No, it's a good example of a false equivalency, which speaks to my point. Yes, in the U.S. some rapists are given light sentences, and military has a problem with institutional procedures relating to rape (by the way, the stats on male rape in the military are likewise depressing; this problem is by no means confined to the treatment of women.) And in some Muslim-majority countries, the female victim is persecuted for being raped! There is clearly an asymmetry here, despite your rhetorical attempts to conflate them. (I will be charitable in my reading of your post to not take it as saying that I personally have oppressed women in my own country, though your wording was a bit sloppy.) — Arkady
The Dutch were the primary European colonial power. Not many seem to be aware of it, but the Dutch were unusually contemptuous of and cruel to the people of the regions they colonized, even by European standards. The Boers were Dutch settlers. — Ciceronianus the White
I've read that the Dutch aren't forthcoming about the history of their treatment of native peoples, and have taken legal action against those who have published accounts related to their rule in Indonesia. There have been articles in the English press about it. Those articles seem to take some pleasure in noting that the Dutch, though quick to condemn the violation of human rights by other nations, try to silence those who refer to their own conduct in that area. Perhaps the English are exaggerating. — Ciceronianus the White
The "turn of the thread" came about because I responded to a post in which it was asked whether the French colonized Indonesia. Then, probably because I recalled a Dutch woman of my acquaintance and her astonishment in learning the Boers were of Dutch extraction, it grew from there. Black Pete may have popped into my mind as well. Sorry.That being said, is this turn of the thread supposed to to invigorate "white saviour complex / white guilt" or something? — Gooseone
The Dutch were the primary colonial power for about 50 years and before that it was the Spanish and Portuguese and after that the English (for a lot longer). The British empire was definitely larger and longer lasting in the end. The rest seems pretty accurate. — Benkei
Public awareness is very low though. As is awareness of our slave trading history. — Benkei
The slave trading is actually something some people boast about in combination with the "VOC mentality" (seems more of an ego thing to state something like that in a boasting manner for most though, I don't think they actually mean it). — Gooseone
Well, the Dutch through their East India Company held various parts of what we call Indonesia for quite some time. It may be that they dominated Indonesia for a shorter time, however. — Ciceronianus the White
As for polite discourse, perhaps you should tell that to, for instance, the Bangladeshis who have been hacked to death by Muslims for daring to blog (yes, blog) about topics which they find disagreeable. I am sure the machete-wielding mobs will be highly receptive to your pleas for a civil discussion. — Arkady
It is often in the news the controversial of an alleged war declared on christmas and on christianity. — m-theory
What makes you think it is controversial to declare war on the christian religion, but not islam? — m-theory
No, it's the fact that they're Muslim which sets them apart from other religions in their behavior, which is the point of contention here. Christianity has dealt with bloody wars of religion: the fact that they pitted Christian vs. Christian doesn't negate the fact that religion was at least one causative factor. Ditto for Muslim-on-Muslim violence (though I would question how many of the murdered bloggers were actually Muslim, as opposed to being atheist/agnostic).For me this is a prime example of why one needs to distinguish Islam from Islamism. You make it sound as if 'Muslims' are violent extremists and 'Bangladeshis' are the victims. But most Bangladeshis are Muslims - Muslims who oppose machete-wiedling violence; most Bangladeshi Muslims support, albeit precariously, the separation of religion and State in their country even though it's 94% Muslim; the vast majority of Bangladeshi Muslim clerics have by way of a fatwa categorically and publicly opposed the killing of secular bloggers. It's a mistake to single out the 'Muslim'-ness of the extremists as if this were what sets them apart from their fellow-countrymen/women. — mcdoodle
I said that, in the modern world, of the major religions Islam inspires more doctrinally-driven violence and produces a greater proportion of violent radicals than any other, and that people rationally fear Muslims as a collective group more than they fear, for instance, Quakers or Unitarians.That's my persistent disagreement with this 'war' metaphor. The overwhelming majority of Muslims in my country, neighbourhood, accept the secular state. You cannot categorise 'Islam' because of the behaviour of some 'Islamists'. If you do that, you begin to Other a large number of innocent people.
Please don't strawman me: I never said that every untoward act committed by a Muslim and/or which occurs in a Muslim-majority country is related to Islam. — Arkady
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.