Mashiki, what metrics are you using to measure racism? I think your saying one group or another is most racist based on nothing but your feelings and anecdotes is ridiculous. What tangible, measurable results were there from blacks hating blacker people, for example? That's how I determine who is the most racist.

And in the US, whites are able to and do enforce their bigoted sentiment on other groups quite often and quite easily. Look at redlining, the criminal justice system, job discrimination, hate violence, etc. How have american blacks oppressed american whites? Sure, you can dig and find a some very rare cases of individuals doing this, but show me where the average american white man gets the bum deal that the average Zimbabwean white man would get from their black (or latino, or asian) countrymen.

It's not a perfect world for american whites by any means, but I don't know any american white crazy enough to trade places with an american black. Maybe you do, since you think minorities get a "free ride". It-is-to-laugh.

As I said pp, racism is a matter of perspective. The countries I cited are making demonstrable efforts to be egalitarian with respect to ethnicity, just like we in the US are. In Singapore, a chinese was jailed for posting a racist anti-malay website; if america had the same standards, how many would be jailed? In Malaysia, several ethnic and religious groups take part in the government; while Americans have only recently seen their first muslim congressman. South Africa has shown great restraint to the white population there in light of the history of apartheid. Kenya is actively making strides and overtures to its Muslim population and for reconciliation of its various tribal groups; even african whites fled there from Zimbabwe. And finally, like it or not, in 20 years blacks will dominate brasil; the demographic math there is more pronounced than for arabs in Israel. Even now brasilian blacks are fighting discrimination and making measurable gains.

All of these examples still don't help your flimsy racial theory that puts whites as the most angelic beings in the universe. A Singaporean chinese will say the same. A Kenyan black will say the same. A Malay Malaysian will say the same. Any number of ethnic people who dominate their respective countries sing the same tune. Hell, even the arabs in this video would say the same.

But, only a cursory glance at (even recent) history would show that is simply not the case for any of these groups.

*update
Shell settles Nigeria deaths case

Royal Dutch Shell has agreed to pay $15.5m to settle a lawsuit which accused the oil firm of complicity in rights abuses in Nigeria.

The case, due for trial in the US next week, was brought by relatives of a group of anti-Shell activists executed in 1995 by Nigeria's military rulers.

The families say Shell helped the government to punish the campaigners.

But the company insists it did nothing wrong and said the payment was part of a "process of reconciliation".

Shell official Malcolm Brinded said: "This gesture also acknowledges that, even though Shell had no part in the violence that took place, the plaintiffs and others have suffered."

More @ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8090493.stm

--

I can understand why the families accepted the settlement, but I am a bit disappointed because now Shell doesn't have to admit guilt and no legal precedent is set.

This is a special feeling... It's like there's been a reconciliation.

At first i was like, "That dogs funny, he sounds stoopid"
And then i was like, "That dog's talented... It was me, i just didn't understand"

I feel like such a hater. I'm sorry Jazz dog.

This fellow speaks as if the two philosophies are mutually exclusive, which they are not. There has been a dialogue developing between Christian and Transhumanist organizations since around 2003, focusing on their shared belief that we exist in a "transcendent reality directed by something greater than humanity". For Christians that reality is defined as God, and for transhumanism that reality is defined as the evolutionary force of the universe.

But writers such as Teilhard de Chardin, a French Jesuit priest who began writing in support of a Christian-contextualized evolution, have been exploring the relationship of these two forces, suggesting that there can be a reconciliation in meaning derived on a spiritual level (that is, a level deeper than intellectual understanding) that the natural system of evolution is a guiding force that has the potential to redeem humanity as well as define its origins.

There's plenty of reading material available if anyone is interested in the subject.

This is an important video. The poster shares this view, albeit for different reasons. They either misunderstood the video, or are intentionally misrepresenting its content.

The doctor is, despite the recent violent death and maiming of his family, calling for peace and reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians. His life has been ruined, his future ripped apart, but he's calling for understanding, not vengeance.

The woman states that her son is in the army. She does not indicate that he was killed or wounded, but simply that he is in the army. She tells the doctor that the destruction of his family was his own fault, because he must have been storing arms there. She knows that he must have been storing arms there, because his house was hit by two shells.

End of argument: no evidence, no gotcha moment; she does not call him out. Simple logic: anti-terrorist weapons killed your children, therefore your children must have been terrorists.

Pprt: maybe you'll watch the video again carefully and reconsider it.

"If there's to be any hope of reconciliation, I demand a kiddie pool and a ludicrous amount of creamed corn."

That really should ease it, Farhad. I've got the kiddie pool--it's shaped like a turtle--, who has the canned goods?

^ Hear, hear! ^

If there's to be any hope of reconciliation, I demand a kiddie pool and a ludicrous amount of creamed corn.

According to the video (@ 4:20), P.E.A.C.E stands for:

Promote Reconciliation
Equip Leaders
Assist the Poor
Care for the Sick
Educate the Next Generation

and yet their mission is to attack the following (@ 5:20):

Spiritual Emptiness
Corruption
Extreme Poverty
Pandemic Diseases
Illiteracy

I don't know what to laugh about first. The fact that Bush has done more harm then good in the things they stand for, or the fact that the first thing on their list to destroy is "Spiritual Emptiness". I suppose destroying "Spiritual Emptiness" falls under their idea of "educating" the next generation, or caring for the "sick".

Good stuff. I swear I've seen this one before elsewhere a while ago, though obviously not on TV.

Overreaches a bit -- he's had to eat crow on the violence, but it was increasing every month until November 2007, and he's still saying the surge hasn't brought about the political reconciliation it was supposed to, and therefore it didn't "work". Also, he often points out that the Anbar Awakening deserves a lot of credit for reducing the violence, as well as the deal cut with Al Sadr and, saddest of all, because most of the ethnic cleansing has been done.

The bit from 2003-2004 where he argues against timelines is golden, they should just focus on that one, because he's going to have a harder time walking that one back.

I'd love to see McCain try to beat up Obama for voting to fund the war. What, by chance, do you think McCain would have done if he'd voted against funding it? Applauded his moral stance for peace?

It's a good way to change the subject from whether or not staying or leaving is what people want to do, which McCain desperately needs to do, because there aren't too many people who want to stay.

I'm pissed about the Democrats in Congress too, because they haven't fought for their platform tooth and nail like the Republicans have. In other circumstances, I'd call that a positive, but right now we need them to fight, not try to rise above the fray.

Doesn't mean I'm going to stay home on election day, or toss my lot in with Nader or the Greens, and it certainly doesn't mean I'm going to vote Republican.

It does mean that my soul-searching was all over and done with after the primaries -- now it's just time to fight to win.

As for "professing the success of the surge", he's done no such thing. He'll concede that the increase in troops has brought greater security, and you're right, he's trying to make it sound like he never said it would make violence worse, but he is still saying it hasn't done what it was supposed to do in bringing political reconciliation. To me, that's all academic, because I'm firmly in the camp of believing that the strongest incentive for Iraqis to handle their own affairs would be us saying "we're leaving"...and the Iraqi leadership now agrees.

To be more honest, I'm less worried about when the troops are out, than having a clearly defined plan for what our goals are, and how we know when we've reached them, and how we determine whether or not it's worth continuing. Bush/McCain refuse to give us any of those, and just try to spread drama about how it's some sort of existential conflict, and it simply isn't.

As for economics, keep in mind that Bush inherited a budget surplus from that evil Democrat Bill Clinton...who'd come to office after 12 years of Republican deficit spending, and 8 years of Republican control has almost doubled the national debt. If you're concerned about debt, check this study of Obama and McCain's tax policies, and take particular note of which one results in the smaller deficit.

Also, there's quite the choir of economists now who're calling for more regulation of the market, and a government sponsored universal health care plan.

I'm much more worried about the Patriot act, and you should consider that McCain is 100% behind keeping it, while Obama wants to get rid of it, and has committed to a review of the Bush executive orders and expunge any that "trample on liberty".

I think if you're looking for a pro-civil-rights candidate, you should be looking at the guy who has a degree from Harvard in Constitutional Law, rather than the guy who graduated 894th of 899 from the Naval Academy (where I imagine there was more emphasis on national security than protecting the rights of the individual).

If I were in a situation where the Democrat was pro-torture, pro-wiretapping, and anti-4th amendment, and the Republican was in favor of adhering to the Constitution, I'd vote Republican for the first time, ever.

I don't envy the choice you're having to make in this election, I just hope you consider that defending our rights might be more important than seeing your economic philosophy promoted.

Some excerpts from his appearance today:

_ "I stand before you to open up this two-day symposium with the hope that this most recent attack on the black church is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright; it is an attack on the black church. ... The most recent attack on the black church, it is our hope that this just might mean that the reality of the African-American church will no longer be invisible."

_ On Obama's denunciation of some of his past remarks:

"Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls, Huffington, whoever's doing the polls. Preachers say what they say because they're pastors. They have a different person to whom they're accountable. As I said, whether he gets elected or not, I'm still going to have to be answerable to God November 5 and January 21. That's what I mean. I do what pastors do. He does what politicians do. I am not running for office. I am hoping to be vice president. ...

"He didn't distance himself. He had to distance himself because he's a politician. From what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American. He said I didn't offer any words of hope. How would he know? He never heard the rest of the sermon. You never heard it. I offered words of hope. I offered reconciliation, I offered restoration in that sermon, but nobody heard the sermon. They just heard this little sound bite of a sermon."

_ On whether he should apologize for shouting in a sermon "God damn America" for its treatment of minorities:

"God doesn't bless everything. God condemns some things. And dem, D-E-M, is where we get the word damn. God damns some practices and there's no excuse for the things that the government, not the American people, have done. That doesn't make me not like America or unpatriotic."

_ On anyone who says he's unpatriotic:

"I feel that those citizens who say that have never heard my sermons, nor do they know me. They are unfair accusations taken from sound bites and that which is looped over and over on certain channels. I served six years in the military. Does that make me patriotic? How many years did Cheney serve?"

I agree berating him over the 100 year remark is somewhat misleading but obviously politically effective at building crowd fervour and support.

The hard question that should be asked of him, is why the current climate suggests any possible political reconciliation in the foreseeable future between the various Sunni and Shiite sects and how exactly military occupation and inherently US casualties are helping facilitate that end-goal of national autonomy through this political progress.

Merely quelling violence in occupied regions does not achieve this. Aligning and arming the Iraqi Sunnis against Al Qaeda in Anbar may increase long term stability from the eradication of radicals, but again has little to do with political reconciliation.

I'm gonna be straight about this. I agree entirely with Aemaeth, and for once I'm with QM. If you think this is accurate, you're entirely mistaken. This is completely a marginal and straightforward racism-equivalent analysis. I'm sorry, but this is plain and simple bullshit and very offensively so. Basically, I'm very libertarian, marginally a republican, and surely a Christian and I don't agree with any of those ridiculous stereotypes and I find it AS offensive and discriminatory as being called by a racial slur. If I was accused of this sort of thing in public, I'd be thinking "lawyer" and "class action."

If anything, this charming cartoon further divides the parties that we are supposed to be wanting to combine, for peace and reconciliation. If you are of either party and you are in support of "bridging the gap" and "bringing America together" than you should outright oppose this sort of blatant, divisive propaganda. If you support it, than you are supporting a one-party-only and one-side-only argument. That just doesn't work. I should say also that it will be especially disappointing to you in the future if you support this since in our society, 52+% are against this point of view. Do you really want to further divide our people, or do you want to argue a balance and eventually a gradient of change (isn't that progressive?)?

I have many friends who are VERY VERY liberal, as I work in acedemia and have a good number of good friends who live with "alternative lifestyles" and in general think conservatives are wrong, but they don't ever say anything this offensive to me. That would end the discussion entirely and likely end the friendship as well.

Bottom line: This sort of thing makes very Left Liberals feel a warm fuzzy in their head which makes them very confident and very Right Conservatives feel a burning coal in their's which makes them very hurt and angry.
How does that further discussion?
IT. DOES. NOT.

Honestly it reminds me of the sort of anti-Jew propaganda you saw near WWII: Notice his LARGE nose and his GREEDY eyes. HE only wants your MONEY and your POSITIONS... that troll... HE wants you to OWE him so he can RULE over your family with his GREED!!11eleven!!

Give me a break for once.

Thank you for this post. Dallaire is what all men should aspire to be. A true hero in every sense of the word. The documentary had me loathing those in the UN, and our own government that could have stepped in and stopped the slaughter with a minimum of resources. I have had the good fortune to be involved, to some extent, in Rwanda. The reconciliation taking place there is nothing short of astounding. They are a remarkable people. They greet you with a hug, and they mean it.

Oh cry me a river of Iraqi blood.

Am so tired of this nonsense that the US military forces are great and we should cheer them as they bomb, shoot and house search through their way to democracy in Iraq. The use of military force should reflect a failure of all other means, but that was not the case in Iraq, its a cowboy misadventure paid by the lives of Iraqi civilians and US force casualties.

Yes individually the US military is comprised of sons, daughters, mothers and fathers and am sure most of them are great humans beings (even though a minority has committed war crimes) and I would love to have beer with them. But ultimately they are an apparatus of death being a military force, representing an occupational force in Iraq. Thoughts of democracy, bringing peace, playing with Iraqis flies out the window the moment someone starts shooting at you, the military is composed of individuals who serve but one purpose at the end of the date. Force elimination.

If you were ordered to fire your howitzer at a Fallujah because terrorists were hauled up in there, would you stop and think about civilian casualties? Or would you just fix deflection and firing quadrant and shoot? Shrapnel doesn't differentiate between civilians and enemy combatants. Your statement about no collateral damage flies in the face of those killed through artillery bombardment, air force strikes and those who get killed through suicide bombers that were not there before the war.

The criticism is not leveled at the troops here, but at the commander in chief who decides to send them into a war zone with a false premise, unprepared for post invasion reconciliation and inadequately trained for basically being a occupational force. You've been handed a political reconciliation (WMD prior to that) mission that has no real way of being won through military means, and your paying for it in blood of young Americans and Iraqis.