nonsense !...You sounding more like an Apologist in real life !
Just cynical. I think it's always something arbitrary and unpredictable that leads to certain types of change or progress. Look at the suffragette movement: it was a giant world war that got women in trousers and allowed blacks to work in factories (which was then rationalised as "progress" and in their "best interest"). And the black power movements in Britain started because Brits needed cheap workers in the 40s to pick up the slack because of all the men abroad fighting.
You're right though, it's better to keep making noise and pressuring groups like the WICB.
"poor example. They will still see Chanders as a Coolie.as they taunted Kalli and made life a living dressing room hell."
My example - a system where more games are being played within the islands and between them (instead of just 9 or so domestic tests a year) - has nothing to do with racism. The islands can be as racist as they want. More games being played and at a younger age simply equals better cricketers.
Also, I disagree that West Indians "see Chanders as a coolie" or "hate Indians". Everywhere I go, I see people exuding nothing but love for Chanders. When Chanders walked out after his first innings a few days ago, you had Jamaicans clapping him like hell. The majority of West Indians have no hatred of Indo-Caribbean or Guyanese people. And the racism that exists, whilst minor, is not a simple "black/Indian" thing. In Trinidad, in the 19th century, all the dark skinned Indians were persecuted by light skinned Indians who believed in the caste systems of Hinduism. The Islamic Indians also looked down on the Hindus and Africans.
This discussion reminds me of this song:
(a black muslim basically singing about hugging Indians)
Guyana appears to be underpopulated based on its square_footage !
In the 1800s it was underpopulated and spent almost two years bringing in workers from the rest of the islands. The French and Indians had too much land and not enough man-power.
This is gobbledy gook !
I said "What was your great, great, great, great, great grandfather doing? Probably broke, starving and dumb as a door knob. Why? Stuff takes time."
I was implying that we are all standing on our forefathers. Your intellectual, social and financial status in the present is hugely due to where the last five or six generations of your family members were. Africans in the Caribbean have had 4 generations to figure stuff out.
" shoot the messenger " ??
Yes, because you are unconsciously ascribing racial superiority to one group of people. You turned valid complaints – nepotism, corruption and incompetence – into racial complaints. To you, the WICB and Wi cricket are "black problems" which can be fixed by "more Indians".
interesting but it looks wrong to me from its basis..start..elitist and impositional..not natural and shaped by the needs of the people..but the needs of profit.
No. Thermoeconomic simulations show the opposite: profit, at any fixed point in time (whether profit is measured in terms of money, resources etc), is essentially zero sum. So a thermoeconomic model of capitalism treats money as heat (or caloric joules) and debt as heat loss. For one human to profit somewhere in the system, you then get proportional debts put upon another human or humans somewhere else. To prevent such a Ponzi-like system from collapsing, you thus need an exponential annual rise in production, consumption, births, exploitation and expansion (roughly a 3 percent increase in energy usage globally, every year). A thermoeconomist will say this is unsustainable and will lead to the majority being indebted. A capitalist will say we can expand onto the moon and brown people dont matter.
profit is a dirty work..profit is the product of a zero sum game. one man's profit is another man's hurt.
In financial terms, every dollar is issued as debt at interest. So yes, money is literally zero sum. For you to be out of debt, somewhere else must exist proportional debt. This is essentially a more sophisticated and “enlightened†form of slavery.
But this "zero sum" idea also assumes that time is fixed. Under capitalism, the current debts are always paid by (the illusion of) future production. So at times our economy is zero sum, at other times its not, whilst at other times its worse than zero sum.
building sustainably with the future in mind? in capitalist reality that reads kinda moronish!
Economists who study things like "sustainability" are called post-neo-classical economists (Herman Daly is a good one). Most of the economists you see speaking on the news are classical or neoclassical economists. They're the guys paid by bankers and big corporations. They mostly engage in misdirection.
Eco-economists will tell you that capitalism is inherently unsustainable. The system must always expand, it must always seek out new markets, and every year it needs more energy (and so gives off more heat). We already know that, at current growth rates, our system will need more energy than exists in our solar system within 800 years.
So who are the captains in retail, commerce etc? Is it the Chinese, Syrians etc?
Does it matter? 5 to 25 percent of even first world countries are poor, regardless of ethnicity. The third world is even worse.
That first generation, of which my family had a few in our employ, were illiterate and could hardly speak english. Yet the successful Indians started with the second generation and strongly built on by the third and thereafter.
Most Indians who came to the West Indies, though, came with a game-plan, their land contracts and familial bonds.
But what are you arguing? That Indians are more hardworking, resourceful and talented than blacks? Right now, poverty is worse in India than Africa. 8 Indian states have more poor than the 26 poorest African nations combined. Does this mean that Indo-West Indians are superior to subcontinent Indians? Subcontinent Indians are poor because they're flawed?
Here's philosopher Noam Chomsky:
"...people do vary in their intellectual capacities and their specialization. The world would be too horrible to contemplate if they did not. But discovery of a correlation between some of these qualities is of no scientific interest and of no social significance, except to racists, sexists and the like. Those, for example, who argue that there is a correlation between race and “successâ€, and those who deny this claim, are contributing to racism and other disorders, because what they are saying is based on the assumption that the answer to the question makes a difference; it does not. Those who assume otherwise must be adopting the tacit premise that a person's rights or social reward are somehow contingent on his abilities; in a decent society opportunities should confirm as far as possible to personal needs. As for social rewards, it is alleged that in our society remuneration correlates in part with IQ. But insofar as that is true, it is simply a social malady to be overcome much as slavery had to be eliminated at an earlier stage of human history. It has no implications with regard to equality of rights and in a decent society there would be no social consequences to any discovery that might be made about this question. An individual is what he is; it is only on racist assumptions that he is to be regarded as an instance of his race category."
