the article
you know whats weird? the term "second generation immigrants". what the hell is that supposed to mean? as if the title "immigrant" seems to like... be bestowed upon a whole new child, a whole new lifetime, spent entirely in like... basically like... in the country... yet they'er called immigrants. why? because of the place their parents were born. that's absolutely rediculous. there's like more things at work here. why would the parents history be important in the definition of the child. the children htemselves having lived never a day outside of the country at hand in some cases, are still called immigrants... but why is this considered to be correct. consider if they were sent back to the country where they're purportedly said to be immigrating from... they would be moving to a new place, foreign to them, where they themselves would be foreign as well to the land. like they wouldn't have anything in common with the people. absolutely rediculous. and yet in the country they were born in, where they were educated, all thats considered familiar to the,, in that country, they are labeled as immigrant, as if they are some foreign thing in the land. what a horrible way to entitle someone. they should be recognized as merely citizens, and little more than that. rather than going to the great effort to describe them as being... second generation foreign born. absolutely rediculous.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
out of egypt
out of egypt, starring dr kara cooney
generally i get the vibe that its very american-judgemental. like there's alot of other-ness involved with this womans world view. secondly it seems like its entirely framed around the fact that she's a woman. and that because of that she's then supposed to be sexed up. which i kinda find a bit repulsive as its meant to be a science show. there was a scene where she was getting blessed by a south american priest, and she recalls getting spit on, and they play an instant replay... which just surprises me. highlighting the strangeness of something new, without a hint of perhaps understanding. a quote i read a day or so ago from my japanese guide book read that visitors should be perpared to readjust their view of the palce alot as appearences are decieving. i think this could be held true for any place and person on our planet. be prepared to be surprised, and dont take anything for granted.
also it makes me wonder why arent any of the local experts involved in this? a white chick from california in egypt? given todays climate regarding the whole terrorist situation? and there's not a single brown faced guy walking alongside the pyramids with her? i don't know i just feel like maybe alot of experts are being locked out of this show. like this woman comes in, without giving nods to those who are already doing something with these artifacts, and isntead just wants to more or less pillage the history and magnificense for her own television shows? and yet those anglo-germanic folks on their forums would cry bloody murder if some islamo-funded docu was shot at the vatican. its just rediculous.
even her tone of voice seems to have that slight bit of like... disdain... i mean really. why the fuck is it so hard to just open yourself up, and just see these people as real people, to no longer put up barriers in your mind between you and them. but i think her viewpoint encourages such other viewpoints as racism and shit. she's not really fucking comfortable enough in the world to really consider herself in front of a human being whilst in front of... a human being. instead they're subtitled, excluded from captions recognizing their university affiliation or even their first and last name. and then the way she repeats everything they say as if they perhaps arent sharp enough to carry on with her. it just comes across as insulting and disgusting.
it just makes me wonder how she can feel so welcome to study things such as egyptian history, when there's like, mummies in universities all around the world. it just feels like pure exploitation. if they had the dead of say scandinavian origin in museums around the world there may be a clamor to return the bodies to their country of origin.
it just feels like egyptian history is exploited and exported as a commodity and a marvel for other countries, at the cost of perhaps the richness of the country itself. like for instance why wasn't there a movement to keep egyptian pyramids and mummies IN egypt? why weren't these things considered national treasures and worthy of preservation? instead they're picked apart and shipped to museums worldwide. and it just feels disgusting in a way, how such a country's rich history was exploited by those who came in and pillaged then left whilst populating museums with the spoils.
and again and again, they ahve experts from local countries native to the archeological remnants that are continually not recognized by name and university of affilliation, and instead are given captopns to help their "totally undiscernable" dialect make some sense. and all she does is repeat abck to them what htey say to her, looking for a hint of approval that yes, she parroted it back quite correctly. what fucking shitty stuff. highly insulting, and just smacks of racism. she understands what theyre saying, so do i , as well as likely the majority of her viewership. stop with the captiopns, and just give them their name of regocnition and university of origin. they deserve equal treatment to that of the white university professors. stop with the other-ness. they're human beings speaking a discernable dialect of english, your own fucking language, cut the crap, stop acting like its filmed in french, and give them their due recognition as lifetime seekers of knowledge, much like yourself, narrator.
and then a chick, from say a christian nation in south america... doesnt get captions and isntead gets a name and university of affiliation. and there's no fucking repeating back of their words. its just fucking rediculous shit. so obviously she considers certani peoples other-ness to be greater than others, some deserving captions, others earning their right to have their name fucking displayed. shwo them all... and stop acting like english speakers need interpreters. of university level education no less.
and then the treatment of how the gods hold the head of say a decapitated person, that then to be emphasized as "gruesome"... stop with the labeling. you ahve no idea how those in their time reacted to this. you have no idea... so instead of trying to wrongfully follow through with the labeling, take a step back, and just recognize its way beyodn you to make such leaps of thought and to then speak them forth as almost certainty on the same level of importance as any of hte facts she rattles off about the pyramids or their makers.
i guess at the end of the day i hate the snide and snotty demeanor that seems to like bleed off of this womans voice that just really makes it hard for me to enjoy her programming. she is rattling off facts yes, but there is a visible and audible amount of distancing she does between her and the content at hand, she isnt one of those bearth in the dust and live like the locals do types, like say... anthony bourdain, or any number of those typical bbc-english experts and their docu's they host... no she's more sarah palin-ish and just has her narrowminded views and conservative vibe, more reminicent of bush jr. than anything near-enjoyable.
generally i get the vibe that its very american-judgemental. like there's alot of other-ness involved with this womans world view. secondly it seems like its entirely framed around the fact that she's a woman. and that because of that she's then supposed to be sexed up. which i kinda find a bit repulsive as its meant to be a science show. there was a scene where she was getting blessed by a south american priest, and she recalls getting spit on, and they play an instant replay... which just surprises me. highlighting the strangeness of something new, without a hint of perhaps understanding. a quote i read a day or so ago from my japanese guide book read that visitors should be perpared to readjust their view of the palce alot as appearences are decieving. i think this could be held true for any place and person on our planet. be prepared to be surprised, and dont take anything for granted.
also it makes me wonder why arent any of the local experts involved in this? a white chick from california in egypt? given todays climate regarding the whole terrorist situation? and there's not a single brown faced guy walking alongside the pyramids with her? i don't know i just feel like maybe alot of experts are being locked out of this show. like this woman comes in, without giving nods to those who are already doing something with these artifacts, and isntead just wants to more or less pillage the history and magnificense for her own television shows? and yet those anglo-germanic folks on their forums would cry bloody murder if some islamo-funded docu was shot at the vatican. its just rediculous.
even her tone of voice seems to have that slight bit of like... disdain... i mean really. why the fuck is it so hard to just open yourself up, and just see these people as real people, to no longer put up barriers in your mind between you and them. but i think her viewpoint encourages such other viewpoints as racism and shit. she's not really fucking comfortable enough in the world to really consider herself in front of a human being whilst in front of... a human being. instead they're subtitled, excluded from captions recognizing their university affiliation or even their first and last name. and then the way she repeats everything they say as if they perhaps arent sharp enough to carry on with her. it just comes across as insulting and disgusting.
it just makes me wonder how she can feel so welcome to study things such as egyptian history, when there's like, mummies in universities all around the world. it just feels like pure exploitation. if they had the dead of say scandinavian origin in museums around the world there may be a clamor to return the bodies to their country of origin.
it just feels like egyptian history is exploited and exported as a commodity and a marvel for other countries, at the cost of perhaps the richness of the country itself. like for instance why wasn't there a movement to keep egyptian pyramids and mummies IN egypt? why weren't these things considered national treasures and worthy of preservation? instead they're picked apart and shipped to museums worldwide. and it just feels disgusting in a way, how such a country's rich history was exploited by those who came in and pillaged then left whilst populating museums with the spoils.
and again and again, they ahve experts from local countries native to the archeological remnants that are continually not recognized by name and university of affilliation, and instead are given captopns to help their "totally undiscernable" dialect make some sense. and all she does is repeat abck to them what htey say to her, looking for a hint of approval that yes, she parroted it back quite correctly. what fucking shitty stuff. highly insulting, and just smacks of racism. she understands what theyre saying, so do i , as well as likely the majority of her viewership. stop with the captiopns, and just give them their name of regocnition and university of origin. they deserve equal treatment to that of the white university professors. stop with the other-ness. they're human beings speaking a discernable dialect of english, your own fucking language, cut the crap, stop acting like its filmed in french, and give them their due recognition as lifetime seekers of knowledge, much like yourself, narrator.
and then a chick, from say a christian nation in south america... doesnt get captions and isntead gets a name and university of affiliation. and there's no fucking repeating back of their words. its just fucking rediculous shit. so obviously she considers certani peoples other-ness to be greater than others, some deserving captions, others earning their right to have their name fucking displayed. shwo them all... and stop acting like english speakers need interpreters. of university level education no less.
and then the treatment of how the gods hold the head of say a decapitated person, that then to be emphasized as "gruesome"... stop with the labeling. you ahve no idea how those in their time reacted to this. you have no idea... so instead of trying to wrongfully follow through with the labeling, take a step back, and just recognize its way beyodn you to make such leaps of thought and to then speak them forth as almost certainty on the same level of importance as any of hte facts she rattles off about the pyramids or their makers.
i guess at the end of the day i hate the snide and snotty demeanor that seems to like bleed off of this womans voice that just really makes it hard for me to enjoy her programming. she is rattling off facts yes, but there is a visible and audible amount of distancing she does between her and the content at hand, she isnt one of those bearth in the dust and live like the locals do types, like say... anthony bourdain, or any number of those typical bbc-english experts and their docu's they host... no she's more sarah palin-ish and just has her narrowminded views and conservative vibe, more reminicent of bush jr. than anything near-enjoyable.
Friday, August 21, 2009
observations 3
i dont think the problem is with people disagreeing with things, becuase that'll happen, but rather the way people act in accordance with this disagreement. some use jokes, laugh it off, continue. others muse, but then let it go, and continue. but there's a small subsection that seems to fixate on it, become furiously enraged, and then in that rage... more or less becomes capable of committing crimes in order to more or less get their way on the issue. but the problem is their issue becomes obscured by their crime, and no change will come about if they are labeled as murderer and not idealist. tough luck.
there are more options that just simply deciding not to work together to create a situation where all parties can feel comfortable. and to say someone has a country of their own is a bit strange... say for isntance with the sikhs... their ancestral lands are split between two countries, one which is overtly anti-sikh, the other being passively anti-sikh. there is no country for the sikhs, so simply citing "return to it" is a meaningless line of drivel for such people.
"invading the lands of my people" what a backward point of view, with regards to immigrants, when speaking of well known colonialized countries... australia for instance... was once white-minority. america... white minority... etc... and then if you go far back, i would venture to say that if all life came from africa... then basically all the europeans trying to lay ancestral claim to europe are rediculous. they were just the first to get there, but before them, was nothing. and even if they got there, those who did get there may not have even been white-looking, or otherwise identifiable european types. its just too much of a stretch to try and lay claim to those humans that did occupy those lands as being default-europeans. there's been much migration, warfare, death, and various groups have come in, intermingled, and settled. the so called "white race" is also a hybrid of its predecessors. ignorance of your own origin is a bit much with regards to "acestral claims".
and "belong in the country of their origin" crap... why is this now an impetus for mankind today? we did not impose such limits on ourselves in past eons. why now? and who affords such power to you to control where a person goes and why. noone. its an overextended reach of a silly idea that deserves little attention and has little merit.
and then ruining the racial composition of a country... why the hell does it matter what race your country is composed of hah. absolutely rediculous.
there are more options that just simply deciding not to work together to create a situation where all parties can feel comfortable. and to say someone has a country of their own is a bit strange... say for isntance with the sikhs... their ancestral lands are split between two countries, one which is overtly anti-sikh, the other being passively anti-sikh. there is no country for the sikhs, so simply citing "return to it" is a meaningless line of drivel for such people.
"invading the lands of my people" what a backward point of view, with regards to immigrants, when speaking of well known colonialized countries... australia for instance... was once white-minority. america... white minority... etc... and then if you go far back, i would venture to say that if all life came from africa... then basically all the europeans trying to lay ancestral claim to europe are rediculous. they were just the first to get there, but before them, was nothing. and even if they got there, those who did get there may not have even been white-looking, or otherwise identifiable european types. its just too much of a stretch to try and lay claim to those humans that did occupy those lands as being default-europeans. there's been much migration, warfare, death, and various groups have come in, intermingled, and settled. the so called "white race" is also a hybrid of its predecessors. ignorance of your own origin is a bit much with regards to "acestral claims".
and "belong in the country of their origin" crap... why is this now an impetus for mankind today? we did not impose such limits on ourselves in past eons. why now? and who affords such power to you to control where a person goes and why. noone. its an overextended reach of a silly idea that deserves little attention and has little merit.
and then ruining the racial composition of a country... why the hell does it matter what race your country is composed of hah. absolutely rediculous.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
more observations
ancestral connections to soil is a piss poor reason to allow or disallow someone into a country. comparing yourself by things you have no control in seems like a fools game.
america is a country of immigrants, not of germans... get it right. if there is such a thing as an american nationalist party, its one that would include every shade and variant of immigrant.
while people look at the marjuana smokers as something insideous, if you look at the reasons for places like the netherlands, china and japan having low rates of use... its probably due to extremely controlling families... and people who feel duty to their family, their ethnicity, their skin color, their race... their ancestors... essentially they're pulled between many directions and in the end can't move in any... whereas in america... we don't have such views as a whole... its weird. i think conservative control isnt much better than liberal mistake.
amazingly... at 21 about 50 percent of kids in america have reported using weed, and nearly 20 percent have reported using cocaine. some people like to point out the counterbalance of strictness in some european countries being the reason nothing has gone awry in those countries.
strangely enough i find alot of similarities between myself and the germanic folks on the german-oriented ancestry forums... perhaps thats a similar thing found in indian culture... but strangely enough yes there's startling similarities in the way i AND my parents think and these posters on the german ancestry forums. in a way its giving me a chance to look in the mirror, and see something of myself in it... for the first time... by reading the sentiments of these people.
its ironic that some of the most vocal germans are those with impure blood, notably a man saying he had a drop of native american in his veins, and people responded saying they could kick him off if they please. yet he comes back for more, even though scorned by his own forum. and nobody rushing to his defence. amazing.
why such a focus on the children of interracial marriage? race itself is just such a stupid thing. its just skin color, a bit of biological genetic difference, amounting to perhaps a horse breed... but defining your identity as a person by your breed as a person... seems a rather hollow place to hide... why not strike out and let something more daring be that which identifies you. instead these people seem to remain incubated within their own... self-protectionist nature of "my race" "my ancestors" and pointing out who is and who isnt to be involved with them. as if masses of people around the world band up by race... no... most dont. because unlike you, few people believe fleshy skin to be a worthy ideological point of union.
another thing, the ... hatred by self-identifying-white men with regards to identified-white women and their choice to sleep with identified-black men. this seems such a rediculous state of affairs. how can a SI-white man called a I-white woman anything... when they just are not related whatsoever.
these people talking about how scummy folks are for being in interracial relationships... what fucking idiots... there is nothing wrong with HUMANS being in a relationship. eugenics brought about WW2 and the holocaust. travesties of mankind.
heh these guys come across as viking nerds.
interesting, so when you see how these people think, when they discuss sikhs specifically, you can see how there are parts of our belief system that are entirely familiar to them as they are also part of their own .the sense that sikhs are warriors, were the strongest picked out in a time of war, have a legacy of some sort of selection, strong genes being taken forth and being made into sikhs... very similar to the aryan / german notions of racial purity and the like, and controlling who mates with whom.
absolutely rediculous... calling homosexuality a sin in sikhism... just as cutting hair is a sin... are you kidding me? it's not even a sin to begin with. that's a christian term. not even inherent in our texts. wake the fuck up.
and then this whole god's design thing... kinda rediculous.
i didnt even know there were sikhs out there who were opposed to homosexuality, but then i guess it makes sense. those who believe in natural law, those are the folks who think that whatever is inherently meant for by design in nature is what is law, and any thoughtful choice to overcome or go against that natural law is a perversion / sin / whathaveyou and therefore is wrong and unjust, unwanted, perhaps dark and destructive in some way. but yeah, some sikhs seem to believe in this notion of natural law. me, i don't. but some seem to. seems weird as fuck. but at the same time, it's very similar, in fact the exact same belief that some of these white-power groups hold true, they believe that the white race must be maintained, that miscegnation (interratial children) are again against natural law... its all that shit... basically conservatism where they hinge more on the past than present. living their lives in pattern rather than in a real motion of individuality. free thought and free will should be celebrated, not withheld. live virtuously, but not behind bars. these views are just plain terrible.
america is a country of immigrants, not of germans... get it right. if there is such a thing as an american nationalist party, its one that would include every shade and variant of immigrant.
while people look at the marjuana smokers as something insideous, if you look at the reasons for places like the netherlands, china and japan having low rates of use... its probably due to extremely controlling families... and people who feel duty to their family, their ethnicity, their skin color, their race... their ancestors... essentially they're pulled between many directions and in the end can't move in any... whereas in america... we don't have such views as a whole... its weird. i think conservative control isnt much better than liberal mistake.
amazingly... at 21 about 50 percent of kids in america have reported using weed, and nearly 20 percent have reported using cocaine. some people like to point out the counterbalance of strictness in some european countries being the reason nothing has gone awry in those countries.
strangely enough i find alot of similarities between myself and the germanic folks on the german-oriented ancestry forums... perhaps thats a similar thing found in indian culture... but strangely enough yes there's startling similarities in the way i AND my parents think and these posters on the german ancestry forums. in a way its giving me a chance to look in the mirror, and see something of myself in it... for the first time... by reading the sentiments of these people.
its ironic that some of the most vocal germans are those with impure blood, notably a man saying he had a drop of native american in his veins, and people responded saying they could kick him off if they please. yet he comes back for more, even though scorned by his own forum. and nobody rushing to his defence. amazing.
why such a focus on the children of interracial marriage? race itself is just such a stupid thing. its just skin color, a bit of biological genetic difference, amounting to perhaps a horse breed... but defining your identity as a person by your breed as a person... seems a rather hollow place to hide... why not strike out and let something more daring be that which identifies you. instead these people seem to remain incubated within their own... self-protectionist nature of "my race" "my ancestors" and pointing out who is and who isnt to be involved with them. as if masses of people around the world band up by race... no... most dont. because unlike you, few people believe fleshy skin to be a worthy ideological point of union.
another thing, the ... hatred by self-identifying-white men with regards to identified-white women and their choice to sleep with identified-black men. this seems such a rediculous state of affairs. how can a SI-white man called a I-white woman anything... when they just are not related whatsoever.
these people talking about how scummy folks are for being in interracial relationships... what fucking idiots... there is nothing wrong with HUMANS being in a relationship. eugenics brought about WW2 and the holocaust. travesties of mankind.
heh these guys come across as viking nerds.
interesting, so when you see how these people think, when they discuss sikhs specifically, you can see how there are parts of our belief system that are entirely familiar to them as they are also part of their own .the sense that sikhs are warriors, were the strongest picked out in a time of war, have a legacy of some sort of selection, strong genes being taken forth and being made into sikhs... very similar to the aryan / german notions of racial purity and the like, and controlling who mates with whom.
absolutely rediculous... calling homosexuality a sin in sikhism... just as cutting hair is a sin... are you kidding me? it's not even a sin to begin with. that's a christian term. not even inherent in our texts. wake the fuck up.
and then this whole god's design thing... kinda rediculous.
i didnt even know there were sikhs out there who were opposed to homosexuality, but then i guess it makes sense. those who believe in natural law, those are the folks who think that whatever is inherently meant for by design in nature is what is law, and any thoughtful choice to overcome or go against that natural law is a perversion / sin / whathaveyou and therefore is wrong and unjust, unwanted, perhaps dark and destructive in some way. but yeah, some sikhs seem to believe in this notion of natural law. me, i don't. but some seem to. seems weird as fuck. but at the same time, it's very similar, in fact the exact same belief that some of these white-power groups hold true, they believe that the white race must be maintained, that miscegnation (interratial children) are again against natural law... its all that shit... basically conservatism where they hinge more on the past than present. living their lives in pattern rather than in a real motion of individuality. free thought and free will should be celebrated, not withheld. live virtuously, but not behind bars. these views are just plain terrible.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
observations
people needa realize that while racist views are wrong if you live in a place with mainly one race... youll have mythologies for the seldom seen. expect it.
also... its rediculous to limit all discussion to "white" people and "PoC"... fuckin rediculous. you need to talk about everybody as individuals... dont try to attempt and make these overarching relationships and subcategories within which to draw all your theories and such. just give it a rest. let your actual case stand as an instance of racism...otherwise... dont try and paint characteristics of various races. its just a waste. focus on the crime, not the people. trying to typecast the people as a type is a crime. recognize.
its wrong to control whether or not women should be allowed to go topless on beaches... hearing that australia has passed legislature that bans such an act is disappointing and perhaps also a bit of a spark of a fight.
hah and then those who like... call nudity immoral... what wrongheaded people they are... this is just a natural state of our own bodies... why be ashamed... silly people...
heh... then calling victorian sensibilities far greater than those of those "hippy" nudists today... what utter bullshit.
hah, and then saying hte image of a woman nude means sex... thats a bastardization of the person... if you think sex when you see a naked woman... your mind is warped... sometimes yes... but always? no. wake up... smell the roses... open your eyes to the world outside your bible.
then there's this view that all immigrants should accept the incoming culture entirely... which's rediculous... not even those within the country are compelled to accept any given part of that country's culture... so why immigrants... remove the distinction of those names, and call them what they are... people... there's no reason to require people to be as perhaps the percieved popular belief is of the minute.
and then these people who talk about integration... you cant fucking do integration in schools. youve got to do it in the home. if parents teach children backwards views theyll bring them to the school. thats just how it works, period. publisc school forced integration wont nearly impact kids as much as parents. do your part, with your own. that'll end it.
the caste system of india seems almost like the feudal system of the old european countries and kingdoms. in that the king would be replaced by another of royal blood. but why were certain people exaulted above others as being particularly better to do a certain job in the first place. in india you arent given choice as to what profession you enter into, rather its a thing thats meant to be inherited from the parents.
why is it unfortunate that foreigners assimilate into the local genepool hah. why is there a need to try and keep a given race "pure".
alot of these countries independant but fledgeling and flailing seem more like death traps for those unfortunate enough to be born within their bounds - i think it should be perfectly alright for populations to desert areas that are now desolate and unproductive, and if there just doesnt exist any infrastructure for say an african country to do much good with what they have... then why should these people be forced to live there. in european, or western, countries, it wasnt the people at large that made these places great, but few organizers who had an eye for organization. most people today can only claim to benefit from the work of their ancestors, or their precedants. let the damn people leave, and let 'em work the jobs you have vacancies. and stop making such a big fuss about it. sure, you need your race pure, but society needs its wheels turning, and there are certain jobs that'll require filling.
also... its rediculous to limit all discussion to "white" people and "PoC"... fuckin rediculous. you need to talk about everybody as individuals... dont try to attempt and make these overarching relationships and subcategories within which to draw all your theories and such. just give it a rest. let your actual case stand as an instance of racism...otherwise... dont try and paint characteristics of various races. its just a waste. focus on the crime, not the people. trying to typecast the people as a type is a crime. recognize.
its wrong to control whether or not women should be allowed to go topless on beaches... hearing that australia has passed legislature that bans such an act is disappointing and perhaps also a bit of a spark of a fight.
hah and then those who like... call nudity immoral... what wrongheaded people they are... this is just a natural state of our own bodies... why be ashamed... silly people...
heh... then calling victorian sensibilities far greater than those of those "hippy" nudists today... what utter bullshit.
hah, and then saying hte image of a woman nude means sex... thats a bastardization of the person... if you think sex when you see a naked woman... your mind is warped... sometimes yes... but always? no. wake up... smell the roses... open your eyes to the world outside your bible.
then there's this view that all immigrants should accept the incoming culture entirely... which's rediculous... not even those within the country are compelled to accept any given part of that country's culture... so why immigrants... remove the distinction of those names, and call them what they are... people... there's no reason to require people to be as perhaps the percieved popular belief is of the minute.
and then these people who talk about integration... you cant fucking do integration in schools. youve got to do it in the home. if parents teach children backwards views theyll bring them to the school. thats just how it works, period. publisc school forced integration wont nearly impact kids as much as parents. do your part, with your own. that'll end it.
the caste system of india seems almost like the feudal system of the old european countries and kingdoms. in that the king would be replaced by another of royal blood. but why were certain people exaulted above others as being particularly better to do a certain job in the first place. in india you arent given choice as to what profession you enter into, rather its a thing thats meant to be inherited from the parents.
why is it unfortunate that foreigners assimilate into the local genepool hah. why is there a need to try and keep a given race "pure".
alot of these countries independant but fledgeling and flailing seem more like death traps for those unfortunate enough to be born within their bounds - i think it should be perfectly alright for populations to desert areas that are now desolate and unproductive, and if there just doesnt exist any infrastructure for say an african country to do much good with what they have... then why should these people be forced to live there. in european, or western, countries, it wasnt the people at large that made these places great, but few organizers who had an eye for organization. most people today can only claim to benefit from the work of their ancestors, or their precedants. let the damn people leave, and let 'em work the jobs you have vacancies. and stop making such a big fuss about it. sure, you need your race pure, but society needs its wheels turning, and there are certain jobs that'll require filling.
Monday, August 10, 2009
letter to teacher
given the fact that India is one of the most populated countries in the world, and that Indians are the fastest growing Asian immigrant group in America, that the governor of Louisiana is Indian, why are we not taught about Indian-American immigrant history, or the history of India?
Some facts:
A 1918 law barred Indians from getting citizenship or immigrating to America. The 1680 case where an Indian man and Irish woman had a daughter taken a way and sold into slavery as Indians were considered the same classification as black people. In 1940, Indians were returned the right to be citizens, yet it must be noted Indians have been in America since Europeans first began settling. Why wasn't I taught that in the 60s, immigration was opened up? That the current population of Indians in America is about 2 million? A key reason behind that number being so low, say compared to German-heritage folks are the racist laws that disallowed non-Europeans entering the country and gaining citizenship. This despite the fact that the Europeans were a minority in a Native American country, yet were afforded unlimited immigration rights as their self imposed way of the day, whereas Indians, as well as other Asians, were denied entrance to the country and citizenship because they were a minority of the day (hypocrisy). The injustices in laws that used to exist and the methods by which they disposed of and liberty restored should be taught. After all, America is a country of immigrants, the original native population being decimated by disease and war. India is nuclear, and a major player in the global economy. Some combination of these facts must qualify India to be taught about. Not doing so is an injustice, depriving children or necessary knowledge, and will serve to encourage the mythology of the unknown, which in turn leads to war, racism, violation of human rights, and other unpleasantries. Education plays a vital role to every young developing mind, providing a window to the world for children living in otherwise-homogenous communities. Does it make sense hiding critical facts about the world from children who are eager to learn typically only whilst young?
Some facts:
A 1918 law barred Indians from getting citizenship or immigrating to America. The 1680 case where an Indian man and Irish woman had a daughter taken a way and sold into slavery as Indians were considered the same classification as black people. In 1940, Indians were returned the right to be citizens, yet it must be noted Indians have been in America since Europeans first began settling. Why wasn't I taught that in the 60s, immigration was opened up? That the current population of Indians in America is about 2 million? A key reason behind that number being so low, say compared to German-heritage folks are the racist laws that disallowed non-Europeans entering the country and gaining citizenship. This despite the fact that the Europeans were a minority in a Native American country, yet were afforded unlimited immigration rights as their self imposed way of the day, whereas Indians, as well as other Asians, were denied entrance to the country and citizenship because they were a minority of the day (hypocrisy). The injustices in laws that used to exist and the methods by which they disposed of and liberty restored should be taught. After all, America is a country of immigrants, the original native population being decimated by disease and war. India is nuclear, and a major player in the global economy. Some combination of these facts must qualify India to be taught about. Not doing so is an injustice, depriving children or necessary knowledge, and will serve to encourage the mythology of the unknown, which in turn leads to war, racism, violation of human rights, and other unpleasantries. Education plays a vital role to every young developing mind, providing a window to the world for children living in otherwise-homogenous communities. Does it make sense hiding critical facts about the world from children who are eager to learn typically only whilst young?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)