prison to the wholesale slaughter of black Sudanese by their own government.

Sudan borders Egypt, yet the Arab world ignores that thousands of black Muslims are being killed, their homes and mosques burnt.

We should not ignore it. The international community has a shameful record in Africa. Half a million Rwandans were killed 10 years ago, and nothing was done. We missed that chance to do the human thing; now we are missing another chance. Africans are being murdered in Africa for being black. "They killed everything black,'' said another witness. "Guns or no guns, cattle or no cattle. This is the program: They don't want African tribes in this place." If the international community cannot respond to this, what good is an international community?
0 Replies
 
Wiyaka
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2004 12:02 pm
MOU,

As I see it, many patriotic US citzen's tend to think that everyone in the world wants we percieve as the an "American lifestyle." It's not that way, may cultures are being corrupted and even lost due to the intrusion of missionaries, mining crews, Large lumbering operations and so on.

While in Vietnam, I witnessed the displacement of peaceful Montegnard villagers that wanted nothing more out of life,but to live as they had for centuries. These tribal people were thrust into a bewildering, busy culture they neither understood nor coped well in. Yet, the press never mentioned this cultural genocide in their releases.

Who gave the US the right to impose it's will and type of government on other nations? I've pondered this for years, since Vietnam. I find it ironic that a government formed by dissidents and those persecuted for their beliefs, has now decided somehow to force their beliefs and lifestyles upon others, all in the name of freedom.

Granted the press doesn't report all of the atrocities in the world, but groups like Amnesty International try to inform those that are really interested in Human Rights. However, we must consider the fact that most major news media can and will report what they want, within governmental guidelines. Anything can be distorted or taken out of context for whatever reason the reporter, editor, publisher or even the reader may have.

I also find it interesting that the US, which has been on the UN Human Rights Committee, takes offense with nations being selected to sit on it. We have not followed the world in signing a ban on land mines, an instrument of distruction that I've personally seen used by US troops. Yet the US is not above pointing fingers at nations that have signed the treaty.

I won't go into a longer diatribe on my beliefs and observations about the US governmental policies. I don't want to offend or bore anyone, but merely add these thoughts to this thread to make people think.
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2004 03:18 pm
Ditto

By the way, I have no idea what "ditto" means, but I noticed people are writing that when they completely agree Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2004 03:22 pm
'ditto' = "a thing mentioned previously or above"
was mostly used in bills, books of account, tables of names etc., to save repetition(here: "the same as before"), from the Latin 'dictum' (past participle 'dire') = "said"
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2004 03:39 pm
well I knew if everyone remains silent you will be the one to clear it Smile thanks
you may check "who said it" topic to see if I am right - you know the answer for sure - I believe it's connected with Germany
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 01:40 pm
Wiyaka, I totally agree with you. That's the only thing I want to say.
0 Replies
 
Wiyaka
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 04:13 pm
Re: Slaughter of Sudanese falling on deaf ears
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Slaughter of Sudanese falling on deaf ears
May 9, 2004


Quote:
And the U.N. has acted, in its own unique way. A few days ago it elected Sudan to another term on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, just the kind of gross insult added to injury we have come to expect from that body.


Geeze! Isn't the US on that commission?

Quote:
We should not ignore it. The international community has a shameful record in Africa. Half a million Rwandans were killed 10 years ago, and nothing was done. We missed that chance to do the human thing; now we are missing another chance. Africans are being murdered in Africa for being black. "They killed everything black,'' said another witness. "Guns or no guns, cattle or no cattle. This is the program: They don't want African tribes in this place." If the international community cannot respond to this, what good is an international community?


Funny, I asked myself that during my tour in Vietnam. Peaceful Montegnard tribes people caught up in the midst of that chaos. "Search and Destroy" missions were interpretted to mean, "Kill everthing[/b] that moves. Pigs, chickens, viet cong, villagers,everything![/b]" Now, the US is outraged over other countries doing the same thing?I don't get it.

Happened here in the US against the Native Americans. Still does but in differing ways, alcohol, polluted water and radiation. The term "redskin" was coined by good Old Abe Lincoln himself. it referred to an inch of "red skin" required to collect the $10 bounty on Dakota scalps that was imposed by Lincoln, after the Sioux Uprising in MN. It wasn't bad enough to order the public hanging of 38 Dakota men in Mankato, as reprisal to the revolt. Oh no! The Dakota's were chased into hiding in swamps along the Mississippi or into what is now South Dakota, their lands and belonging stolen by greedy, vengeful whites. Then Lincoln ordered bounties on Dakota scalps. When the Dakota scalp supply dwindled, some unscrupulous scalpers started killing whites with dark hair, thus the need for the "red skin". Amazingly, this bounty was imposed the year Old Abe signed the Emmancipation Proclamation.
0 Replies
 
mporter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 01:08 am
Has anyone ever broached the subject of "reparations" for American Indians?

Perhaps that would be the next step to achieve Justice!!!!

Why not?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 01:11 am
Yes, you could give them 60 guilders.
0 Replies
 
mporter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 01:23 am
Since I am not multi-lingual, I don't know what a guilder is.

I can guess.

Is a guilder a coin used in Germany? Is it a coin used by the government to give to the 10% who are out of work in the German Republic?

Or is a guilder a coin which no longer exists?

If so, I opt to give American Indians real money- American Dollars.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 04:37 am
Irony, Mporter, Walter was indulging in irony . . . Sixty guilders is the price the Dutch paid some itinerant Amerindians for Manhattan Island almost 400 years ago.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 07:13 am
mporter wrote:
Since I am not multi-lingual, I don't know what a guilder is.

I can guess.

Is a guilder a coin used in Germany? Is it a coin used by the government to give to the 10% who are out of work in the German Republic?

Or is a guilder a coin which no longer exists?

If so, I opt to give American Indians real money- American Dollars.


Sorry, mporter, I hit the hay, I thought, you knew the American history and English language.
"guilder, from Middle English gylder, gyldren, modification of Middle Dutch gulden."
0 Replies
 
Wiyaka
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 11:12 am
Quote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Yes, you could give them 60 guilders.

Walter it's nice of you to repond to this. Ive seen several of your postings and am impressed with them, as with many others here on A2K.

Walter, that's already been done. Unfortunately by those not "owning" the land. That was one of the land swindles of a multitude to cheat the native peoples out of our lands.

To our way of thinking, no one can own the land. It's a communal "ownership" by the Nation living there, a trust if you will. You lived where you wanted. Ownership was introduced by Europeans that brought such a strange concept to us, requiring precise boundaries and even fences. Deeds are like the treaties, written on paper fit only to light fires.

Every area of land belonged to everyone within the various nations. "boundaries" were nebulous and usually made by nature, such as mountains, rivers, etc. They were often disputed between neighboring nations during times of famine or drought, since they were usually good areas of water and food.

Many nations here in the US have tried to get reparations, but the US courts are usually reluctant or backed up with them. As a result they are very time consuming, costly and often dismissed for various reasons., but we still try.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 11:45 am
Build a casino. That's a guaranteed money maker. Then you can offer to buy the land back.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Africa is a dying continent - Discussion by Pharon
Congo: The World Capital of Killing - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Notes from Africa - Discussion by dagmaraka
Tunisia From October 5 to 18, 2007 - Discussion by cicerone imposter
I hope this works out for Darfur... - Discussion by ossobuco
Let's see how well you know Africa - Discussion by gustavratzenhofer
Anyone know a lot about Sierra Leone? - Discussion by dlowan
Sudanese find peace? - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/15/2020 at 12:43:08