I was just watching a documentary on the "honour killing" of women in Pakistan. Every year 1000s of women are killed by men (their husbands, fathers, sons or in-laws) with total impunity, because they are guilty or even suspected of adultery, or just for being in public without male permission. And the situation in Afghanistan for woman is similar, if not worse. All in the name of Islam. Rather, all in the name of religion, it's being Islam is irrelevant.

All this just to say that, although you Americans are often consumed in whole in the demonification of the White, white or "white" race because of the specific American experience, seen from a global perspective evilness knows no racial boundaries.

A second question I would like to ask you:In the example of Pakistan, this is a practice practiced and condoned in all levels of society, from the peasant to the senator. Therefore it is, in a sense part of their culture. Does that mean that other cultures have no right to pass judgement and attempt, or rather "attempt" to change this appalling situation?

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")

But i cant really abide by your disregard of situations in america. While Im sure we all abhor the attrocities committed elsewhere as oppressed citizens of this nation we must focus on our most prevailing issues as it is American imperialism that mitigates attrocities and miscarriages of justice throughout the world using class systems like race to rob humanity of its culture and dignity.

Ive seen footage of the women of pakistan one who had been attacked by a band of men weilding machetes- her hand had been chopped so swiftyly that her fingers were no more- her hand was flat demonstrative of the unwavering slash that severed it.

As for your question- I dont think other cultures are in a position to go around checking other cultures for their so called "attrocities." The obvious question would be...

where would we start.

K

>But i cant really abide by
>your disregard of situations in
>america.

I'm not just casting them aside, obviously, I'm just saying that it could be helpful to cast them under a global light.

>While Im sure we
>all abhor the attrocities committed
>elsewhere as oppressed citizens of
>this nation we must focus
>on our most prevailing issues
>as it is American imperialism
>that mitigates attrocities and miscarriages
>of justice throughout the world
>using class systems like race
>to rob humanity of its
>culture and dignity.
>

Although it is easy to see examples of what you are saying (Pinochet, and if you broaden it to include all of the Occident, then the situations in West Africa), the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan arose of themselves. As we well know, the mistreatment of women and the despisal of those seen as different (not necessarily on a racial differences, see Northern Ireland) is not a function of American imperialism. Today it plays a role, but it is not an essential element (in the sense that it is only conjunctural).

>As for your question- I dont
>think other cultures are in
>a position to go around
>checking other cultures for their
>so called "attrocities." The obvious
>question would be...
>
>where would we start.
>
>K

Of course it's complicated. The obvious example is that at Nuremburg in 45, Germans were condemned for the concentration camps, but no-one was questioned about Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But your opinion is possibly more dangerous: it removes any incentive for a country to even attempt to appear exemplary and dimish its crimes. In a world where it is damn near impossible to find a reknowned and brutal dictator guilty of any crime, removing an avenue for possible improvement seems crazy.

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")

"But your opinion is possibly more dangerous: it removes any incentive for a country to even attempt to appear exemplary and dimish its crimes."

My opinion was that all cultures need to focus their attentions on their own backyards before they go presuming that they have moral dignity on their side. The fact of the matter is a great majority of nations are run by pervasively corrupt people and governments and as such any attempt to regulae or dispense moral judgement would be filtered through beauracracies that nobody respects as dignified enough to even talk about somebody else.

How many people would respect admonishment from Bill Clinto in terms of misogony and disrespect of women? And while he's pointing fingers when do the other nations get a chance to call america on all the bullshit they're doing? The United Nations would be reduced to squabbling (as if it isnt that already) As I said - where would we start? subsequently when would it end?

My opinion doesnt sacrifice any "incentive for a country to even attempt to appear exemplary and dimish its crimes" it recognizes that each country should be accountable to its own crimes and actions as opposed to judging somebody elses.

K

>My opinion doesnt sacrifice any "incentive
>for a country to even
>attempt to appear exemplary and
>dimish its crimes" it recognizes
>that each country should be
>accountable to its own crimes
>and actions as opposed to
>judging somebody elses.
>
>K

Good points, but taking care of your own backyard effectively means doing nothing. It means, because France, the USA or Ghana are not perfect, they can't say anything about, for example, Stalinian dictatorship. It means the Holocaust would not have been stopped (because the US had done worse). Actually, this is kind of the case today: look at Pinochet.

Your logic means people oppressed by, say, an honour-killing system should expect no aid or support from anywhere, because nowhere is the female condition perfect. That seems to me a dangerous route to take.

And remember that not only states make judgements on other states. Amnesty International is an example of a non-state doing the same thing.

And how far do you take the "take care of your back-yard" logic? To the individual level, where anyone can say: "That judge has no right over me, he ain't perfect"?

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")

has also happened in Iran and in Venezuela. Why is it called honor killing anyway? There is nothing honorable about murder.
Thanks for reading. I love you.

don't be fkn evil.

Why in the hell would women have to be killed just because it is forbidden in Islam for them to be seen without men?
Now, you're probably gonna say sumthin like "who are you to judge a religious system? That's their way of life."
Well, religion or no religion (I'd prefer no religion), what's wrong with just applying some plain old common sense and human rights?

Does this excuse hundreds of years of racial injustice perpetuated on a scale previously unknown to humankind (even in the French Caribbean) by "White", "white", ""white"" people? Does the fact that every other racial or ethnic group on the planet practices some reprehensible injustices (Trokosi slavery in Ghana, child prostitution in Thailand, boys performing ritual fellatio on grown men in New Guinea) somehow give white folks a free pass to dismiss their past and continuing atrocities? I don't get your comparison at all.

The point being made is that it's not JUST white people. It isn't easy to take on any blame for your background. If you're guilty for something that you did personally, that's one thing. But to have your entire identity as a human defined by what your ancestors did is crap. Yes, white folks have committed many many atrocities; but it doesn't stop there. Whether you are black, white, asian, latino, green, or purple, there is going to be something in your "heritage" that is violent and abhorrent. It's easier to cast blame than it is to accept your great(x10) grandfather's
crimes. It is time that people look at the now and the future to make changes. Casting aspersions based on things that have happened hundreds of years ago, is counter-productive. Don't get me wrong, we should never forget what has happened in order to honor the memories of the martyrs; however, there are things going on all over the world whether in the Middle East, Venezuela, Tibet, or even at home.
These are the things we should concern ourselves with changing and being upset about. The past a great reference for the future. Let's not let history repeat itself!

Forgive me if I find that to be a somewhat simple-minded rationale. I listed some vile, foul stuff that is CURRENTLY acceptable in some non-white cultures. As we so routinely hear, the slave trade would not have been possible, at least not on the same scale, without the collusion of some Africans against others (though this is another largely misunderstood and misinterpreted part of our history). What I am saying is that there IS an objective scale by which to judge the crimes of white Europeans against humanity, and it far outweighs any of the comparisons being made. Two counts of murder are worse than one. Of course genocide and gross crimes against humanity are not the purvey of one particular race; it is dishonest, however, to then equate the crimes of white Europeans to those of every Johnny Ethnic Group that has its own dirty secrets. Aztec ritual murder or Arawak alleged "cannibalism" or Taino sexism surely is not equal to the wholesale annihilation of all three cultures by invading European nations. Similarly, I'm with you in condemning the horrific sexism that's promoted in the name of Islam (or any other religion--again, what the Trokosi in Ghana went/go through will revolt you), but I'm sure as all hell that its not something I will compare to white supremacy, which has shaped our world for the last 500 years or so.

Rwanda (approximately 800,000 to 1.2 million) is not comparable to the Jewish holocaust, the Pol Pot regime's crimes against its own people, Stalin's "purges", and so on and so on and so on. The genocide in Rwanda, no matter how much the Western intelligensia try to deny it with claims of "tribal" hatred and ethnic rivalry, is directly related to the policies of German and Belgian white supremacists who ruled the countries as colonizers until 1959, when they were kicked the fuck out. Unfortunately, their influence wasn't so prompt in leaving.

>What I am saying is
>that there IS an objective
>scale by which to judge
>the crimes of white Europeans
>against humanity, and it far
>outweighs any of the comparisons
>being made. Two counts of
>murder are worse than one.
>Of course genocide and gross
>crimes against humanity are not
>the purvey of one particular
>race; it is dishonest, however,
>to then equate the crimes
>of white Europeans to those
>of every Johnny Ethnic Group
>that has its own dirty
>secrets. Aztec ritual murder or
>Arawak alleged "cannibalism" or Taino
>sexism surely is not equal
>to the wholesale annihilation of
>all three cultures by invading
>European nations.

That is true. However, that could lead to considering that anything less than the Holocaust is (more or less) nothing. We might need to be equally apalled by all atrocities. Maybe, I'm not sure.

>Rwanda (approximately 800,000 to 1.2 million)
>is not comparable to the
>Jewish holocaust, the Pol Pot
>regime's crimes against its own
>people, Stalin's "purges", and so
>on and so on and
>so on.

Well, in terms of the time-span (very short) and the percentage of the population killed and displaced (very high), it ranks quite highly in the league tables.

>The genocide in
>Rwanda, no matter how much
>the Western intelligensia try to
>deny it with claims of
>"tribal" hatred and ethnic rivalry,
>is directly related to the
>policies of German and Belgian
>white supremacists who ruled the
>countries as colonizers until 1959,
>when they were kicked the
>fuck out. Unfortunately, their influence
>wasn't so prompt in leaving.

Almost every single war in poor countries has a strong degree of "white" involvement. That doesn't contradict the brutality of the Rwanda conflict.

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")

>Does this excuse hundreds of years
>of racial injustice perpetuated on
>a scale previously unknown to
>humankind (even in the French
>Caribbean) by "White", "white", ""white""
>people? Does the fact that
>every other racial or ethnic
>group on the planet practices
>some reprehensible injustices (Trokosi slavery
>in Ghana, child prostitution in
>Thailand, boys performing ritual fellatio
>on grown men in New
>Guinea) somehow give white folks
>a free pass to dismiss
>their past and continuing atrocities?
>I don't get your comparison
>at all.

Of course not. What I am saying is that evilness is not a function of race, and that should not be forgotten.

I another post I talk of how white-Americans used to flock to lynchings. Today in Afghanistan people attend public executions in their thousands.

So while it may be convenient and simpler to say "some atrocities are worse than others", I think that to transform that concious simplification into an unconcious truth is dangerous.

No atrocity is excusable. Remember that perhaps the worse atrocity of this century was committed in Rwanda.

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")

mke,
that post was for odu. I agree with you. odu if I'm reading you wrong, well straighten it out brother.

ILLY9,

I was replying to odu. So straighten it out. (said humourously)

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")

I'll just respond to the second part of your post, because it seems more relevant. As an American citizen, my feeling is that whenever we attempt to force major social changes in a foreign country, we're going to face some serious roadblocks. The most obvious is HOW can we effectively make this kind of change happen? Pakistan and Afghanistan are sovereign nations, and the US government simply has no authority to dictate to them what laws they can or cannot pass. We can use economic pressure, the threat of force, or other measures to try to coerce these countries into changing their laws, but this doesn't always work out too well (just look at our ongoing debacle in Iraq). If we were to succeed in forcing a country like Pakistan to change their laws, the US plays into the role of being imperialists who are disrespectful of Islamic beliefs, and would continue to make enemies in the region. Besides, the US has made some pretty poor decisions in their foreign policy the past few years and usually do so in the name of fighting terrorism or defending the rights of individuals. A lot of times economic interests and political concerns are the real underlying causes of our involvement. It isn't necessarily credible for the US to claim we are acting out of good will, even if it is justified. Now, a multinational effort to police Human Rights on a worldwide scale may make sense philosophically, but this doesn't seem viable right now either. The U.N. appears to be controlled by a handful of powerful nations, and doesn't necessarily have a lot of power at that. The US in particular has really abused their role with the organization. I'd love if we could go in and make the situation for women in Pakistan and Afghanistan better, but international politics are never that easy. A sort of grassroots raising of awareness about issues like these that are going on in foreign countries seems valuable. It helps if internationally, people at least KNOW when serious human rights violations are taking place somewhere in the world. When it comes to really getting in there and solving these kind of pervasive social issues, though, I think people need to work from within the country. I know the US has plenty of domestic issues where we as citizens of this country really can make an impact. Race is just one of those issues. When I read these posts, I was reminded of that Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy song - "water piston man, full of ammunition, putting out fires on a worldwide mission, but did you ever think to stop and squirt the flowers in your own backyard?"

peace,
murph

peace,
murph

Just to debate, what is domestic and what is international? It's hard, if not impossible, to define a strict dividing line between the two.

>As an American citizen, my
>feeling is that whenever we
>attempt to force major social
>changes in a foreign country,
>we're going to face some
>serious roadblocks. The most
>obvious is HOW can we
>effectively make this kind of
>change happen? Pakistan and
>Afghanistan are sovereign nations, and
>the US government simply has
>no authority to dictate to
>them what laws they can
>or cannot pass. We
>can use economic pressure, the
>threat of force, or other
>measures to try to coerce
>these countries into changing their
>laws, but this doesn't always
>work out too well (just
>look at our ongoing debacle
>in Iraq).

When has the US intervened to force major social change? I'm not sure too many US interventions (military or otherwise) have been primarily motivated by the desire for the population to live better lives.

>If we
>were to succeed in forcing
>a country like Pakistan to
>change their laws, the US
>plays into the role of
>being imperialists who are disrespectful
>of Islamic beliefs, and would
>continue to make enemies in
>the region.

Of course, as long as the principle of sovereignty (even the hypocritical and self-serving form employed today) continues, we'll have trouble with these things, even the most flagrant ones (condemning a well-known dictator, for example).

>Besides, the
>US has made some pretty
>poor decisions in their foreign
>policy the past few years

Only in the past few years?

>and usually do so in
>the name of fighting terrorism
>or defending the rights of
>individuals.

Really?

>A lot of
>times economic interests and political
>concerns are the real underlying
>causes of our involvement.

Fighting terrorism and defending the rights of individuals are "economic interests and political
concerns". Decisions are never made on apolitical or a-economic grounds.

>It isn't necessarily credible for
>the US to claim we
>are acting out of good
>will, even if it is
>justified.

Good will? Please describe some US good will gestures. Or any country's good will gestures, for that matter.

>Now, a multinational
>effort to police Human Rights
>on a worldwide scale may
>make sense philosophically, but this
>doesn't seem viable right now
>either.

It doesn't seem viable cos no one (states and companies) cares about human rights.

>The U.N. appears
>to be controlled by a
>handful of powerful nations, and
>doesn't necessarily have a lot
>of power at that.

The UN was set up by the same powerful nations, and they made sure they would control it.

>The US in particular has
>really abused their role with
>the organization. I'd love
>if we could go in
>and make the situation for
>women in Pakistan and Afghanistan
>better, but international politics are
>never that easy. A
>sort of grassroots raising of
>awareness about issues like these
>that are going on in
>foreign countries seems valuable.
>It helps if internationally, people
>at least KNOW when serious
>human rights violations are taking
>place somewhere in the world.

Good start. And then what? is always the question.

> When it comes to
>really getting in there and
>solving these kind of pervasive
>social issues, though, I think
>people need to work from
>within the country.

I think people need to work inside and out of the country. That way, if the insiders are to weak to come together, or don't have the possibility to have their voice heard, someone can give them a leg up.

>I
>know the US has plenty
>of domestic issues where we
>as citizens of this country
>really can make an impact.
> Race is just one
>of those issues. When
>I read these posts, I
>was reminded of that Disposable
>Heroes of Hiphoprisy song -
>"water piston man, full of
>ammunition, putting out fires on
>a worldwide mission, but did
>you ever think to stop
>and squirt the flowers in
>your own backyard?"
>
>peace,
>murph


AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")

although im just glancing the boards, i wanted to mention Queen Raina of Jordan. I think the country you mentioned was Pakistan (?), but these honor killings are also prevalent in Jordan, and I've read in more than one account that Queen Raina of Jordan is working adamantly to change mindsets, hearts, and laws in her country. The percentage of men doing close to six mo. for committing one of these "honor killings" is absolutely heart-breaking. Change doesnt happen overnight, especially in attitudes that are so pre-existing.

This makes me think of female mutilation/circumcision that takes place. oppression is everywhere...

just a few scattered thoughts.
keep the faith
share the wealth
give the love
~b.

*a conversation w/ my daddy*
D- B, go in there and clean the kitchen
Me- but daddy, I didn't even contribute to that mess...
D- (sigh) there are some things in life you just do because they need to be done. I mean, I don't ask the grass to grow, but it does...and I cut it

"how you gonna have a multiracial country but monoracial leadership?"
-readers digest (paraphrased)


"our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate, our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. it is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. we ask ourselves, who am i to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? actually, who are you not to be? you are a child of God. your playing small does not serve the world. there is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people wont feel insecure around you. we were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. it is not just in some of us; it is in everyone. and as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. as we are liberated from our fear, our presence automatically liberates others."
-maryann williamson, "a return to love"

We've been askin bout you maaaaaaaan!
I heard bout that 'mercy' killin stuff too. Not much mercy in it for the person getting killed huh?....
Dove
~Sheepish Lordess of Chaos~

Quote, Quote on.......

~Mil's thoughts on Lu's Freak Test on the General Board.....
"what kind of friggin beastiality are okayplayers into that they were like..... '.....I stopped counting at 250'"

****June is reunion quote month*****

~Nesta's analogy of a john picking up a hooker on foot during our massive group viewing of "Hookers & Johns"
"that's like someone going through the drive-thru on a skateboard..."

NEWLY ADDED:
Mosaic's comment on my sig: "about your siggy...um...i've travelled through a drive thru on a bike"

http://UrbLife.com
http://twitter.com/FlyLikeDove
http://instagram.com/FlyLikeDove
http://Facebook.com/FlyLikeDove
http://flylikedove.contently.com