Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Seed of hate, anti-nationalism and Islamic State

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Now, where I think fast is getting confused is that he's confusing nationality for ethnicity. Sure, people can have a nationality that supersedes and ethnic identity. One can be Indonesian, and also some ethnicity.

    But saying what you're saying is like saying that the Javanese colonists on West Papua are native Papuans. Do they look like native Papuans to you? It's like saying that, because I am from "chocolate city," my ass is black.

    No.

    Comment


    • #17
      No Dan, I think it is you that is confusing Nationalism to being indigenous. They may be of Ache but their bloodline may not be. Indigenous would make them part of the original make-up of Ache. This is what I doubt because of all the inter area breeding that has taken place over the centuries.

      Good O' Merriam Webster: Full Definition of INDIGENOUS

      [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Verdana]1
      : produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment
      <indigenous plants>
      <theindigenous culture>
      [/FONT][/COLOR]
      The naturally part makes your argument a non argument. Would your children really be indigenous to Ache or just related to someone who may or may not be?

      The culture of Ache is no longer the indigenous one. Many plants probably are. People I doubt.
      [COLOR=#333333][FONT=Verdana]Some love to milk Apostate.[/FONT][/COLOR]

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Happyman View Post
        Javanese people generally self-identify as Javanese, especially those who are migrating for work. I doubt very much that a third generation person of Javanese descent would be referred to as Javanese, especially if they have inter-married and integrated, as you say. I know several Indonesians who do not self-identify as Chinese, as their families have been here for hundreds of years, integrated and inter-married. But, said Indonesians are still labeled as Chinese. They are Sunda speaking locally born Muslims who have never been to China. They are in no way Chinese, and you would be better off mislabeling them as Sundanese or Javanese, as these terms at least describe a culture or place of origin that is accurate, if you insist on singling out the particular "groups" of people who you wish to disregard for reasons other than that of their actual opinion.
        "Orang Cina" is not generally a term used to denote positive attributes. As it is being applied based solely on the characteristics or body type associated with the native Chinese, but to a person who is not Chinese, it is a racist mislabeling of one of those "ethnic minorities" you like to advocate for. You did a no-no, by accident or intention. I would think a person who has lived in a foreign country for any length of time would understand how petty these labels begin to feel at some point, even when correctly applied.
        The original question was, in fact, whether or not you were referring to actual Chinese people... Guess not. You are doing the "we are the real locals" thing, which is BS just about anywhere in the world. Are you a "real American" as well, or did your family immigrate, like almost everyone else? I don't know what you're getting at, being a racist on the behalf of some other ethnic group. Is it some sort of cultural evangelism?
        Just out of curiosity, have you read Guns Germs and Steel?
        Oh, they're not Chinese? I suppose elevators congruent with Chinese superstitions, celebrations of Chinese holidays, tongs and all the other trappings of Chinese people just HAPPEN to be around and are in no way a reflection of actually being, oh, I dunno... Chinese. I'm sure that there's plenty of people of Chinese descent who have intermarried and entered the fabric of locals, super. I acknowledged that. I welcomed that. Heck, you do know I'm in a mixed marriage, right? Or were you being so self-righteous on a "let's tar the racist" kick that you completely overlooked that tidbit.

        They're foreign to Aceh. I'm foreign to Aceh.

        A real American? America is a settler society, one that replaced its native people through conquest. I am a real American in the sense that I was born there and I am a national of the United States. It's my nationality. Am I indigenous to the Americas? Well, no. I mean, I am vaguely, like many white Americans I have a small degree of native ancestry, but I don't associate with a native identity or culture or beliefs. Most of that has been destroyed, conquered, erased.

        It has been replaced with a more amorphous, foreign set of ideals and governance and culture. It's a settler society.

        Aceh is not a settler society, but has an indigenous population. Its people have been there a long time, probably longer than Aceh has existed as a polity. Did they replace someone else? We're not sure. As best as can be told they're the natives. At least they've been there for thousands of years. They may have some flow from Champa, in Southern Vietnam, but the degree of that is unknown. Probably just some nobles.

        And so here I see a government that is seeking to erase an Acehnese identity. It's cute that you referenced my country in some stupid attempt to say 'you're not a native either!' yeah, and? You think it was a good thing that Europeans replaced the natives? It's something we cannot stop now; it's a done deal.

        Aceh's fate is still up in the air. We can prevent such a fate for the Acehnese. Prevention of such a fate hinges on being away from Indonesia, a state that has made Javanese culture the state culture. I view Indonesia as being an colonial power, as being not unlike the Dutch or the English in the Americas or later the American colonists themselves moving westward. I feel that, as an American, I have even MORE perspective as to why we should be on guard for native peoples being replaced and exploited.

        They're the natives, deal with it.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by fastpitch17 View Post
          No Dan, I think it is you that is confusing Nationalism to being indigenous. They may be of Ache but their bloodline may not be. Indigenous would make them part of the original make-up of Ache. This is what I doubt because of all the inter area breeding that has taken place over the centuries.

          Good O' Merriam Webster: Full Definition of INDIGENOUS

          [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Verdana]1
          : produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment
          <indigenous plants>
          <theindigenous culture>
          [/FONT][/COLOR]
          The naturally part makes your argument a non argument. Would your children really be indigenous to Ache or just related to someone who may or may not be?

          The culture of Ache is no longer the indigenous one. Many plants probably are. People I doubt.
          Oh, OK. It's no longer the indigenous culture. There are apparently no indigenous cultures anywhere.

          What.the.actual.fuck?

          Their culture doesn't have to do with blood quotient. It has to do with their... culture. And theirs is the indigenous culture. Has it been influenced by outside cultures and influenced other cultures? Of course. That's true wherever you go. But your truly tortured reimagining of indigenous is positively goofy/desperate.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by fastpitch17 View Post
            ....Many plants probably are. People I doubt.
            Merriam suggests "endemic" maybe?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by johntap View Post
              Merriam suggests "endemic" maybe?
              Yes, the "endemic" people of a region. Honestly, this whole thread has jumped the shark. Nothing but an argument about semantics now. Tres boring.

              Comment


              • #22
                It's my opinion Dan. You have yours.
                What I seem to have noticed is that upon your return to NOLA, you have come across in your postings as a bit more radical then even when you were in Ache. One gets the impression that while IS is killing other Muslims, they are evil and should be destroyed in the Muslim way and only by Muslims with the proper punishments following Muslim teachings. You say since they follow the tenets of Islam they are Muslims but you also mention their methods are wrong in regards to how they interpret the teachings. Those wrong methods to me make them non muslim and should be killed in whatever way presents itself. No rituals needed. Yes, I agree with you that the Muslim States should be doing more to combat IS but, they are not so should they just be left to over run everyone until there are no Muslim States? Just an IS? Some feel that if it did come to that all would be peaceful and you could live in peace within a society controlled by your religion. No more problems with free will, free choice, free thinking. No hard decisions to make since they are all made for you.

                So, killing other Muslims is wrong. OK, I get that. Now, what if IS were to attack let's say England because they are primarily christian. They start killing the christians and leaving the others alone. Do you still condemn them? We all know your feelings towards christians so would this hatred you have trump the missguided reasoning you claim IS is following?

                Now, what if a war broke out and it was your Sunni Muslims deciding to fight against America enforce. (OK, we'll pretend they have any modern warfare equipment), do you run out and start killing your own countrymen or take up arms against the invaders? Nation or faith?
                [COLOR=#333333][FONT=Verdana]Some love to milk Apostate.[/FONT][/COLOR]

                Comment


                • #23
                  Dan

                  re: boredom

                  Wish I could help by sewing some seeds.. native grasses ... whatever.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    @Dan
                    I am American... Your policies (Protect the "real culture" from the evil neighbors, who are so different and foreign! and If the sombrero fits, you're a beaner.) do remind me of my home country/state/county/neighbors, and of why I no longer reside in said locale. I make no fun of your heritage, it is one I share, no doubt (my people are from Center, Tx, and you are from Louisiana, perhaps? It's spittin' distance.). Issue is with your views. Topics are: Is it correct to refer to people by a Nationality/Culture which they do not themselves espouse? Is it racist to refer to by their ethnic group (without reference to cultural or national identity).
                    I am also in a mixed marriage... It irks me when my son, a WNI, is referred to as a "bule" or "orang asing". He is not. Still, these terms are not entirely negative. "Chinese" is very seldom said in a positive context, as per your reference and usage here to the Chinese/Han invaders. You should avoid referring to WNI with such a blanket term, when the do not self-identify with it.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by fastpitch17 View Post
                      It's my opinion Dan. You have yours.
                      Nobody denied you the right to have an opinion, but don't be surprised if I find semantics boring.

                      Originally posted by fastpitch17 View Post
                      What I seem to have noticed is that upon your return to NOLA, you have come across in your postings as a bit more radical then even when you were in Ache. One gets the impression that while IS is killing other Muslims, they are evil and should be destroyed in the Muslim way and only by Muslims with the proper punishments following Muslim teachings. You say since they follow the tenets of Islam they are Muslims but you also mention their methods are wrong in regards to how they interpret the teachings. Those wrong methods to me make them non muslim and should be killed in whatever way presents itself. No rituals needed. Yes, I agree with you that the Muslim States should be doing more to combat IS but, they are not so should they just be left to over run everyone until there are no Muslim States? Just an IS? Some feel that if it did come to that all would be peaceful and you could live in peace within a society controlled by your religion. No more problems with free will, free choice, free thinking. No hard decisions to make since they are all made for you.
                      Get this: I have was radicalized by America and not Aceh. You heard it here first, folks.

                      I "seem" to or you "get the impression" that I am a certain way. I said two years ago that I was comfortable with offing terrorists, that it should be a project of the Muslims. Nothing about that stance has changed. My opinion on this matter has not "evolved" since then.

                      IS is serious, but they ain't that serious. Look, do you really believe they can overrun all Muslim states? Really? Ya really believe that? You say that *I* have become more radical, but you're mirroring talking points from Fox News.

                      Originally posted by fastpitch17 View Post
                      So, killing other Muslims is wrong. OK, I get that. Now, what if IS were to attack let's say England because they are primarily christian. They start killing the christians and leaving the others alone. Do you still condemn them? We all know your feelings towards christians so would this hatred you have trump the missguided reasoning you claim IS is following?

                      Now, what if a war broke out and it was your Sunni Muslims deciding to fight against America enforce. (OK, we'll pretend they have any modern warfare equipment), do you run out and start killing your own countrymen or take up arms against the invaders? Nation or faith?
                      IS is killing Christians in Iraq and Syria now, there's no need to frame this in a ridiculously impossible scenario where IS invades England (lol). And yeah, I condemn the killing of the Ahl al-Kitab and even the killing of Yazidi and other religious minorities. Killing civilians in general is wrong, not just in Islam but, y'know, in general. Fighting men is another story entirely.

                      For your other silly hypothetical question, I need more context. Since it's hypothetical, can we hypothesize that America invaded whatever Muslim state we're talking about and started to kill the people for sport? OK, I'd probably sympathize with the Muslim polity over the United States on both a human level and as a Muslim. Conversely, if we had the reverse? Yeah, my loyalties would be reversed, especially because in that context it would be the United States that was more Islamic than the Muslim state. I don't deal well with absolutes in the realm of men.

                      If America had a war like the Mexican-American war or the Spanish-American war, whose side should I be on? Probably not the United States.

                      Governments aren't always right. I don't find myself so brainwashed into a national identity that I would ever say "I'll support my country no matter what!"

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Happyman View Post
                        @Dan
                        I am American... Your policies (Protect the "real culture" from the evil neighbors, who are so different and foreign! and If the sombrero fits, you're a beaner.) do remind me of my home country/state/county/neighbors, and of why I no longer reside in said locale.
                        Cut the crap. Aceh is a tiny place with only a few million Acehnese in the world. American culture is amorphous and constantly changing, a settler society. Acehnese culture is slower to change and traditional. It's unique. A lot of traditional cultures are that way. You can get American culture anywhere, you can only get Acehnese culture in Aceh with extremely limited examples from diaspora populations. Americans who are worried about American culture going somewhere are delusional. Acehnese who are fearful of Acehnese culture fading away have a valid concern.

                        Originally posted by Happyman View Post
                        I make no fun of your heritage, it is one I share, no doubt (my people are from Center, Tx, and you are from Louisiana, perhaps? It's spittin' distance.). Issue is with your views. Topics are: Is it correct to refer to people by a Nationality/Culture which they do not themselves espouse? Is it racist to refer to by their ethnic group (without reference to cultural or national identity).
                        I'm from Louisiana, and my ancestors were largely Cajuns and Creoles.

                        So, is it racist to call someone what their ethnicity is? In reference to... Chinese in Aceh? Chinese in Aceh are Chinese. Almost none of them are Muslims, almost (possibly none) none of them speak Acehnese. They don't share the Acehnese desire for independence, and are largely boosters for Javanesia (Indonesia). They are certainly a diaspora population, and not all of them speak Chinese. But are they Acehnese? Well, no, they share zero commonality with the indigenous people. They're outsiders. Can they marry into the families? Sure. I have relatives who are ethnic Han. Their offspring are raised as Acehnese, and thus are Acehnese.

                        Originally posted by Happyman View Post
                        I am also in a mixed marriage... It irks me when my son, a WNI, is referred to as a "bule" or "orang asing". He is not. Still, these terms are not entirely negative. "Chinese" is very seldom said in a positive context, as per your reference and usage here to the Chinese/Han invaders. You should avoid referring to WNI with such a blanket term, when the do not self-identify with it.
                        They can not self-identify with being foreigners to Aceh til the cows come home: they.are.not.from.Aceh. Look man, there's a huge global Chinese diaspora. They have a big ass country. One in five people are Han. There's no risk of a Han identity getting wiped out in the next 100 years.

                        Indonesians give your son a hard time, eh? That very attitude should clue you in as to the bogus nature of pluralism and ethnic harmony in Indonesia. That's a problem for you to deal with with Indonesians; a country that supposedly has a multi-ethnic character (but not really). Aceh is an ethnic homeland for the Acehnese and Gayonese peoples. It isn't being advertised as anything but. It's not my fault nor their fault that Indonesia is about as duplicitous as it gets when it comes to defending its ethnic minorities. All they want is their own country to preserve their values and identity.

                        Now, if you want to side with a colonial power that's your business. Be my guest. But never in your life come back with this asinine, race card horseshit because I ain't hearing it.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          @DanInNewOrleans
                          I haven't sided with a "colonial power". I've asked you not to refer to Indonesians as Chinese. You said, "Chinese in Aceh are Chinese.". I don't even understand what you mean by that. Which Chinese are they, slant-eyed (like my WNI wife), chopstick using (like my American self), or passport holding (like Chinese people)? They are different. It's pretty simple, and did not need to entirely derail your thread, did you not wish it to do so...
                          I would like to let you have the last word and get back to promoting the independence of Aceh, so if you can post a reply that doesn't require a rebuttal, that would be great.
                          Last edited by Happyman; 29-10-14, 02:43.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X