# Humiliated, Angry, Ashamed, Brown.



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Despite everything we hear about how well America is doing, how confident a nation they are and how well the war on terror is going, I still think that the original goals that al qaeda had when they slammed those 747s into the WTC have been achived. Namely, they incited fear, suspicion, paranoia, anger, etc.

Now, you may or may not agree with me on this point, but I invite everyone to read the following link, and comment on it. 

For me, it left a bad taste.

Humiliated, Angry, Ashamed, Brown.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

PB, as an American and a New Yorker, reading that article left a chill within me. I think back now to all that I did prior to coming here to St. John's on July, 25th, 1977. In the last few days in NYC, I took all sorts of pictures of the finally completed World Trade Center towers, the Statue of Liberty, the United Nations, the Empire State building, etc. I took pics inside and outside of these places. I even took all sorts of pics of various spots in the NYC subway system to show where I lived, and the various subway stops that had meaning to me. NOT once did anyone say anything to me. I shudder to think what would happen to me now, 28 years later, even as an American citizen born in NYC!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Welcome to the new Amerika..... land of racial profiling...


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

That really sucks big time. I can understand caution, slight paranioa - but it is going over the top now I think.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Pandora had it right. 
Bin Laden had the key.  ............for the US.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

The Patriot Act just got renewed by the US Congress. I wonder if Bush shall sign it into law?????????????


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

"I assumed that someone in his position was supposed to be reasonable"

Says it all right there. Thoughtful story- Talented guy. A nation in decline.


----------



## CN (Sep 3, 2004)

Wow...I would become pretty nervous if 3 officers proclaiming themselves to be "Homeland Security" confronted me while I was taking tourist shots of something.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Heartbreaking story.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

I think it's completely disgusting. It's a shame.. when people of any nation.. are scared.. just because of the color of their skin.

Honestly, do you think it's right that people should be asked for their ID because they are a certain color and have cameras? HOLY CRAP.. I don't. The thing that's supposed to be the solution to the problems.. is becoming the bigger problem. 

There will ALWAYS be terrorists.. you can't rid any country or nation from it... it's IMPOSSIBLE. Does anyone actually think this is going to prevent terrorist attacks? Not even slightly.. if it doesn't happen one way.. it will happen another.

This is a great read.. one that everyone should read. This should be put into every major news paper in the world. It's amazing.. the accounts someone can go through... ONLY because they are BROWN!

Truely SAD


----------



## iKV (Oct 3, 2004)

I'll be in London (UK) next week. When I'm riding the tube, if I see a brown man and a white teenager, both with large backpacks, you can be sure as hell I'll be "racially profiling" the brown man, given recent developments in the city. That said, if white teenagers were prone to killing themselves and others with bombs on city transit, I'd be "racially profiling" the white kids.

Do I think the police and security officers went overboard in the article in regards to the photography student? Absolutely. You'd think officers with such responsibilities would be given a bit of sensitivity training, or something.

However, were the officers wrong to target in on the brown man because he is brown? Your answer may be different if a few days later the Ballard Locks - a popular tourist area, in the words of the writer - was bombed by a brown man who a few days earlier was taking pictures to help in planning the attack.

I've talked to several of my brown friends, who don't feel uncomfortable if they are scrutinized a bit more closely. They would feel uncomfortable, however, experiencing what the photographer did.

Just thought I'd provide a different perspective than jumping on the "oh, how appalling" bandwagon. Thoughts?


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

iKV, with great respect, I think if you're going to "racially profile" folk on the tube in London, your head'll spin so fast it'll come off your neck. And, why the tube in particular? Buses? The street? Pubs? Art galleries? Museums? Banks? The Apple Store in Regent Street?

I'm sure you're making a debating point here, and so am I. I don't wish to seem to be attacking you or your proposition in any personal fashion.

Hell, London is about as racially mixed as any city can be, albeit with tensions that go critical now and then.

As for the original article in the link provided by Posterboy, I am not appalled so much as chilled. Let's hear it for the Land of the Free.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I have a solutions - everyone wear balaclavas - 

or Bush masks

















his n hers


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

MacDoc: now THAT is scary!

(Wouldn't fancy anyone's chances wearing a Bush mask, by the way.  )


----------



## CN (Sep 3, 2004)

Once again, we see MacDocs sick sense of humour 

I'm not sure, iKV. Although it seems morally wrong to scrutinize certain people more carefully simply because of their race, perhaps those people fitting the "racial profile" would not mind if it did not involve such invasive tactics as were seen in this article (eg- if it did not effect their daily lives etc. any more than those not fitting the racial profile). The problems arise when these people are inconvenienced more than others who don't fit the racial profile, which really seems to be an inherent occurance.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

iKV: Two words: "Timothy McVeigh"

M.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

One word.......PETA.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> One word.......PETA.


Is a acronym really "one" word?


----------



## iKV (Oct 3, 2004)

CN said:


> perhaps those people fitting the "racial profile" would not mind if it did not involve such invasive tactics as were seen in this article


Totally agree, hence my "sensitivity, or something" comment. Extra scrutiny is not the same as discrimination. And totally not what the photographer experienced!



Snapple Quaffer said:


> I think if you're going to "racially profile" folk on the tube in London, your head'll spin so fast it'll come off your neck. And, why the tube in particular? Buses? The street? Pubs? Art galleries? Museums? Banks? The Apple Store in Regent Street?
> 
> I'm sure you're making a debating point here, and so am I. I don't wish to seem to be attacking you or your proposition in any personal fashion.


Hell, not the Apple Store in Regent Street!! Anything, but!

I'd rather be a bit dizzy than some alternative. Why the tube? Have you been watching the news! 

Oh, and no offense taken! It was somewhat a point to debate, I just wanted to suggest a middle ground between "land of the free" and "racial discrimination".


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

> Why the tube? Have you been watching the news!


Yes. Not least because one of my daughters lives and works in London, and uses public transport, buses mainly. Buses have been involved. So let's not have too much silly banter, eh?

My point, which wasn't particularly opaque, was that the danger will be, potentially, right next to you, whatever you're doing and wherever you are.


----------



## Makr (Jul 21, 2005)

I'm going to get grilled on this, but why not on the racial profiling, if you have nothing to hide what does it matter? Yes it looks into your background, but that's the same if you want to be a leader in Scouts Canada or for that matter any Youth organization in Canada. Yes, we aren't going to stop bin laden's sort of terrorism until he's caught, but in the meantime, it doesn't hurt to be safe. And for crying out loud, he was taking notes while taking photos, I do that all the time in Vancouver, and I'll say it again, if you have nothing to hide, what does it matter?

And on a related note, this makes me laugh.

No amount of airline security could possibly prevent 200 unarmed terrorists from booking the same flight and simply overpowering everyone onboard.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Welcome to the new Amerika..... land of racial profiling...


that should read "Wilkomen"


----------



## BeeRich (May 30, 2005)

*Peta?*



MacDoc said:


> One word.......PETA.


People for Eating Tasty Animals?

http://mtd.com/tasty/


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"it doesn't hurt to be safe."....tell that to every young black person stopped driving an expensive car.

If EVERYONE with a camera gets checked it's one thing, if a visibile minority is targetted - it's bigotry and your phrase is the universal reson d'etre for abusing human rights.
It just feeds fascist tendencies and police state tactics. 

Sniffer dogs don't discriminate and they're a lot more likely to pick up a bomber than a cop's "intuition" aka bigotry.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

PosterBoy, thank-you for posting that article, that work of art. This is exactly what artists are supposed to do for society.

There are alot of things that police ask or demand of you, that you do not have to comply with. Because they are a source of authority, normally we just comply. Challenging their authority, even though it is well within our rights, often makes them feel one-upped and authority figures don't like that.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

HW ......You might be surprised how important people consider civil liberties. It's a founding principle of free society as is innocent until proven guilty and it's a constant battle for civilian society to keep that front and centre in police minds.

There is an automatic power trip that goes with uniforms - it's own reason I'm entirely supportive of civilian oversight boards for police forces.

There was good reason Rome kept it's Legion well away from The City.

There are inherent fascist tendencies in just about all societies - perhaps a Buddhist monastery a possible exception.

I WILL NOT let my civil liberties be infringed for ANY REASON. 

It's the goal of authoritarian forces both in the terrorist camp AND the likes of the current US police state to have a power structure that keeps the populace acting like sheep. 

It's up to each individual to * firmly resist those forces.*


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I perceive a very different dynamic between civil authority represented by SAR, medics, doctors and fire professional versus police.

Police very often are subject to corruption and abuse of power. Rarely do you hear of that in the other civil authority categories and I put it down to "cultures"" with in the respective organizations.

There is a justified fear with police of abuse of authority and intrusion without cause.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Stop speading fear, HowEver. *Keep your fantasies of MY burned twitching lifeless carcass to yourself.*

It is not the job of police to harass those engaging in peaceful and non-criminal (let us say "ordinary, everyday" behaviour)... especially on the basis of the colour of someone's skin, or because an officer was pissed off when someone is exercising their legal rights.

_____

I and others will not give up our freedoms and civil rights because there are people spreading fear, uncertainty, and doom. I'm not talking about terrorists or criminals. I'm talking the people who would make our society a police state, while ironically giving "freedom" as the reason.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Profiling will not work. One of the four 7/7 bombers was Jamaican. In Israel, there have been young girls who've been suicide bombers who fit no profile. The Lndon bombers were UK born and part of the disaffected diaspora - except they were murderously fanatical. Profiling will act to aggrevate communities and makes the subjects of the profiling (tens of thousands) subject to scorn, discrimination and violence. Hey, lets piss off the youth some more! The Brazilian killed in London last week was profiled. That fatal mistake will do terrible harm to the already tense situation.

What will work is having all members of a society work to root out the hate groups and extremists within. Terrorists do not wear uniforms.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I recall a certain Hearst heir that fit no profile either.
I don;t understand why people don't see the connection to the Weather Underground, the Yuppies and other disaffected groups within the US.

I lived through the 70s and I think people forget just how much violence occurred and how entire city blocks went up in flames.

This is simply perhaps the first time ( the jury is out on Kennedy ) that *US foreign policy comes home to roost*.......previously and likely again it was domestic tensions of the sort that led to Kent State driving the violence.

Anyone know where this was in 1967










or this in 1992










and there is always this as a reminder when "brown" gets demonized and marginalized.
Less than 100 years ago......










The breaching of civil rights starts the long slide back to this -


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> What will work is having all members of a society work to root out the hate groups and extremists within.


but then where will the military-industrial complex (that eisenhower warned about) peddle their profitable wares?

the ugly truth is that "war profiteers" don't want peace
peace isn't good for business


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Um. Last time I was in Toronto, I took something like 50 photos of the CN tower, and no one said a word.

We're not debating that in many situations police officers can be heroic, what we are talking about is that this guy was singled out because of the colour of his skin. I didn't start this thread with the intentions of inciting "police BAD!" type rants, but rather to highlight the changed climate in the United States since the Sept. 11th attack.

The questions we should be discussing are: 

"Given that there were others there taking photos, too, why was this guy singled out?" 
"Why did the officers see fit to intimidate him so?"


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> "Given that there were others there taking photos, too, why was this guy singled out?"
> "Why did the officers see fit to intimidate him so?"


1. the colour of his skin
2. he dared stand up for his rights


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

*Again with the burning! Oy vey!*



HowEver said:


> no matter who you were, be as likely to pull you from that burning building, streetcar or public attraction, serves no purpose but your own. Think how many police officers went up into the World Trade Centre while it was on fire and never came out: hundreds. Would you?


Again, HowEver, keep your fantasies of MY burned twitching lifeless carcass to yourself. I don't care how you reword it.

I wish people who stop citing the collapse of the World Trade Centre as if they were magic words that can be used as justification for curbing civil rights and promoting racial profiling or any abuse of police force or harrassment.



_____

No one here is criticizing the good that police do. Some of my friends are RCMP and so is my someday Father-in-Law and brother-in-law.

Like other people, some cops are nice and some are dicks. The difference is that a jerk with a gun and badge has more opportunity to abuse his power than some applecare phone help technician.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

HowEver said:


> (1) that the reality is that after September 11, 2001, no one should be surprised by intense police interest in certain people in certain situations.


I don't know if I am surprised per se, but at the same time when all a countries leaders talk about is freedom while this kind of thing goes on in their own backyard, something doesn't right true.



HowEver said:


> (2) that we do not live in a police state. I have no doubt that many police in the U.S. and Canada abuse their power and are never called to account for it. They are an extremely small minority. This is not apartheid and it is not a fascist regime. Pretending that it is either because of these few bad cops is delusional.


I wasn't. This is still off topic, as far as I am concerned. As I said, it's the climate of mistrust and paranoia that I find disturbing.



HowEver said:


> (3) that it is hard to say that the person who is the subject of this thread was "profiled" as a terrorist, when he was probably profiled because he is black. It does not mean that we live in a police state and it does not mean that there aren't many other cops doing their job and many others not doing their job. It means that this man was mistreated.


He's brown, not black, and either way it's wrong.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

*See my point*



HowEver said:


> I'm just saying:
> 
> (1) that the reality is that after September 11, 2001, no one should be surprised by intense police interest in certain people in certain situations.



By "certain people", you seem to mean brown people. By "certain situations", you seem to mean going about their ordinary and everyday lives. By intense police interest you seem to mean "racial profiling".

I dare you and others to defend intrusive police tactics and overbearing government authority without citing September 11 or the World Trade Centre. If it was wrong BEFORE then, it's still wrong AFTER. Mentioning 9/11 doesn't make whatever words follow it beyond reproach.

Taking a picture of a public space while in public space is not illegal. Being singled out by police and other authorities for being brown and taking pictures while others are doing the same thing with impunity is hypocritical and criminal.

Wasting government and police resources on innocent people and treating them as criminals is wrong and wasteful of tax-payers money.

How many terrorists has Homelade Security charged and convicted? Hmmm...


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

My teenage daughter has a summer student job at Blacks photography. On an average day she develops 1600-2000 photographs (it's not a large store....). Among the daily snaps are assorted "nudes" (she is instructed to report photos where the subjects may be under age). Perhaps the police should develop all 50 million daily photographs in the nation and vet them for possible criminal intent? But what about digital pictures? Polaroids? OK, let's license cameras like fire-arms. Hmmmm.... sketches? OK, artist materials shouldd also be licensed. 

The fact is that everyone of us is acting suspiciously in everything we do. Play a mind game next time you've a few minutes downtown. Imagine the guy across the street wearing a backpack is a terrorist. Watch for suspicious activity. Imagine you have a gunsight trained on him. I virtually guarantee he'll do something that would make you pull the trigger within a few minutes.

Society requires we do something to protect our citizens - and are seen to be doing something. In most cases, this activity has absolutely no preventative value. An important exception is screening at airports. But imagine going through that process everytime you entered a public building, store, gas station, train station.... 

The openness of our society makes it vulnerable. It is also what makes it progressive and democratic. Terrorists can only close our society through our own hands - they are utterly incapable of achieving it themselves.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

No, black people aren't being called brown. The brown people are brown--meaning, people of Indian (the India kind), Arab, Sri Lankan, etc., descent. 

Not that it really matters--mistreatment is mistreatment. 

This is jumping off topic, but I don't personally like the term people of colour, since we're all of one colour or another.... consequently, adding the words "of colour" is superfluous. It is relevant to the story, however, that the author is brown since this appears to be the reason why he was singled out. 

Osama bin Laden is also brown, and since 9/11, many people with brown skin have been singled out by officials. My brother, who is brown and works in the States on a TN visa, has had some issues with the INS post-9/11, yet many of his white friends have not. Bad luck? Pure coincidence? Quite possibly, but uncomfortable coincidences nevertheless.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

One or two incidents......I don't think so....



> To begin with, a 1994 survey of over 1,200 Toronto residents found that black people are much more likely to report involuntary police contact than either whites or Asians. *For example, almost half (44%) of black male respondents reported that they had been stopped and questioned by the police at least once in the past two years, and one third (30%) reported that they had been stopped on two or more occasions*. By contrast, only 12% of white males and 7% of Asian males reported multiple police stops.


http://www.utpjournals.com/product/cjccj/453/453_wortley.html

and in Kingston



> Police stop more blacks, Ont. study finds
> Last Updated Fri, 27 May 2005 12:09:06 EDT
> CBC News
> KINGSTON, ONT. - Kingston police stop a disproportionate number of young black and aboriginal men, according to findings released on Thursday from the first racial profiling study done in Canada.
> ...


it's odious period......

There IS no excuse.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Would it be de-railing this thread to mention that the Constitution-shredding USA Patriot Act was extended for an indefinite period by the US Congress on Thursday? 

This Act now even more closely resembles the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933 that was passed by the Nazis, in that the decree was put into effect "until further notice".


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Wait, I was talking about the climate in the US, and people are talking about Toronto.

On another note, while the PATRIOT act does have many questionable parts, it also includes some stuff that makes a lot of sense like, say, facilitating the communication between intelligence agencies that was previously prevented and hindered finding out about big attacks like, say, Sept. 11th.

I'm not saying it's not bad, I'm just saying that there are parts worth keeping.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Would it be de-railing this thread to mention that the Constitution-shredding USA Patriot Act was extended for an indefinite period by the US Congress on Thursday?
> 
> This Act now even more closely resembles the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933 that was passed by the Nazis, in that the decree was put into effect "until further notice".


Ah, yes, the aptly named Gratuitous Applesauce comes through with the gratuitous Nazi reference in relation to... the Patriot Act.

Can we have a moratorium on Nazi and Hitler references?


----------



## iKV (Oct 3, 2004)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Yes. Not least because one of my daughters lives and works in London, and uses public transport, buses mainly. Buses have been involved. So let's not have too much silly banter, eh?
> 
> My point, which wasn't particularly opaque, was that the danger will be, potentially, right next to you, whatever you're doing and wherever you are.


True, the danger is everywhere, but I guess my point is that there are a few places where I'll be a bit more vigilant. Sorry for the lightheartedness, btw, guess it's just my way of coping.



makr said:


> 'm going to get grilled on this, but why not on the racial profiling, if you have nothing to hide what does it matter? Yes it looks into your background, but that's the same if you want to be a leader in Scouts Canada or for that matter any Youth organization in Canada.





HowEver said:


> But if (when?) a bombing happens here, you can expect the existing police preferences to be thrown out the window. People will pretty much be begging police to check their knapsacks, and those of others, and to stop anyone they damn please.
> 
> What happened to the person who is the subject of this thread is awful, but compared to what might have happened in, say, Texas, or Florida, or L.A., it isn't much. He wasn't roughed up, he wasn't robbed, he wasn't unjustly imprisoned or charged.


Thanks for helping me - knowingly or not - get across my "shades of gray between land of the free and racial discrimination" comment. Very good points.



MacDoc said:


> If EVERYONE with a camera gets checked it's one thing, if a visibile minority is targetted - it's bigotry and your phrase is the universal reson d'etre for abusing human rights.


Do you think there is a middle ground, though? One that must be tread lightly, of course, but still a middle ground.



PosterBoy said:


> "Given that there were others there taking photos, too, why was this guy singled out?"


Not sure if any who posted here are from minority groups who fit the "racial profile" many associate with "terrorists". I, for one, am not. To quote from a previous message I submitted to this thread, I have brown friends who do not mind being a bit more scrutinized than others. What they do mind, however, is being discriminated against, such as what happened to the photographer in the article which started this thread.



Paul O'Keefe said:


> By "certain people", you seem to mean brown people. By "certain situations", you seem to mean going about their ordinary and everyday lives. By intense police interest you seem to mean "racial profiling".


While this is what I took from his post as well, since his message cited the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001, I have a question for everyone to maybe put this in some perspective.

Imagine if white North Americans flew airplanes into skyscrapers in China. Pretend you are a white North American (if you are not already), and living/traveling in China. What would you consider to be acceptable police actions towards people of your cultural background/skin colour. Personally, I don't think I would mind being extra scrutinized, having my bags checked, etc. Under such circumstances, I would believe Chinese police are being extra cautious to ensure similar attacks weren't being planned. However, I wouldn't be a fan of being bullied and discriminated against, like the photographer. That's my $0.02, anyways. Yours?



used to be jwoodget said:


> The openness of our society makes it vulnerable. It is also what makes it progressive and democratic. Terrorists can only close our society through our own hands - they are utterly incapable of achieving it themselves.


Excellent point. Food for thought... for us and for governments responding to terrorist attacks in their own countries.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Do you think there is a middle ground, though? One that must be tread lightly, of course, but still a middle ground


NO!! It's why security pass through at airports is an annoyance but it's a UNIVERSAL annoyance. Freedom from unwarranted search is fundamental of an open society right along with resumption of innocence and freedom of association ...it's THAT important.
Now if a minority continues to get pulled aside for "further" inspection *without cause* and with frequency - THAT'S bigotry and profiling.

One reason sniffer dogs are excellent - they have a limited set of parameters - tall short purple pink yellow tattoed old young, kid, granma, jet setter......you smell of explosives or drugs they bark.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

planethoth said:


> Can we have a moratorium on Nazi and Hitler references?


Apparently ehMaccers already ignore Godwin's Law, so what's the point?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

PosterBoy said:


> Apparently ehMaccers already ignore Godwin's Law, so what's the point?


Indeed, the point is, let's have no more Nazi or Hitler references.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

planethoth said:


> Ah, yes, the aptly named Gratuitous Applesauce comes through with the gratuitous Nazi reference in relation to... the Patriot Act.


Thanks for the gratuitous ad hominem, planethoth. Your member name is lovely, too.

So can you tell me what is gratuitous in mentioning the Patriot Act's resemblance to the Reichstag Fire Decree?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

It's more that Hitler/Nazi/Holocaust references are so bloody overused on the internet.


----------



## BeeRich (May 30, 2005)

*History is always Bull*****



planethoth said:


> Can we have a moratorium on Nazi and Hitler references?


Amen.

Honestly, can we really have a real realization that historical racism, in fact, is historical racism? At which point do we really find references to Hitler applicable in this day? What country is currently at war with the Western world, having chosen death for a race? Be careful, because if you answer this with a stupid answer, you're published. Be truthful. 

Second, has the Western world, along with other parts of the world, not learned anything about diversity and tolerance? Really? We chat on a board based in Canada, out of Toronto (methinks) and we don't have any new ideas about tolerance and diversity? A city of 140 (or 170) different languages and THIS is the best thing we can come up with? 

Sure, people have made mistakes in the past. Sure there are pictures and crap that we don't agree with. But I am not my parents, nor are my friends their parents. We migrate mentally as people...as a community, do we not? The world is a changing place, as am I. 

I've always tossed the rediculous 'teachings' of 'History' as they say 'history is always repeated'. That's insulting to those that can think and can make a new future. A guy that I know has always done that. Steve Jobs. Heard of him? Don't settle for the bull**** lessons of the pathetically inclined 'teachers' of this virus called 'history'. 

The ONLY thing that history provides, is the demonstration of our ability to innovate our way past our ignorance, as a global community. I look forward when our global communities can co-exist and enjoy eachother's presence.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

BR - facism is the issue, NOT Hitler per se. The Nazi regime is only iconic in that sense and it's not just to do with racism tho that is one aspect.
Fascism is a very present force, not a historical curiosity.
It's elements are present in any nation state and being vigilante against the abuses that arise an ever increasing and unending need.

I suggest picking up this week's Economist with it's special report on Myamar and also a look at this http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm.

Just as the Soviet Union is iconic as failed attempt at a communist state or empire, Hitler and Nazi Germany for many reasons, not the least of which is it's pernicious continuity and attraction for certain elements in society today, are icons for the dangers of fascism.
http://www.garnertedarmstrong.ws/Mark_Wordfroms/manews0029-news_stories3.shtml



> Germany: Far-right party skips Auschwitz tribute
> Dresden parliament in uproar at neo-Nazi outburst
> Right Wing Solidarity Plan Called Illegal
> Berlin Condemns Neo-Nazi Party -added on 26 January 2005
> ...


 ..list of the stories covered in the link above.

I dare say "democracy" is waved about with far greater frequency.........should we BAN that as well because it will ineveitably arise in some conversation or another?
Icons are useful - fascism may have a vague threatening "feel", mentioning Hitler or the Nazi regime provokes the visceral reaction intended to constantly remember it's real threat.

Removing it from the lexicon of poltical discussion is ludicrous. As the 14 point summary indicates the elements of fascism are very real and very present, not historical oddities.

The vague threat of "international terrorism" has provoked a very Orwellian response in some societies and given those reactionary elements upon which fascism relies for support a podium to campaign on.

If we go down that list Canada and Canadians are in my mind doing a good job of guarding against those various elements composing a fascist milieu.
Multinationalism, minority rights, resepct for differences, civilian power, embedded egality in the Charter, encouraged cultural diversity, refusal to succumb to fear are all bulkwarks against drift to fascism.

BTW the current varietal of the phrase which I think originated from John Toland appears to be "every time we fail to learn from history it gets more expensive"

There are people on this board whose families understand fascism and the threat of abusive state power only too well. Ask Macspectrum sometime about his father's experiences of jackboots, trenchcoats and "knocks in the night" by secret police seeking "enemies of the state" then.

or a Roma in Europe today. 
This is NOW......not "historical"



> a December 2004 House of Lords decision that the UK Government was guilty of ‘inherently and systematically discriminatory’ practices against Roma.


http://www.minorityrights.org/news_detail.asp?ID=334


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

BeeRich said:


> Honestly, can we really have a real realization that historical racism, in fact, is historical racism? At which point do we really find references to Hitler applicable in this day?


References to the Nazi regime and all serve to illustrate points quite easily by way of allegory and analogy. Plus ça change, plus c'est pareil..... 




BeeRich said:


> What country is currently at war with the Western world, having chosen death for a race? Be careful, because if you answer this with a stupid answer, you're published. Be truthful.


BeeRich, what country is at war with the Western world?
What country?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> There are people on this board whose families understand fascism and the threat of abusive state power only too well. This is NOW......not "historical"


My partners' mother family escaped Soviet persecution in Lithuania during WW2 by going to Germany and finally Italy. In Italy they ended up in a camp and finally made their way to the US. 
It's not only fascism that affected people on this board by many other regimes. My mother in law, to this day is afraid of the police (even in Canada) and triple locks every door, latches windows, and in an ironic twist of fate sees the US turning into a police state. 
When we speak of tolerance, I'm amazed to see my grandmother-in-law speak 7 different languages perfectly. To this day, even after being in the US for so long, her French is impeccable (she rarely gets a chance to speak it). For her, it was the "normal" thing to do (learn many languages).


----------



## BeeRich (May 30, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> BeeRich, what country is at war with the Western world?
> What country?


None. Exactly my point.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Rich you are taking a very narrow view of the Nazis and Hitler. Genocide was only ONE aspect and it certainly has it's parallels occurring now..and the genocide, as they tend be, was an internal effort so I can't see the value of "currently at war" restrictor. Appears to me irrelevant.

AS has it right. Relevance today, searing memories from yesterday.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Removing it from the lexicon of poltical discussion is ludicrous. As the 14 point summary indicates the elements of fascism are very real and very present, not historical oddities.


The pimply nerds at Slashdot.org have an informal policy on their forums: whoever mentions nazim/fascism or communism has lost the debate. The thread is then closed.

The rational is behind this is simple. Political debate almost always descends to the level of name-calling. Liberals painting conservatives as fascists; conservatives dismissing liberals as communists. Barring these words kept the debate at a cool level.

I tend to follow this, generally. I prefer to use words like racist, statist, dictatorship, despotism, tyranny. These words have very defined meanings, and are more-or-less politically neutral. Words like communism have very imprecise meanings; so much so, the communists argue about them. Franco, Mussolini, and Hitler were all fascists, but they certainly didn't agree on everything.

Feel free to call it as you see it, MacDoc. I won't criticize your use of ordinary political words. But as we are both mutual admirers of Orwell, you may recall from his essay "Politics and the English Language," he observed that the word fascism had been emptied of meaning, now refering to little else than "something not desired." And he wrote that during WWII.



MacDoc said:


> The vague threat of "international terrorism" has provoked a very Orwellian response in some societies and given those reactionary elements upon which fascism relies for support a podium to campaign on.


You won't make any allies with that kind of talk. International terrorism is not a vague threat. You are right, however. The threat of terrorism is being used to enhance state power beyond its rightful limits.

An American expression goes something like "Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." I don't remember who said it or why, but it's clearly relevent here.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

In general I would agree tho I do believe there is a renewed impact of "fascism" since Bush arrived. I'd say it's regained some stature and use especially with the 14 point list as a check list...some of which are glaring.

As to vague threat, I meant in the Orwellian sense of shadowy and "present yet intangible" fear inducing by state design, a "useful to the regime enemy". 
As contrasted to the conflict say between Argentina and Britain over the Falklands where goals and opponents were clear.
I chose *vague* purposefully and almost as a pejorative or diminutive.

I beleive there are greater threats not being adequately addressed nor having the resources applied to them and that the internal threat to civil liberties is more dangerous to free societies as a body than specific terrorists acts to individuals or locales.

The response more dangerous than the magnitude of the threat justifies.

Bottom line... I think the US over reacted and has made it worse in using it to justify a "proactive" approach that has previously been a non starter as an official foreign policy plank.

I think the world geo political landscape cracked very badly with the attack on Iraq and the world community has now gone off on a different direction of "power blocs" akin to Europe pre 1911.

I just hope we don't see a renewed arms race. 
Excellent article in the Economist this week about "wither China?".


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

To further reinforce my caution about using this term to0 loosely, what would you call a national leader who:

1. Used conscription to force young men into a battle on another continent, despite that fact that their own continent had not even been attacked;
2. Broadcast propaganda about the enemy in print, films, and even comic books;
3. Rounded up visible minorities suspected to support their homeland;
4. Developed weapons of mass destruction for intended use on civilians;
5. Worked to reorganized the highest court to ensure more sympathetic decisions;
6. Gave money to a government that was killing millions of its own citizens.

Fascist? Or the most popular and left-wing president in US history? And certainly Bush hasn't nearly approximated these "achievements."


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> The pimply nerds at Slashdot.org have an informal policy on their forums: whoever mentions nazim/fascism or communism has lost the debate. The thread is then closed.


It is called "Godwin's law"
The jargon file is:
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Godwin's Law merely notes that, eventually, those tensions eventually cause someone to find the worst insults that come to mind - which will almost always include a Nazi comparison.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> TBottom line... I think the US over reacted and has made it worse in using it to justify a "proactive" approach that has previously been a non starter as an official foreign policy plank.
> 
> I think the world geo political landscape cracked very badly with the attack on Iraq and the world community has now gone off on a different direction of "power blocs" akin to Europe pre 1911.
> 
> I just hope we don't see a renewed arms race.


This is echoed by Gwynne Dyer and "the coming world order" - he argues that the US HAS to loose the war in Iraq quickly or face an arms buildup.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> References to the Nazi regime and all serve to illustrate points quite easily by way of allegory and analogy


The problem is that a) they have distinctly negative connotations which are easily directed at just about anyone, b) they are an all too easy comparison to make and c) they are way, way overused.

I'm not saying don't use them, I'm just saying that it'd be super if people would use them more appropriately.

For example, we're talking about Nazi references in a hread started to illustrate the current climate of fear in the US.


----------



## BeeRich (May 30, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Rich you are taking a very narrow view of the Nazis and Hitler. Genocide was only ONE aspect and it certainly has it's parallels occurring now..and the genocide, as they tend be, was an internal effort so I can't see the value of "currently at war" restrictor. Appears to me irrelevant.
> 
> AS has it right. Relevance today, searing memories from yesterday.


Then you mistook what I was saying. My point was to reflect on the differences of that day from now. The differences are vast, and therefore one can assume that the treatment or attention something today gets, can easily be attributed to the fact that today's events aren't in the direct conflict of taking over Western countries.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

PosterBoy said:


> I'm not saying don't use them, I'm just saying that it'd be super if people would use them more appropriately.


PosterBoy - you are quite right.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

> Originally Posted by ArtistSeries
> BeeRich, what country is at war with the Western world?
> What country?





> Originally posted by Bee Rich
> None. Exactly my point


None? How can no country be at war with a Western nation, if Western nations are fighting in wars? It takes two to tango.

War is still going on in Afghanistan and Iraq. Western nations wons those wars but are still making war there? Obviously, now Western nations are fighting civil wars on behalf on factions in each of those two countries. So, I guess that means the initial wars were never really won.

Now one thinks of the US soldiers in Iraq as peace keepers. Everyone says they are still at war, going to war... so they must be at war with Iraq. If they are at war with Iraq, obviously Iraq is at war with them.

The idea that there is a war against terror, or a war against drugs, or a war against crime, or a war against poverty is absurb as that would mean never ending war.

*I have no faith in a country that has declared it will elliminate terrorism worldwide when it can't even get rid of a simple, easily identifiable criminal organization like the Hell's Angels at home.*


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> as that would mean never ending war


.......and THAT, in some circles, may be the idea. 
......see Orwell

••••

Be interesting to see how this plays out.



> Jul. 27, 2005. 06:19 AM
> 
> CSIS angered by imam's campaign
> Agency denies claims of harassment
> ...


more here

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...le&cid=1122414615002&call_pageid=968332188492


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Or watch the 1936 movie, "Shape of things to Come"

Plot Summary for "Things to Come" (1936)

A global war begins in 1940. This war drags out over many decades until most of the people still alive (mostly those born after the war started) do not even know who started it or why. Nothing is being manufactured at all any more and society has broken down into primative localized communities. In 1966 a great plague wipes out most of what people are left but small numbers still survive. One day a strange aircraft lands at one of these communities and its pilot tells of an organisation which is rebuilding civilization and slowly moving across the world re-civilizing these groups of survivors. Great reconstruction takes place over the next few decades and society is once again great and strong. The world's population is now living in underground cities. In the year 2035, on the eve of man's first flight to the moon, a popular uprising against progress (which some people claim has caused the wars of the past) gains support and becomes violent.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Sounds like a cool movie. I think I've read EPIC or HEAVY METAL comic stories like that.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Paul, it is in black and white, with Ramond Massey in the lead.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Be interesting to see how this plays out.


I would indeed be disturbed to hear of CSIS forcing their way into someone's home. I am not surprised to hear CSIS defend themselves against such an allegation.


----------

