Bush praise for Uganda AIDS policy raises interesting Qs

As it is somewhat of a reversal of prior Bush policy, it appears the the most recent proposal includes both condom and abstinence, a bit confusing is the bandied about figure of $3 billion in 1st yr funding has been reduced by 33% by the republican held house. an additonal change from early stated Bush policy is the available usage of non-american made pharmcuticals as is currently required by USAID regs. but then i could be wrong all i know is what i read in the papers.

Mr. Bush believes that his compatriots have higher level of morality and conscience than the people in Uganda, and it is easier to convince Americans to abstain from risky sex than the tribesmen from jungles and savannas.

um, if i read what i think i read Steissd, american republicans have a higher moral order than tribesmen ( i see "savages" implied) from subsahara africa.

And you really didn't read any Nazi booklets, steissd?

When I read steissd's comment, I knew something like this would happen.

When you read it, everyone knows it unPC--you get that click--but he didn't say 'savages', and his thought could really use some thoughtful response.

Why not address the reality behind his statement? Why is Africa drowning under such scourges? There are basic differences in our cultures. Don't you think there is evidentiary proof behind his statement--if you don't read anything else into it?

Why bring out inferences of Nazi?

If you don't think he's right, argue the point; don't denigrate the author... Just a suggestion.

To Mr. Hinteler: No, I do not possess knowledge of German needed to read any literature in this language, either humanistic and enlightened, or "Das Kapital", or "Mein Kampf". And when I say "tribesmen", I do not refer to their color of skin: Afghan tribesmen are White, but their barbarity level is the same, if not worse. From the other side, the American Blacks are civilized people.

Because this is THE (neo-)Nazi slogan re AIDS.

That is the first time I hear that the neo-Nazis refer to this disease at all... I thought, they were more busy with another problems: immigrants' bashing and support of Palestinians against the "vicious" Jews.

You see, sofia, I'm quite engaged in fighting Nazis. ("Notorious", as our local newspaper once said.)
Everytime I see some of their slogans, I see red.

Sorry, didn't want to offend you, steissd.

OK, I hope, it was mutual misunderstanding.

Ok, it was a stupid comment and Steissd always both gives himself the rope and hoists himself on it.

When pressed he claims his bigotry is nonexistent yet his every comment is laced with it. From his use of the words Muslim and terrorist interchangeably to his relentless pursuit of portraying american and Israeli culture as superior to Arabs and Africans.

Some of it is right on, most of it is just an example of how much bigotry one can display,

The "oops I did it again, I was misunderstanded" crap doesn't hold a drop of water with me.

And no Sofia, it's not a matter of being "un Pee Cee" and frankly I'm sick and tired of that silly defense for bigotry.

"No no, when he says (not implies) that africans are tribesmen from jungles and that his view on morals is something they can't be taught it's not bigotry, no no, it's just not Peee Ceee!"

Cut the crap. It's bigotry and it's not even disguised. You don't need to imply savages because the words he actually used stand on their own.

Au contraire, if we are to take his statement literally. After all, he actually said that he considered Uganda "a world leader - not just a leader on the continent of Africa, but a world leader in the fight against HIV/AIDS". And he calls Uganda a "world leader" exactly because of the way the government there appears to have at least partially succeeded in promoting abstinence & monogamy.

(Actually, I think he might be using the 'model' of Uganda to send a message back home to his fellow-Americans about the "morality" of "abstain[ing] from risky sex", to use your words.)

In no part of his statement did he tread in the murky waters you're exploring with your suggestion that "the tribesmen" in Africa have different "levels of morality and conscience", and that they are therefore harder to restrain from risky sex. If you want to talk that talk, dont refer to Bush for it.

Actually, the Washington Times article that the new USAID authorities seem to have reproduced in approval, cleverly turns the tables on the "liberals" on exactly this point. In making the case for promoting behavioral change as AIDS prevention strategy, it insinuated that it was the liberal AIDS experts who had exhibited cultural condescendence of the kind steissd is demonstrating here, when they refused to go beyond distributing condoms: "And the Western AIDS specialists [..] smirked. [They] said, Ugandans won't change their behavior either. Africans are promiscuous: Let them have safe sex, use condoms." The Bush line here is portrayed as the opposite of that kind of logic.

And Sofia (glad you could make it, btw , I do think people have a point when they call steissd on the implications of his post, of the wording he chooses. The history of racism is the history of entrenched stereotypes, stereotypes, specifically, that are used to argue there is a hierarchy of racial cultures: that some peoples are more "moral" than others.

The stereotype of the primitive black man, who lacks the moral self-restraint of white cultures because of how much closer he is to the 'primal' sex drive of nature (oh, those wild primitives), has been an extremely powerful image in racist rhetorics through the ages. The reference to Nazism isnt therefore all that knee-jerk an 'out there' reaction when it is once more brought up, at all, whether the racist connotations were deliberate or wholly accidental.

(Its only with his later nuance on Afghans (tribesmen) vs African-Americans ("civilized people") that steissd neatly took the race card out of there again, though the notion of the cultural superiority of "our people" remains unchanged there ...)

Craven said--
"No no, when he says (not implies) that africans are tribesmen from jungles and that his view on morals is something they can't be taught it's not bigotry, no no, it's just not Peee Ceee!"
-----------
Are you saying there are no tribesmen in Africa? Are there no jungles, no savannas? Do you think steissd may have meant the more rural Africans are the ones who are hardest to reach and teach about safe sex? Would you deny that this has been proven? Are the words jungle, tribesman and barefoot (from a previous conversation) not allowed when discussing anyone with black skin? I think you can use the terms when discussing white people--I'll have to check the rulings about Asians...

I don't see where anyone said morals is something anyone can't be taught. You took alot of liberties in your inaccurate translation. I don't agree with steissd's complete statement--but I disagree much more with many of the responses.

Sorry for the side-bar, nimh. I like the topic, and thought a lot of your take on it.

I made no such claim, there are tribesmen almost everywhere, including in America.



Again, I made no such insipid claim. There are jungles in many places, the peoples in these places generally do not like the implication that they are primitive.



No, I think he is expressing his usual bigotry and you as usual like to try to paint it as PC versus not PC. Nobody accused Steissd of not being PC.



would you explain what the heck you are talking about? Beyond a stretching attempt to defend Steissd's prejudices and try to justify them as simply "un-PC" you are addressing nothing i have said.



sofia, I don't excpect you to get it but again, I am not calling Steissd "un-PC". I accuse him of bigotry.



I did nothing of the sort. S t r e t c h. Will do so in a bit.



I know the routine, accusations of bigotry arise and you try to paint it as the insipid PC vs. not PC crap. It's the new lame rage.

"It's so uncool to think anyone is a bigot. We must be tolerant with individual bigotry. Must not offend anyone's opinion after all. See, it's not predjudice it's telling it like it is. Are there not some savages amongst them?"

There's my stretch.

I know damn well how often you like to defend bigotry in language. As long as someone doesn't admit to bigotry everything they say to you is fine. Heaven forbid someone get all "un PC" and offend anyone's sensibilities.

The root of the most racist movements on earth are with those who rationalize bigotry.

All the silly questions you asked have their equivalents in the most notorious of racist ideology.

Take Hitler for example, did he not make some valid observations? Is our qualm with him his fact finding or his conclusions? Bringing up Hitler and other leaders of prejudice is valid, even if inflammatory. It's the calm bigot who rationalizes the predjudice that poses a danger to society.

By focusing on the factual basis you seek to distract from the underlying issue.

Sure there are tribes in Africa, I do not contest that. I decry the steady and unwavering use of such circumstantial evidence to propagate bigotry.

The most bigoted lies always involve a bit of truth. Raving lunatics don't get a mass follwoing, they are restricted to the lunatic fringe. It's not the man who says "I hate blacks" that is the danger, it is the man who says "I have nothing against blacks, heck some of my best friends are black. But isn't it true that black people.... and that they....".

Steissd, claims he is no bigot, he claims that he doesn't really want to watch all Arabs be hanged. But he used the words Arab and Muslim interchangably with words like savage and terrorist. He claims he'd rather die than live with Arabs and rationalizes his predjudice.

Does he not have a valid reason to be wary of arabs? Are not some Arabs terrorists?

Yes yes, and again, the qualm is not with the sliver of factual basis on which bigotry is based.

I'm not talking about when some lunatic flies off her/his handle and misconstrues a remark as predjudice. We both ahve seen that happen in laughable circumstance. This is not about just using the "wrong words". When it's repetitious, incessant and present in one's every accessment then it's indicative of something else entirely.

I take issue with your desire to paint this as a misfortunate use of words, or the old saw of PC vs. not PC. I did not once accuse anyone here of being "unPC". Making that the argument is a common ploy to take a more serious accusation and make it look silly.

It would be like after a man is accused of beating a dog and others rush to his defense with "Well sure, he wasn't petting the dog too roughly, he was just mussing the dog's head."

It's an insipid ploy because it eliminates the more grave accusation and presents the case on a different basis. What was a case of beat the dog versus not having beat the dog you paint as petted too roughly versus not having petted it too roughly. With either of your too options being milder than the original case.

So no, I'm not accusing Steissd of petting the dog too roughly or not. I am not trying to make a case of a jungle-free Africa.

I am decrying Steissd's repeated and deeply held beliefs of cultural superiority and the conclusions drawn and the expression of the old bigoted stereotypes he taps into.

Here's my .02c worth of observation; steissd's statements scare the be-jesus out of me - politically, emotionally, and humanity-wise; whereas only Craven's avatar has scared me. c.i.

steissd wrote:
Mr. Bush believes that his compatriots have higher level of morality and conscience than the people in Uganda, and it is easier to convince Americans to abstain from risky sex than the tribesmen from jungles and savannas.

--------
I do not see why this statement evokes the accusation of Nazi.
I can understand people wanting to disagree with it, challenge it or argue about it--

Craven wrote--
By focusing on the factual basis you seek to distract from the underlying issue.
---------
By all means, lets don't let the facts of what we've actually said get in the way of what we're talking about. This is why I show up when these types of situations occur. People are too busy trying to read between the lines that we may as well not talk. Just show up, we'll look at how your dressed, ask you what you dad does for a living, and we'll figure out for you what you're thinking.

-------------
Craven, said--
Sure there are tribes in Africa, I do not contest that. I decry the steady and unwavering use of such circumstantial evidence to propagate bigotry.
-------------
You decry the statement that there are some tribes in Africa? Do you decry the statistics of AIDS in Africa? But, you don't decry the statistics of AIDS in America? How does circumstantial evidence propagate bigotry? It just seems like you want to muzzle certain facts, based on what group of people the facts are about.
-------------------------------
I have no idea what the author of the statement was thinking when he said it. But, I do know I have made statements that were twisted into meanings I never intended, because of certain words I used. It is as though people no longer care what someone actually means when they speak--if they have the 'wrong' mix of words in a sentence--Political Correctness puts their brain on automatic pilot--no more independant thought takes place.

My complaint here was due to the Nazi reference. Thankfully, that was resolved. Then, Craven you cited my objection to the Nazi reference. Does that mean you agree with the Nazi reference? And, would you show me what the author said in that small post that is bigoted? I do see 'unPC words', and an assumption that the author thinks Bush believes that Americans are easier than Ugandans to dissuade from risky sex. If it were Americans and Norwegians--I bet this conversation wouldn't be taking place. We can't continue to be afraid to state some facts and opinion. Is the point true, or is it false? What's next--stop keeping some records and statistics because we don't like the results?

Should we erace all the threads that have negative opinions about the state of Africa? Where does the censure stop?

I don't defend bigots.
Most bigots will tell you flat out about their hatreds and superiority.
There are others, who may not be aware of their own bigotry.
Certainly, thoughtful discussion and questions may help them see it.
Feeling bushwacked and misunderstood never will.

Walter-- If you believe everyone who speaks clearly and doesn't adhere to the Politically Correct volcabulary is a bigot-- certainly you don't care if they're censured. If I believed that, neither would I. I just wonder how many more things will be stricken from our volcabulary. Not slurs. Just everyday words. "You people" for instance.

There are some people, who have made racial fairness a part of their lives-- who have made personal sacrifices and would not shut up about racial intolerance--but, who also refuse to follow PC. We deserve to say what we think, and not have someone else interpret it incorrectly, on purpose.