I actually hate Christianity!

[Aos Si]

Digging what?

The origins of the Tutsi and Hutu peoples is a key issue in the history of Burundi and Rwanda, as well as the Great Lakes region of Africa. While the Hutu are generally recognized as the ethnic majority of Rwanda, in racialist ideology the Tutsi were identified as a foreign race, as opposed to an indigenous minority. The relationship between the two is thus, in many ways, derived from the perceived origins and claim to "Rwandan-ness". The largest conflict related to this question was the 1994 Rwandan Genocide.

The bolded and underlined bits would indicate that you are in a hole. Stop digging.

There now you can see in context the rather delusional claims of the racists who tried to assert there "Rwandan-ness".

Racialist ideology is no substitute for fact. The science says otherwise if you read that link you will find out why. pertinently It's now frowned upon in Rwanda to use these racially divisive terms. They share a common ancestry, there is no scientific basis for calling them a race, there is a basis for calling them 3 peoples who shared a culture language but have divided into separate peoples, but who historically have fought over who should be in power in Rwanda since before the advent of colonialism.

I think its you that should stop digging really.

Personally I find no reason to divide any culture into a separate race, I find it scientifically unjustifiable, but that's by the by.

[charlou]

[charlou]

[Hermit]

the rather delusional claims of the racists ... Racialist ideology is no substitute for fact.

You know that. I know that. As far as I am concerned, there is only one human race. I call it "the human race", oddly enough. Meanwhile,there are millions of humans clinging to racist delusions, and proceed to kill their neighbours because they have darker skin, have lived on the other side of the mountain range, or whatever. You and I see the conflict in cultural terms. They perceive it as a racial one. The media report it as racial conflict. Freeman's advice in one of the clips above is a good one. While people regard another as black, white, or whatever, there will be strife. As stupid as those distinctions are, they continue to be made, resulting in racial conflict. Seth said that the cost of the racial conflict in the US a few decades ago was quite mild in comparison to racial conflicts in many countries elsewhere in the world. That's all he said. I agree with him.

[Seth]

Seth won't like this, but from my reading the Kennedy brothers were huge civil rights supporters and they pushed like mad for the politics to follow their leadership.

Why wouldn't I like it? I don't like the Kennedy clan particularly, they are far too left wing for my tastes, but when it comes to civil rights, I'm right there with them. Just because I'm a Libertarian doesn't mean I don't value the civil rights of minorities. I do.

My problem with the Kennedys is their support of entitlement mentality programs.

[Seth]

I don't want to spoil the party but, wasn't there a massive race riot that cost millions of dollars that lasted nearly two weeks, that resulted in several deaths in the US? I don't think it was completely peaceful.

There have been any number of riots fomented by radical revolutionary minority factions like the Black Panthers. But the bulk of the civil rights protests were peaceful on the part of the blacks. They were often assaulted by whites, and the police, as in Birmingham, but the intent of MLK was to suffer the indignities of such attacks while ensuring that the rest of the nation saw what was going on through the press.

That tactic was quite effective. The radical militant groups that rioted actually set back the civil rights work each time because they alienated public opinion.

Many of those violent radical revolutionary groups were, and are, Marxist in philosophy and tactics, including STORM, to which White House ex-advisor and George Soros lackey Van Jones was a part.

[Rum]

Mod alert: Totally off topic for ages here!

[Seth]

[H]e was painting a rosier picture than necessary is all.

Seth wasn't. He said that the black rights campaign in the US a few decades ago was quite mild in comparison to racial conflicts in many countries elsewhere in the world, and he is right about that.

Well if that's all he was saying its trite. So what we don't expect the US to brutally massacre its own people its a democratic and developed nation. It seemed to me he was sugar coating it a bit, so I just pointed out that it wasn't all that peaceful, it's not like I'm saying the US is evil.

The civil rights era was one of the finest examples of the democratic processes we use to peacefully resolve such issues in all of human history. There were very limited riots, and relatively few deaths in a situation that historically results in civil war and genocide, as in Rwanda or any of a hundred other nations in history where oppressed minority populations rose up in anger and armed rebellion.

Clearly this is not true the riots were prolonged, cause a great deal of property damage, and were far from limited, unless 125 cities counts as limited, I just pointed that out. I wasn't disagreeing with the situation in Rwanda which isn't a racial dispute anyway its a tribal one, and it has been going on for centuries. About the only thing he does get right is the number of deaths which are indeed relatively few, but then that's a civil war and this is a riot, who's primary purpose is not to kill anyway, although no doubt some of the deaths would of been race related. I suspect most were due to police shooting looters etc. The civil war caused a great deal of deaths over race relations and civil rights too if we want to go into the whole history.

If you are going to portray history then get the facts right at least, some apt analogies would be good too. I'm not attacking anyone here, just pointing out the facts.

The riots were a spontaneous reaction to oppression, quite understandable, even if, as human nature will, the anger turned to random violence and looting. The civil rights campaign, although clearly connected to the conditions which triggered the riots, was a purposeful mass movement of protest and civil disobedience, with basic tenets of non-violence at its core. Its success in pressuring subsequent democratic change was the triumph that Seth alluded to.

I wasn't attacking his point just his sugar coating of history from freeing the slaves to the civil rights movement. Sure it was pivotal in creating democratic change. Not that it has anything to do with it but I bet the riots didn't hurt that movement for change either.

Generally, you're wrong. The reaction of the vast majority of non-black citizens to blacks rioting and destroying property was not one of sympathy for the rioting blacks. It was most often precisely the opposite, and every riot set the cause of civil rights back by confirming the irrational fears of the majority about what would happen if "black power" were allowed to blossom. Tensions at the time were very high, but in all but a very few densely-populated minority areas, the "riots" were not significant.

The Birmingham, Detroit and Watts riots were severe, and were mostly limited to the BLACK parts of town. In other words, the riots destroyed the homes and businesses of the blacks in those areas. Damage was extensive, particularly in Watts, but it was largely limited to the ghetto areas of LA.

As a result, nobody much cared, outside of Watts. The overall reaction to the big three riots was "Well, they're burning down and looting their own community, which goes to prove that they are ignorant savages who can't be trusted with civil rights."

It was MLK, with his peaceful marches, speeches and protests, like the bus boycott in Birmingham that preceded the riot, that swayed majority public opinion in the end. Fortunately, King distanced himself from the militant factions of people like Malcolm X and the Black Panthers, and demonstrated that blacks are, in fact, just people, and that like other people, they can be trusted to be good, peaceful, law-abiding citizens in main.

THAT is what caused the democratic creation of the Civil Rights laws by Congress, not the militant rioters, who have NEVER, EVER been successful in changing public policy through the use of terrorism or militancy.

Compared to the MILLIONS killed in Rawanda and the hundreds of thousands killed in Zimbabwe, and the tens of thousands killed in South Africa, America's acceptance of blacks and minorities as valued members of society has been remarkably peaceful and democratic.

Of course, this doesn't really account for the worst loss of life in US history for reasons of racial politics: our Civil War, in which 640,000 Americans died in order to end slavery in the United States. That conflict, which both set the stage for the Civil Rights Movement, and paid in blood for all the wrongs of our past in regards to slavery, was one of the prime reasons that we, as a people, resolved the civil rights issues involved through the democratic process, and not through armed insurrection and another civil war.

[floppit]

Mod alert: Totally off topic for ages here!

I don't know Rum, sometimes you can tell a lot by where things go. This started with (I presume) a feeling that it's religion at the root of multivarious social ills as opposed to a tool used by many for many ends, some atrocious and some admirable.

There will always be people that take a short cut of faith over reasoning and always a surplas volume of woo hawkers who damn well know that - or are themselves to caught up to see.

I hate the idea of racial supremacy but deep down know full well it is only a means to serve an end and an invented by people rather than a force outside of human will.

I am honestly more angry that every school child isn't taught about the debate basis of science, about journals and peer review, about learning and CHANGE than I am about the existence of christianity. And, if one day I believe in a world where power has no vested interest in ignorance I might be tempted to blame religion for the missing facts given to school kids - but that day hasn't dawned for me yet.

[JimC]

Mod alert: Totally off topic for ages here!

True, but sometimes I rather like the way a Ratz thread winds around all over the place, just like a real conversation between real people!

[Aos Si]

I wasn't attacking his point just his sugar coating of history from freeing the slaves to the civil rights movement. Sure it was pivotal in creating democratic change. Not that it has anything to do with it but I bet the riots didn't hurt that movement for change either.

Generally, you're wrong. The reaction of the vast majority of non-black citizens to blacks rioting and destroying property was not one of sympathy for the rioting blacks. It was most often precisely the opposite, and every riot set the cause of civil rights back by confirming the irrational fears of the majority about what would happen if "black power" were allowed to blossom. Tensions at the time were very high, but in all but a very few densely-populated minority areas, the "riots" were not significant.

The Birmingham, Detroit and Watts riots were severe, and were mostly limited to the BLACK parts of town. In other words, the riots destroyed the homes and businesses of the blacks in those areas. Damage was extensive, particularly in Watts, but it was largely limited to the ghetto areas of LA.

As a result, nobody much cared, outside of Watts. The overall reaction to the big three riots was "Well, they're burning down and looting their own community, which goes to prove that they are ignorant savages who can't be trusted with civil rights."

It was MLK, with his peaceful marches, speeches and protests, like the bus boycott in Birmingham that preceded the riot, that swayed majority public opinion in the end. Fortunately, King distanced himself from the militant factions of people like Malcolm X and the Black Panthers, and demonstrated that blacks are, in fact, just people, and that like other people, they can be trusted to be good, peaceful, law-abiding citizens in main.

THAT is what caused the democratic creation of the Civil Rights laws by Congress, not the militant rioters, who have NEVER, EVER been successful in changing public policy through the use of terrorism or militancy.

Compared to the MILLIONS killed in Rawanda and the hundreds of thousands killed in Zimbabwe, and the tens of thousands killed in South Africa, America's acceptance of blacks and minorities as valued members of society has been remarkably peaceful and democratic.

Of course, this doesn't really account for the worst loss of life in US history for reasons of racial politics: our Civil War, in which 640,000 Americans died in order to end slavery in the United States. That conflict, which both set the stage for the Civil Rights Movement, and paid in blood for all the wrongs of our past in regards to slavery, was one of the prime reasons that we, as a people, resolved the civil rights issues involved through the democratic process, and not through armed insurrection and another civil war.

There's no possible way you can know any of this, its all anecdotal. Did it move the senate, I don't know and I'm only guessing and so are you. I don't know if after the dust had settled and there was time to analyse the route cause of the problems, whether such a visceral message hit home. And neither do you.

And you're still using inapt analogies and it doesn't change the fact that what you said was inaccurate. Peaceful change would be somewhere where attitudes shifted without the need for major civil wars and mass riots. Your country is better than it was but its still riddled with racism. I disagree that your freedoms were won in the application of peace alone you missed out two hundred years of oppression, they were won on the battlefield and at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and on the streets. You trivialise the whole civil rights movement by placing it only in one decade, and you claim that the US can be compared to countries where brutal despots rule and that are developing, even going so far as to compare a simple civil war between countrymen with a black vs white struggle. I agree that the peaceful civil rights movement was pivotal in affecting change, but then so was the civil war to mention the other history you seem to ignore is probably unnecessary from Uncle Tom to 1960.

Why is it so often when an American writes history, its almost always bs; rose tinted glasses. You need to stop seeing your country as some shining beacon of light, methinks, or the democratic process likewise. As I say hundreds of thousands of people died for this cause. Just quoting history you happened to live through and that alone means shit and trivialises the whole thing. I aint black but if I was I'd find your overly saccharine view of US history patronising, scant on details, and somewhat offensively trivialising a 200 or so year struggle, from the emancipation of the slaves to the eventually right to win basic freedoms and today to make it out of the abject poverty such brutal subjugation created. A slow grind of oppression is how I'd sum it up, a ceaseless and sometimes murderous (on both sides) stagger towards the goal line.

I love the idea that a riot that happens in 125 cities that you failed to mention causes little concern, the damage was widespread in all communities. Not that it matters: I also like the idea that only black people lived in these areas and that only black people are affected as if there is some sort of Apartheid system in the US or ever has been or the effects of such riots are not passed on to the tax payer. Very funny stuff. And no one cares if black people get hurt. GTFO. Patronising much?

[Aos Si]

the rather delusional claims of the racists ... Racialist ideology is no substitute for fact.

You know that. I know that. As far as I am concerned, there is only one human race. I call it "the human race", oddly enough. Meanwhile,there are millions of humans clinging to racist delusions, and proceed to kill their neighbours because they have darker skin, have lived on the other side of the mountain range, or whatever. You and I see the conflict in cultural terms. They perceive it as a racial one. The media report it as racial conflict. Freeman's advice in one of the clips above is a good one. While people regard another as black, white, or whatever, there will be strife. As stupid as those distinctions are, they continue to be made, resulting in racial conflict. Seth said that the cost of the racial conflict in the US a few decades ago was quite mild in comparison to racial conflicts in many countries elsewhere in the world. That's all he said. I agree with him.

Yes the first rule of war is to demonise your enemy, Catholic, Jew, Protestant, they all eats babies. The fact still remains it was not a racial war it was a "tribal" civil war between related peoples, who share no separate racial distinction. Hence it is not apt. What is enlightening is that people who know full well that they are not fighting another people, can commit such atrocities and then hide behind their own propaganda as if it ever made sense: hypocrites they may be, and if any are still alive they would probably tell you that, but it doesn't make the root cause anything more than a political power struggle that had been going on for centuries. Also if you are going to compare countries though, stick with the West or at least a developed nation otherwise its just bullshit and doesn't really say anything anyway.

We are quite capable of massacring people with no racial motivation, history is quite clear on that as is European history replete with horrific examples of mass slaughters done in the name of an ideology or God. So what? We didn't know any better we were still locked in trivial wars for resources and power, and killing in the name of. Some countries still are.

[MrJonno]

We are quite capable of massacring people with no racial motivation

As there is no scientific concept of race , its purely a political construct I'm not sure that really means much.

[Aos Si]

We are quite capable of massacring people with no racial motivation

As there is no scientific concept of race , its purely a political construct I'm not sure that really means much.

Yeah true but you know what I mean.

I mean it's only recently we realised mankind is moronic. We have yet to act on it but you can always hope..?