What causes racial hatred: racists or racial friction?

Frank, you have made my day.
<ridiculously big grin>
:wink:

0 Replies

Man I hope that there can be peace in Israel. Unfortunately, I think this will NEVER happen unless this happens

http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=10518

0 Replies

Monger: JM, The idea is that we should not "endure any racial hatred," because it is nothing but ignorance.

How does that work in the real world? If you found yourself in Watts at night, how would you ignore the racism? If the people of La Raza come through with their desire to create a Hispanic country from the American Southwest and ethnically cleanse the gringos out: how do we ignore this?

I have a cousin that lives in Arizona. Should I ignore the racial violence that might occur if there is ethnic cleansing there?

If we continue down the path of ignorance and do not make the connection between human nature and racial friction, how can we avoid creating a multi-racial society that is as cruel and hateful as Israel?

0 Replies

JM, your argument is not only circular and racist, it is also full of ifs, ors, hows, and other such conjecture. What would you do in Watts at night? Are you going to let those mongrels intimidate you? Are you going to kill them before they kill you? Are you going to try to communicate with them? Will you look at them as people? Will you get your head out of your ass and look beyond the politics to find the human beings behind the skin colour? Also, what the hell is your thing with Israel all about? My dog just threw up as I was typing this....must be a sign...

Frank, I have always respected you for your honest approach, even when I have disagreed with you Wink

You're a mensch! The road to peace in Israel may be a long one, but let's hope Sharon is on the right track here.

0 Replies

Cavfancier: What would you do in Watts at night?

I would be afraid to go there because of the racial hatred directed at whites. Would you hang out in Watts at night? Would you let your children hang out there at night. Whites do not go into places like Watts and South Central LA at night. Whites have been ethnically cleansed from many black neighborhoods.

Cavfancier: Are you going to let those mongrels intimidate you?

Why do you call blacks "mongrels," and why should whites be afraid of blacks, unless certain environments are filled with anti-white racism?

Cavfancier: Will you get your head out of your ass and look beyond the politics to find the human beings behind the skin colour?

Can you carry on an objective conversation without resorting to this kind of language?

Most whites have been ethnically cleansed from Zimbabwe with a campaign of rape and murder. This is a drawback or the racial hatred generated in multi-racial environments.

Many Jews in Israel desire to complete the ethnic cleansing from Palestine.

The question for responsible people who want to make multi-culturalism work is how do we create a proper balance, and avoid creating too much hatred?

0 Replies

"Whites have been ethnically cleansed from many black neighborhoods." And I'm so sure that the reverse never happened in the history of mankind. c.i.

0 Replies

JosephMorgan wrote:

Most whites have been ethnically cleansed from Zimbabwe ...

I thought, this is exactly what you want: cleansing a home country from infiltrated foreigners to avoid more racial hate?

0 Replies

My post was sarcastic, JM....just so you know. I happen to be in an interracial marriage, so my use of the word 'mongrel' was not serious in the least. However, the question remains, seeing as you posed it in the first place, how would you handle it? Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that separating the races is not an option. If you want to have a serious, non-circular discussion, answer that for me, and we will discuss.

0 Replies

Quote:

Many Jews in Israel desire to complete the ethnic cleansing from Palestine

Can you elaborate on this? Are you acusing Israel of genocide or something of that sort?

0 Replies

Monger: "Whites have been ethnically cleansed from many black neighborhoods." And I'm so sure that the reverse never happened in the history of mankind.

Who said it didn't? Ethnic cleansing happens routinely in history, with all races. It happened an abundance of times in the 20th century. Don't you think that is a good reason for us to have a non-dogmatic understanding of the cause of racism?

0 Replies

Skepio: Can you elaborate on this? Are you acusing Israel of genocide or something of that sort?

I thought everyone knew that there are 2 million Palestinians sitting in refuge camps who, according to the UN have a "right to return."

There are many powerful leaders in Israel who wish to complete the ethnic cleansing.

Isn't that why we need to have a responsible understanding of the cause of racial hatred: racial friction, instead of insisting on using emotion-filled dogma?

We need to strike a balance and avoid the unbearable hatred in Israel. But what is the level of hatred that we can endure.

Responsible multi-culturalists ask this question.

0 Replies

Quote:

I thought everyone knew that there are 2 million Palestinians sitting in refuge camps who, according to the UN have a "right to return."

There are many powerful leaders in Israel who wish to complete the ethnic cleansing.

Right of return to where? A land that they lost in a war that THEY initiated. From where? Their homes that they volountarily left? OK. And, I'll have you know, Israel didn't put them there. We (and I use the term "we" as a Jew) never started "Ethnic Cleansing" the Palestinians. In fact, you're the first person I've ever heard accuse Israel of such a monstrosity.

Anyway, we better stop talking about Israel in this thread.

0 Replies

The Palestinians are still wandering about because none of their Arab brethren will take them in. Arafat has made a brilliant career of convincing the world that Israel is their rightful home, but the truth is that they are nomads that nobody of their 'race' wants. So much for the theory that putting like races together makes for a solution to racism....and what Scipio said.

0 Replies

Scipio,

I believe Joe is misguided in claiming the refugees as ethnicly cleansed but it is true that a substantial portion of the Israeli populace supports what they call "transfer" of Palestinians from the territories to other Arab nations.

Israel doesn't dare do this and they are the only ones that call it "transfer".

0 Replies

I'm not at all willing to accept what Scipio has just said, conqueror of Africa notwithstanding.

Scipio wrote:

Anyway, we better stop talking about Israel in this thread.

I frankly think that JosephMorgan is more than just a few bricks short of a load in this discussion, given the utter tommyrot he spouts. But i know of no reason why Scipio, nor anyone else, thinks they have the right to say what the members here ought to be able to discuss, in this thread or any other.

0 Replies

When we visited Jordan a couple years ago, we saw many Palestinian refugee camps. Seems even the Jordanians don't want them. c.i.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

WOWIE KAZOWIE!
I am glad to see some people are paying attention to Israel's attempts toward peace. As steissd responded, Sharon has made many unpopular moves toward concession before, but maybe now they aren't getting lost in the media, due to the laser Bush has pointed in the Pal/Israel direction. (Feel free not to give Bush credit--but I think the Roadmap has the world's attention.)

I hope feverishly that there can be established a lasting peace, but I think we may see the Pals rejecting everything (when it gets down to the wire).
A few good men, who walked this road before have been assasinated by extremists on their own side. Sharon has bullseye on his chest, as does this newly appointed Pal. Arafat still lives because he refused to agree to very good offers, IMO. Their (Pal) stated goal has long been the expulsion of destruction of Israel. (HAMAS document, I think accepted by the PA).

Why is Arafat still a player, when this other guy has been installed to by-pass him?

Isreal has had people talk about peace many times, as have Palestinians. What speaks louder is actions.

I have noticed every single time that Israel said anything about peace or changed diplomatic wording since I was 8.

What makes Sharon's remarks notable isn't that he reportedly accepts peace, they all say that, but the fact that it's SHARON saying this and that Sharon went so far as to use the word occupation.

I have always been keenly interested in Sharon, he has expressed wild beliefs in the past but at the same time I remember him slamming his fists in meetings saying that the Palestinian State is a fait accompli, I remember him pleading with his party not to pass a resolution to bar a Palestinian state.

Now he breaks the biggest taboo and calls Israeli occupation, well, Israeli occupation. He says that while they might not like the word, taht is what they are doing.

While I am overjoyed that he is doing this and remain hopeful I think it's unfair to say that Isreal has taken steps toward peace that aren't reciprocated (my reasons for this are vast enough for a separate few threads).

Isreal has yet to act on what matters (conceding territory, pullouts are not important). And there are a few things that could kill the deal that they are not budging on. Some of the things aren't even paramount (e.g. I do not expect them to accept right of return but expecting Abu to be the only guy signing any eventual deal is folly).

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Scipio,

I believe Joe is misguided in claiming the refugees as ethnicly cleansed but it is true that a substantial portion of the Israeli populace supports what they call "transfer" of Palestinians from the territories to other Arab nations.

Israel doesn't dare do this and they are the only ones that call it "transfer".

I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with transfer. Transfer is transfer. Ethnic cleansing is a euphamism for GENOCIDE.

Its funny the paradox people have put Israel in. There is a problem since the Palestinians are in those areas. So the only logical course of action is to move them. But if we move them to a place that will except for and a place that they will feel more at home in, Israel is labeled an ethnic cleanser -- a term almost synonamous with genocide.

Yes, that's fair! [/sarcasm]

Quote:

I frankly think that JosephMorgan is more than just a few bricks short of a load in this discussion, given the utter tommyrot he spouts. But i know of no reason why Scipio, nor anyone else, thinks they have the right to say what the members here ought to be able to discuss, in this thread or any other.

Well, as you can see, I'm fairly new here. In most other forums though, people like it if you keep to the posts inline with the topic of the thread. I just thought this would follow that idea... Nothing serious, talk about what you want to talk!

0 Replies

I do beg your pardon, then, as my original take was that you thought there to be some sort of taboo about the discussion of which you were reminding us.

0 Replies

Scipio wrote:

I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with transfer. Transfer is transfer. Ethnic cleansing is a euphamism for GENOCIDE.

That's not true. Ethnic cleansing often refers to forcible transfer of an ethnicity to another area thereby "cleansing" one area. It does not always denote genocide.

Mirriam Webster wrote:

ethnic cleansing
Function: noun
Date: 1992
: the expulsion, imprisonment, or killing of ethnic minorities by a dominant majority group

Regards

0 Replies

What causes racial hatred: racists or racial friction?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know