Thread: Skin colour, religion and nationality are as important as they ever were.

On Sunday January 30th, 1972 British Paratroopers shot twenty-six unarmed civil rights marchers in Derry, Northern Ireland. Thirteen died on the day, and one more subsequently died. That was Bloody Sunday. On June 15th 2010, a report was published by British Prime Minister, David Cameron, detailing this atrocity and he apologised unconditionally for it. Clearly, public opinion in Britain and elsewhere states that civilian deaths in wartime are an abomination.

Then why is it that people still greet with such apathy, the deaths of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis? Why must "war be war"? Rubbish. If this happened on "our" soil, we would be as outraged as the Irish were after Bloody Sunday. We can't bother denying it. Whether it's because of their nationality, skin colour, religion or supposed political affiliation, we think that the local civilian victims in Iraq and Afghanistan are unworthy. It's the same story in every war. It rarely changes. Remember that loyalist and republican insurgents were active in Northern Ireland at that time of Bloody Sunday. It too was a war zone.

Skin colour, religion and nationality are as important to us today as they ever were. Now the tough question, how do we all feel about it?

All life is sacred regardless of origin.

I'm amused (in a sad, sad way) when America has reports about the war, stating that one or two Americans have died in the conflict. Tear-worthy words are spoken about how bad the war is and that American lives can no longer be lost, etc, etc. Meanwhile, hundreds of the 'enemy' lives are being taken away from them without much of a comment.

Yes, I'm outraged, but yes, I have no idea how to 'not stand for it'.

Generally, I vote with my money, supporting only those businesses and organisations that I believe are working for humanity. But this cannot be done with the government; taxes.

My voice here is shown in my writing. Hoping other people will see benefit in not fighting. War will only be stopped if the people do not take up arms against each other. For this reason, if I am drafted, I will never fire my weapon at another person. I'll let the superiors know about my choice, and they can decide what to do with me, but I'll not kill anyone (even if it would save my own life).

No matter what we say, we all have that inner racist. let me explain.
when we see people, we take many things into account about them. the most prominent of these is race, clothing, dialect. No matter what, we take this into account. Think about it. In ancient civilization, this is was natural and accepted. they spoke a different language, or they dressed differently, or the were a different color-- they were foriegners. it's a human thing to profile. in this modern society, we act as if it's unnatural etc. it's not. i'm not saying its good. in fact, it's horrible. When i meet people, they'll make assumptions of me, just because i look middle eastern (i'm not really middle eastern, i'm from southern India). people judge me constantly for that. it's how it goes.

Originally Posted by Lamperoux

No matter what we say, we all have that inner racist.

I think I get your explanation, but I'm not sure this quite fits the 'inner racist' concept. We each have that something in us that allows us to more easily recognise and associate with people who are similar to us. But this doesn't mean we are disinclined to associate with others; only less inclined (and I hope you understand the difference I'm implying here).

On a different concept that is often mistaken for the same thing:

I'm not racist. I wont act in any way that negatively affects one race in preference to another. But that doesn't mean I'm not wary of selected people (appearance-wise) in certain races. I'm not going to mention specifics, because I really don't want to offend anyone. We're all equal and have an equal right to live a good life. But I've had enough experiences with certain types of people that I will avoid them for the sake of being safe.

I don't see this as being racist. I see it as my experiences teaching me how to live a good happy life. Me crossing the street to avoid being attacked doesn't make me racist. It only looks that way if you're the one who I'm avoiding.

You could offer a similar 'racist' argument for people who avoid associating with heavy drug users or murderers. Avoiding such people doesn't make you prejudiced, unless you actively work in ways that detriment them.

I hope this comes across in a positive way. I don't mean anything here to sound bad in any way at all. I'm just hoping to shed some light on a concept that people get uptight about. It's more related to semantics than anything else; what you consider 'racism' entails.

Ethnic and Racial relations are very important now, and since the whole "Communism v.s Capitalism" ideological free-for-all has cooled down, these distinctions are becoming the centerpieces (along with religious faith) for current conflicts (along with money).

Taking race "into account" is not racism. Racism is the notion, belief, or sentiment that one race is (usually inherently) better than another. While racism can hide behind rationalizations, and while most people do have a little bit of genuine prejudice, racism is not a human given.

Profiling oddly works both ways. You might like a certain race above others. For instance, I have a thing for Middle Eastern girls. I have no idea why. Yeah, I get what you mean Kris. By being overly defensive towards anything that hints at racism can prevent necessary dialogue and true understanding of the issue. That being said, racism/discrimination is still alive and doing well when it should be rotting in a metaphorical pine box already. I think it’s rooted in that instinct to ID foes and the wolves in sheep’s clothing but gets distorted with the grievances of how we treat one another in the real world.

Eh... I'm not sure your preference for middle-eastern women qualifies as racism. Aesthetic preference is not an endorsement of racial superiority.

Originally Posted by Matty Lee

Aesthetic preference is not an endorsement of racial superiority.

But you could argue that more attractive races would increase in numbers at a faster rate... Which is why I'm surprised that Aussies aren't taking over the world

Then why is it that people still greet with such apathy, the deaths of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis? Why must "war be war"?

Which ones are innocent? Up to World War Two, the enemy was clearly definable. They wore uniforms, were behind certain lines and carried weapons at all times. Beginning in Viet Nam, it was the common civilian who smiled at you during the day, then tried to slit your throat at night. No front lines, no uniforms, they just blend in with the population and use this to their advantage. That Afghan sitting on the side of the road may very well be waiting to detonate an improvised explosive device as soon as your humvee rolls over it.

The common foot soldier's hands are tied by rules of engagement. Many times they will be taking a lot of fire from a particular house and see their buddies die, faces blown away. Then, the "insurgents" drop their weapons and run from the house. Our troops can't fire because they are unarmed and may be "civilians" running from the conflict.

We use precision munitions as much as possible to minimize civilian deaths. Guided bombs and missiles. New technology enables an artillery unit to zero in on a single mortar being fired at our troops by tracking the trajectory back to it's source after the third round they fire. The artillery unit sends one high explosive shell right back to that mortar. But guess what? They were firing from a location with civilians present who were shouting "Allah Akbar!" every time a shell was dropped down the mortar tube, there is video available of this. so, when a "civilian" in that location is killed, they show the pictures of American atrocities.

I don't think the apathy of the deaths of these people has so much to do with prejudice as it does that they are the enemy.

Originally Posted by Ditch

I don't think the apathy of the deaths of these people has so much to do with prejudice as it does that they are the enemy.

I'd suggest you turn this around a little. Imagine that it's your back yard that troops are walking through, on some objective that your country proclaims as evil. Would you stand back as your countrymen are taken out by laser guided rockets from afar?

I'm suggesting here that there is no 'right and wrong' side in war. There are only wrong sides. Reasons for war do not excuse the act of killing. War is only necessary because the people in power are unable to find compromise with words. It shows only that they value their own goals over the lives of other people. Something I find abhorrent.

It's usually religion and money that provoke 'reasons' for war. Any religion that promotes violence is not a true religion. And any government that desires to gain at the loss of life is no government.

Bah.. writing about this makes me angry. It's so simple, but so hard to change. Which is why I say that the only way to stop war is for everyone to put down their weapons. If all the citizens in the world simply decide not to fight, then the people in power would have no recourse but to use words and diplomacy.

Imagine how quickly peace would arrive. And then how many resources we would have to better our world (perhaps even save it).

Ireland and Northern Ireland have a longer history with England than Iraq and Afghanistan. Northern Ireland is also part of the U.K. I believe. I think the British PM's statements reflect something more intimately experienced in the United Kingdoms past.

I don't think racism, religion, and nationality are as important in the global community, as a whole, as they were several decades ago. I think in certain regions of the world one or more of those things are a variable in the violent strife that goes on.

In the United States we don't have religious wars. That's not to say religion is not used by political parties or that religion holds no importance at all. There are many people prejudiced to this or that religion in the U.S., but it's a far cry from religious relations in 19th century USA. Nationalism is still strong in the U.S. but much less so than what it was through the first half of the 20th century. Racism still exists in the U.S. but it's teeth are mainly in institutional racism. Largely racial relations have improved in the U.S.

I would say much the same holds true throughout the rest of the Americas. Improvements.

Europe for centuries had blood and soil wars. But this is less important in Western Europe today. The racism in Europe or tensions with the rise of Islam are to be expected with the great influx of immigrants. But Europe witnessed the historical things that went on in the United States and South Africa and has done a pretty good job not remaking apartheid or the Jim Crow South. And I'd rather be a Muslim living in Europe than a Christian living in Iraq.

Nationalism has probably increased in Eastern Europe since the fall of communism. Racism and white supremacist attacks have probably increased too.

I don't know what to say about Asia. India and Pakistan always have tensions. China and Japan don't have much love for each other. I don't know about the rest of Asia. Africa has too many countries on that one continent and so ethnic and nationalistic tensions are likely to occur.

There are Islamic fighters engaged in conflict with every major religion on earth today. Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, and Christian. A lot of it - maybe not all - has much to do with internal things going on in world Islamic community.

In general I think the world is moving - however slowly or fast - into a more "global" era of political community, racial diversity, religious tolerance, and environmentalism.



(in the U.S. I doubt a religious war would ever break out but I'm certain there are and will be forces not only seeking to undermine the Catholic Church but to seize its property - as you may know I think Lucifer is thoroughly in control of the Democratic Party today)

As the sun rose on the morning of September 11,2001 America was at war with nobody. People went to work as normal. Women had babies and children went to school.

To be completely honest, America was enforcing a no fly zone over Iraq and we had troops pre positioned to keep the peace in a dozen locations in the world, but no ofensive operations were underway and none were being planned. In a moment, then two, things changed.

We didn't pick the fight, but suddenly, we found ourselves in one. Like Ditch said, our enemy hid among the civilians, wore no uniform, and never identified ourselves. We trained our troops the best way that we could and we made sure that our munitions were guided, not just lobbed.

It would be a wonderful world if everyone could just hold hands and sing "Koombayah", but it is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion.

Originally Posted by KrisMunro

It's usually religion and money that provoke 'reasons' for war. Any religion that promotes violence is not a true religion. And any government that desires to gain at the loss of life is no government.

Bah.. writing about this makes me angry. It's so simple, but so hard to change. Which is why I say that the only way to stop war is for everyone to put down their weapons. If all the citizens in the world simply decide not to fight, then the people in power would have no recourse but to use words and diplomacy.

Imagine how quickly peace would arrive. And then how many resources we would have to better our world (perhaps even save it).

The main causes of war in the 20th century were ideological and not religious. Even the invasion of Iraq was motivated in ideological reasons. The United States attempted to democratize Iraq - if you want to call it that. Regardless, the U.S. did not set up a Christian theocracy in Iraq.

I also have no problem with the Mujahadeen that fought in Afghanistan against the Soviet invaders. Islam was used as a motivating reason to fight off the invaders and I say more power to them.

In my opinion the only thing that can greatly reduce the chances of wars in the world is for international law to make it criminal for countries to use forced conscription, and imprisoning military personnel that refuse to fight.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

In my opinion the only thing that can greatly reduce the chances of wars in the world is for international law to make it criminal for countries to use forced conscription, and imprisoning military personnel that refuse to fight.

I'm lucky in that if I'm drafted, I'll not be thrown in with the soldiers. I'd be useful as a psych. A ranking officer or something... maybe.

I'm not entirely sure of the rulings, but I've heard that if you accept being drafted, yet refrain from swearing the oath (for whatever religious/personal belief you have) then they cannot punish you by sticking you in jail. Say your beliefs prevent killing of any kind.. 'they cannot condemn you to hell'. (or so I hear from a guy who knows a guy)

Funny how America popped up into this thread. Weren't Portugal, Spain, France, and England involved in the slave trade long before the existence of the USA?

Very hypocritical to infer that the USA is the Great Oppressor when, in fact, it was the European Empires that saddled the peoples of every land they "discovered." When speaking about this matter, there is enough blame to spread around equally--even to some Arab nations that perfected te slave trade.