Sachin Tendulkar condemned in Indian press in comparison to Muhammad Ali

[quote author=TRINIDADDY link=topic=104585.msg697870#msg697870 date=1465934264]
Tendulkar was the apolitical face of a rising Indian. He was boyish, non-threatening, silent and shy. Even when he was thrashing teams, there didn't seem to be anything heroic or romantic about his batmanship, but rather something quietly diligent and dutiful. He was such a good Indian, he went on and married a doctor.

Ali, was the complete opposite. He understood Power, he distrusted Power, was massively confident, a giant chatterbox and got people thinking. And whether he were talking to Kings or vagrants, Ali command attention; the guy owned every room he stepped into.

Ali had his flaws - he flirted with Reaganism, he was very sexist in the 60s and 70s, and his version of black nationalism was probably counterproductive - but at his best he was both a great sportsman and a great civil rights figure.


So did the Native American Indians (Elijah Mohammed's "white man is devil" came from the Natives).

The stupidity, hatred and rage of oppressed or marginalised people is minor when stacked up next to the violence and exclusion that causes it in the first place.
[/quote]

Very balanced and good read.

Well done.

[quote author=ketchim link=topic=104585.msg697579#msg697579 date=1465832602]
My dog name was Oreo ....black and white spaniel ...

Mail, that is too heavy for timmyj , our resident 40 year old virgin  :-[
[/quote]

True dat!

Chucklehead on one end o' da teeter-totter, meathead
on da other...."very balanced."    ::LOL::

My cat's name is "snowball"....return Mail to sender: address unknown.  ::confused::

Surely you can do better than that as you are proving Ketchim correct.

Quote:Soooo... does society reach an equilibrium of justice by equalizing the "stupidity, hatred, and rage" of the oppressed with the oppressors?

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." - Frederick Douglass

Power always asks the oppressed to adhere to codes and play by rules it itself does not obey. Power always asks its victim to start from a further point of disadvantage. If you are looking to change the rules, why start by abiding by them? In fighting for fairness, you don't have to play fair.

The Native Americans were the first peoples to be called terrorists in the United States, and they were called this for resisting extermination policies which were legal and sanctioned by the state. When the Natives were conquered, calmed down and signed peace deals, these deals were then betrayed and they lost even more land. Violence got them nothing and adhering to laws got them nothing.

The Palestinians on the West Bank are peaceful and have a stable government and still lose land every day to Israel. Peace gets them nothing. In Gaza, they're uppity and violent and the Israelis have stopped taking land.

Ghandi's non-violence movement is exalted for "liberating India", but Britain would not have let the colony go were it not for the massive loss of life and resources the violence of  World War 2 engendered.

As tools of Progress, peacefuil protest, chaotic violence and organised resistance are all a giant crap shoot. Most of the time, all three get you nothing. So you might as well use them all.

But that wasn't my original point. The original point was, complaints about violence enacted by the oppressed always serve to distract from far greater, systemic violence. For all its violent pronouncements, the Nation of Islam has never comitted any acts of violence against those it hates. It has never launched a war against white people.

Nobody's going to celebrate brown people flying planes into buildings or Savage Injuns shooting cowboys or black people shooting cops or Vietcongs shooting GIs or Palestinians killing Israelis or Elijah Muhammads prophesying whitey's extermination, but no sane person is going to waste time being outraged by these things either, because they are not the Cause. They are impotent, sometimes crazy, often reflexive reactions to far greater abuses. And we would all act just like these "crazy people" if we were in their precise situations.

Quote:"If so, should have followed the demand by the Russians
at the end of WWII and exterminated the entire German officer corps (just as they had
exterminated the Polish officer corps)."

But "we" did worse than that. Millions of Germans died due to deliberate Allied starvation and explusion policies after the war ended. They were put in concentration camps, to work, forced to march to camps in Poland and elsewhere, a large-scale, unspoken, unofficial massacre.

And your point implies that abusing Germany after the war "makes up" for the fact that Germany started the the war in the first place.

But Germany didn't "start" anything. Germany's Imperialism was no different to Western Imperialism at the time. It echoed and was caused by the Imperialism of the other Empires. Indeed, Hitler explicitly said that he modelled his concentration camps on British camps in Africa. He was even supported by the "Allies" up until 1938 because he was merrily crushing unions and communists, and because they wanted him to go north into Russia.

Many western countries even supported Hitler's taking back of Rhineland, Saarland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, West Prussia and Danzig, all of which were once German territory.

It's like the people who diss Japan for invading countries during WW2, countries which were themselves possessed by Western nations who had invaded them a few years earlier (even China was a defacto Western colony, as the US, France and UK had it locked in exploitative trade deals which excluded Japan).

So there's always a kind of selective condemnation.

Trinidaddy,

Very good peace and the comparison with the camps to our camps is interesting and if we take that forward the Zionist agenda seems very comparable, and in places mirrors, to that of the Nazis.

Ethnic cleansing, genocide, apartheid, supremacism et al.

MAPPIPPEE,

I am well brother and hope you are well also.

I have read, as per normal, all your points with great interest.

Apropos racism in Islam. There may be racist Muslims but the Islamic teaching is far from that and Gods message, as related through Angel Gabriel to Muhammad, to us set rules to eradicate racism and in fact one of the most significant act performed when the Prophet returned to Makkah was so done by a black man, Bilal.

You asked a couple other questions which I did not quite get, with apologies, so if you are able to ask again I would be more than happy to provide you with an answer.

Palestine under occupation for almost 80'years, I can understand their actions expressed, rasonably, as resistance. I struggle with other examples.

Peace to you brother.

well I took down my posts because I did not think I was on the ball.  I am not focused at all these days. I am struggling

I have them..I can put them back up.  but let me refer you to a lil talk ketchim and myself had about Bilal etc recently

http://www.westindiesforum.com/under-the...#msg697036

[quote author=mapoui link=topic=104585.msg697934#msg697934 date=1466000929]
well I took down my posts because I did not think I was on the ball.  I am not focused at all these days. I am struggling

I have them..I can put them back up.  but let me refer you to a lil talk ketchim and myself had about Bilal etc recently

http://www.westindiesforum.com/under-the...#msg697036
[/quote]

Ok no problem brother.

Very interesting.

You see the teaching is that the prophets of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the same and it was always Islam as it means the submission of your will to God, monotheism etc.

No one founded Islam but God and the message was passed to us via Gabriel onto the Prophets including Muhammad. so Islam did not commence with Muhammad.

The Ethiopian connection is one I have never come across in all the research I did before becoming a revert and since. I know, historically, when Muhammad fled persecution from Makkah it was to Yathrib (now Medina) he fled, where he was pursued by the Quraysh tribe....his own tribe actually.

If you have any sources for your Ethiopian connection do send them as I would be interested to read them.

Peace.

[the following are some of what could be many, many, corrections to rather shabby. freshman-like, history term paper
submitted by TD]:


"Abusing Germany after the war to 'make up' for the
fact that Germany started the war..."    [actually, this is completely the OPPOSITE of what the author was trying to say.

"western countries supported Hitler..."  [they ACQUIESED to him; hoped it would PACIFY him, when they should have opposed him from the start]

"Japan...invaded China..."  [no Western county ever did to China what the Japs did to Nanking]

"complaints about violence enacted by the oppressed always serve to distract from the greater
systematic violence..."    [in fact, opposing, resisting, pointing out, 'greater systematic violence'
has always been the PRECISE motive for the oppressed to commit violence]

"no sane person is going to waste time being outraged by these things..."  [only if a complete lack of
sense for justice is what defines a 'sane' person]

"in fighting for fairness you don't have to fight fair"  [which, by definition, means you're not fighting for 'fairness'
at all]