posted Oct-10-2006 09:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dervin:
You are allowed your own opinions, but not your facts.
In the graph which country has the lowest female % of support for Sharia Law? Turkey.
Which country is moving towards sharia law? Everybody else.
Which country outlaws the hijiab? Turkey.

And even in the UK, 40% of all Muslims want to introduce Sharia law
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml

---

A more likely explanation is that Sharia law is supported in countries where Muslims enjoy relatively little political power and/or freedom. Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Morrocco (I think Lebanon is an exception -- Muslims have power but are fresh off the heels of a 20-year long religious/ethnic civil war that may be coloring their opinions) are all countries where autocracies/monarchies rule with a strong fist; in places like the UK, Muslims have felt not a lack of freedom, but an impotence when it comes to dictating their political desires. Sharia law is seen by many in the Muslim world as a shortcut to popular empowerment and political egalitarianism (since Islamic law prohibits the very monarchies and autocracies that have their boot on the neck of many Muslim populations).

Your inference between a graph's green bars proving that the hijab is a precursor to Sharia is pretty juvenile and uninformed.

------------------
"You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity."
-- Emerson

IP: Logged

posted Oct-10-2006 10:30 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElDuderino:
A more likely explanation is that Sharia law is supported in countries where Muslims enjoy relatively little political power and/or freedom. Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Morrocco (I think Lebanon is an exception -- Muslims have power but are fresh off the heels of a 20-year long religious/ethnic civil war that may be coloring their opinions) are all countries where autocracies/monarchies rule with a strong fist; in places like the UK, Muslims have felt not a lack of freedom, but an impotence when it comes to dictating their political desires. Sharia law is seen by many in the Muslim world as a shortcut to popular empowerment and political egalitarianism (since Islamic law prohibits the very monarchies and autocracies that have their boot on the neck of many Muslim populations).

Your inference between a graph's green bars proving that the hijab is a precursor to Sharia is pretty juvenile and uninformed.

---

You mean like in Iran? I'm sorry, they had a people's revolution, overthrew a dictator and have the closest thing to Democracy in the entire middle east. In Iraq since the fall of Saddam, Fundies have been increasing their power day by day.

Yeah, nothing says empowerment like "I choose to be beheadded when a man rapes me because it's my fault. I forced him to do it."

What you would like to do is isolate the hijab from the rest of muslim culture, you would like to think you can have one without the other. But the hijab and the oppression of women in islamic socities are one and the same.

Do you remeber the Rodney King beating trial? The defense team was able to get him off by taking the videotape slowing it down and breaking down every frame and asking the question "Is this illegal?" The procescution was trying to play the enitre videotape in it's contextual entirety. And when each individual frame, each swing of the nightstick is looked at independently from the context, each swing was legal.

And this is what you are trying to do, you want to decontextualize the hijab from the larger issues of female oppression. You want to isolate the hijab and say "See it's not so bad!!" while ignoring the next frame a woman on her knees about to get her head cut off because her brother raped her.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-10-2006 10:46 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Oct-11-2006 12:44 AM               

I don't really know where this fits in in the discussion but I think it is an interesting point.

As far as Turkey outlawing the Niqab, I think it is due to their attempts at a secular government. They want to distance themselves from the Sharia concept. But if they already had a strong democracy without the tendancy toward Sharia, they probably wouldn't have. Does a strong democracy like the UK need to outlaw this outward symbol? Or is it counterproductive and against their basic freedom philosophy?

And Grim, haven't you ever heard of black humour or gallows humor? Dervin is just jerking you around and you are letting him.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-11-2006 01:11 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SloJan:
And Grim, haven't you ever heard of black humour or gallows humor? Dervin is just jerking you around and you are letting him.

---

Hush up woman! or I'll go Islamic on you.

Edit: Just so there is no confusion -
1) Actually putting Christians and Islamic people on trains to concentration camps - Joke.
2) Comments about the Scottish being spineless henchmen assisting England's genocidal ambitions against the freedom loving people of Ireland and other cultures. Not a joke.

[This message has been edited by Dervin (edited Oct-11-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Oct-11-2006 10:14 AM            

You are allowed your own opinions, but not your facts.
In the graph which country has the lowest female % of support for Sharia Law? Turkey.
Which country is moving towards sharia law? Everybody else.
Which country outlaws the hijiab? Turkey.

Dervin, there is a difference between a combination of facts and evidence of a causal relationship, or any relationship, between those facts.

And even in the UK, 40% of all Muslims want to introduce Sharia law

It is interesting that you have placed a biased perspective on an article from a newspaper that has presented its own biased perspective on the biased selection of data from a poll with an inherent bias within its methodology.

This is the data from the poll itself:

http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2006/Sunday%20Telegraph%20-%20Mulims%20Feb/Sunday%20Telegraph%20Muslims%20feb06.asp

Firstly, the Telegraph is known in the UK for a certain political bias.

Secondly, I would question the methodology of the survey's sample selection:

In order to achieve the sample of 500, some respondents were asked for the telephone numbers of another Muslim.

It seems to me that someone asked to give contact details to someone conducting a survey is likely to give the contact details of someone with similar views. This doesn't in itself reduce the validity of the survey, but it does reduce the size of the sample that could be considered to be random, and reducing the size of the sample does reduce its reliability, which in turn could reduce its validity.

Thirdly, I would argue that there is a methodological query over the form of the questions. Remember that this survey, whilst conducted by an independent polling institution, was conducted on behalf of the Telegraph.

As an example, a question such as: Q7. Irrespective of whether you think the London bombings were justified or not, do you personally have any sympathy with the feelings and motives of those who carried out the attacks? can be interpreted in a number of ways, depending on how you use the phrase 'any sympathy'. For example, it could be interpreted as 'an understanding that they feel strongly enough about the actions and attitudes of the West to blow up public transport', or it could be interpreted as 'an understanding that they may have negative feelings towards how the West has conducted itself with regard to aspects of foreign policy'. There is a difference between those two.

Thirdly, the newspaper is selective in how it reports the results. In the example above, the newspaper reports that 'a fifth have sympathy', choosing not to note that the majority of those have only 'a little' sympathy, again bearing in mind the range of ways in which the question could be interpreted.

Fourthly, the newspaper is selective over which results it reports, e.g. it doesn't report that only 4% supported attacks by Al-Qaeda.

Fifthly, the headline rewords the question that was actually asked: the headline, without any additional information, would imply to me that what 40% of Muslims want is for Sharia law to come into effect in the UK as a whole, whereas the question asks: Would you support or oppose there being areas of Britain which are pre-dominantly Muslim and in which Sharia Law is introduced?[i]. There is a difference between these two.

.......................
Originally posted by Dervin:

The reason why you are so offended at my jokes about putting radical theocrats onto the train is because your ancestors were doing the exact same thing. Except for putting people on train cars, your great-grandfather threw my people off their farms, forced them to literally work to death, and drove us out of our own country, you would give us food for our faith.

No. I'm offended by your jokes because they are racist. This is racist, pure and simple:

Hey, how do you get 100 Conservative Muslims into a VW?
Two in the front, Two in the back 96 in the ashtray.

You know how to make this joke really offensive to Conservative Muslims?
Put a woman in the driver's seat.
................................

Originally posted by Dervin:

Genocide is in your genetic code, you know when the english tell you to do something you'll have no choice but to do it. Your great-grandfather committed genocided and it's only a matter of time before you do. That's why you can't laugh about it.

My great-grandfather didn't commit genocide. I, personally, believe that the way the English behaved towards the Irish (which is, I assume, what you are referring to) was abhorrent and indefensible.

Earlier in this thread, you called me a bigot. Yet you feel it is fine to write "genocide is in your genetic code," and, further, that "your great-grandfather committed genocided and it's only a matter of time before you do." I guess you may respond that this is just your use of humour again, but, Dervin, it's really not - it is insulting, it is unfair.

You seem to have strong negative feelings towards the English and the Scottish races as a whole. Is it not possible for you to see that to claim that an entire country is predisposed to behave in a certain way because of past events is precisely the unnuanced, simplistic thinking that makes you equate the hijab with female genital mutilation?
............................

Originally posted by Dervin:

There's a difference between the cultures that actually make honest attempts at wiping a group of people off the earth and those that are capable of it.
The English, with their scottish henchmen have done it before.

Yet, however difficult this is for you to believe, [i]I, (nor my great-grandfather) are to blame for this, and, y'know, it does not follow that it will happen again.

The slave trade in the US was a terrible thing. Do I blame you for it? No. Do I think you have slavery "in your genetic code"? No. Do I think that because some people in the US were slave-owners, that "it is only a matter of time before" their descendants do? No.

..............................

Originally posted by Slojan:

And Grim, haven't you ever heard of black humour or gallows humor? Dervin is just jerking you around and you are letting him.

Yes, I've heard of black humour and gallows humour. This, though, is bigotry and racism - it is as bad as many of the things that Brutal has suggested. Dervin is, indeed 'jerking me around', but he is also being racist, and he deserves for this to be questioned.

..............................

Originally posted by Dervin:

Comments about the Scottish being spineless henchmen assisting England's genocidal ambitions against the freedom loving people of Ireland and other cultures. Not a joke.

That is coming across loud and clear. Do you feel I am in some way to blame, or responsible, for how the English have treated the Irish over the years, simply because I am English? Do you really think that, Dervin?

IP: Logged

posted Oct-11-2006 10:31 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by grimupnorth:
Dervin, there is a difference between a combination of facts and evidence of a causal relationship, or any relationship, between those facts.

---

And what is that difference?

IP: Logged

posted Oct-11-2006 10:37 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by grimupnorth:
Originally posted by Dervin:

[b] You are allowed your own opinions, but not your facts.
In the graph which country has the lowest female % of support for Sharia Law? Turkey.
Which country is moving towards sharia law? Everybody else.
Which country outlaws the hijiab? Turkey.

Dervin, there is a difference between a combination of facts and evidence of a causal relationship, or any relationship, between those facts.

And even in the UK, 40% of all Muslims want to introduce Sharia law

It is interesting that you have placed a biased perspective on an article from a newspaper that has presented its own biased perspective on the biased selection of data from a poll with an inherent bias within its methodology.

This is the data from the poll itself:

[URL=http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2006/Sunday%20Telegraph%20-%20Mulims%20Feb/Sunday%20Telegraph%20Muslims%20feb06.asp]http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2006/Sunday%20Telegraph%20-%20Mulims%20Feb/Sunday%20Telegraph%20Muslims%20feb06.asp[/UR L]

Firstly, the Telegraph is known in the UK for a certain political bias.

Secondly, I would question the methodology of the survey's sample selection:

In order to achieve the sample of 500, some respondents were asked for the telephone numbers of another Muslim.

It seems to me that someone asked to give contact details to someone conducting a survey is likely to give the contact details of someone with similar views. This doesn't in itself reduce the validity of the survey, but it does reduce the size of the sample that could be considered to be random, and reducing the size of the sample does reduce its reliability, which in turn could reduce its validity.

Thirdly, I would argue that there is a methodological query over the form of the questions. Remember that this survey, whilst conducted by an independent polling institution, was conducted on behalf of the Telegraph.

As an example, a question such as: Q7. Irrespective of whether you think the London bombings were justified or not, do you personally have any sympathy with the feelings and motives of those who carried out the attacks? can be interpreted in a number of ways, depending on how you use the phrase 'any sympathy'. For example, it could be interpreted as 'an understanding that they feel strongly enough about the actions and attitudes of the West to blow up public transport', or it could be interpreted as 'an understanding that they may have negative feelings towards how the West has conducted itself with regard to aspects of foreign policy'. There is a difference between those two.

Thirdly, the newspaper is selective in how it reports the results. In the example above, the newspaper reports that 'a fifth have sympathy', choosing not to note that the majority of those have only 'a little' sympathy, again bearing in mind the range of ways in which the question could be interpreted.

Fourthly, the newspaper is selective over which results it reports, e.g. it doesn't report that only 4% supported attacks by Al-Qaeda.

Fifthly, the headline rewords the question that was actually asked: the headline, without any additional information, would imply to me that what 40% of Muslims want is for Sharia law to come into effect in the UK as a whole, whereas the question asks: Would you support or oppose there being areas of Britain which are pre-dominantly Muslim and in which Sharia Law is introduced?[i]. There is a difference between these two.

.......................
Originally posted by Dervin:

The reason why you are so offended at my jokes about putting radical theocrats onto the train is because your ancestors were doing the exact same thing. Except for putting people on train cars, your great-grandfather threw my people off their farms, forced them to literally work to death, and drove us out of our own country, you would give us food for our faith.

No. I'm offended by your jokes because they are racist. This is racist, pure and simple:

Hey, how do you get 100 Conservative Muslims into a VW?
Two in the front, Two in the back 96 in the ashtray.

You know how to make this joke really offensive to Conservative Muslims?
Put a woman in the driver's seat.
................................

Originally posted by Dervin:

Genocide is in your genetic code, you know when the english tell you to do something you'll have no choice but to do it. Your great-grandfather committed genocided and it's only a matter of time before you do. That's why you can't laugh about it.

My great-grandfather didn't commit genocide. I, personally, believe that the way the English behaved towards the Irish (which is, I assume, what you are referring to) was abhorrent and indefensible.

Earlier in this thread, you called me a bigot. Yet you feel it is fine to write "genocide is in your genetic code," and, further, that "your great-grandfather committed genocided and it's only a matter of time before you do." I guess you may respond that this is just your use of humour again, but, Dervin, it's really not - it is insulting, it is unfair.

You seem to have strong negative feelings towards the English and the Scottish races as a whole. Is it not possible for you to see that to claim that an entire country is predisposed to behave in a certain way because of past events is precisely the unnuanced, simplistic thinking that makes you equate the hijab with female genital mutilation?
............................

Originally posted by Dervin:

There's a difference between the cultures that actually make honest attempts at wiping a group of people off the earth and those that are capable of it.
The English, with their scottish henchmen have done it before.

Yet, however difficult this is for you to believe, [i]I, (nor my great-grandfather) are to blame for this, and, y'know, it does not follow that it will happen again.

The slave trade in the US was a terrible thing. Do I blame you for it? No. Do I think you have slavery "in your genetic code"? No. Do I think that because some people in the US were slave-owners, that "it is only a matter of time before" their descendants do? No.

..............................

Originally posted by Slojan:

And Grim, haven't you ever heard of black humour or gallows humor? Dervin is just jerking you around and you are letting him.

Yes, I've heard of black humour and gallows humour. This, though, is bigotry and racism - it is as bad as many of the things that Brutal has suggested. Dervin is, indeed 'jerking me around', but he is also being racist, and he deserves for this to be questioned.

..............................

Originally posted by Dervin:

Comments about the Scottish being spineless henchmen assisting England's genocidal ambitions against the freedom loving people of Ireland and other cultures. Not a joke.

That is coming across loud and clear. Do you feel I am in some way to blame, or responsible, for how the English have treated the Irish over the years, simply because I am English? Do you really think that, Dervin?

[/B]

---

Looks like I hit a nerve there genocide boy, you need to have the same level of guilt Germans need to bear.

Now, now maybe a race riot might cheer you up a bit.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-11-2006 11:15 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dervin:
Now, now maybe a race riot might cheer you up a bit.

---

It didn't, really, especially after the Daily Mail got hold of it. But thanks for the thought.

Also, generalisations which masquerade as universals are often a tool of Teh Patriarchy.

Reposting Madeleine Bunting's thoughtful comment piece, which is at least relevant to the original topic.

I particularly liked this section:

quote:

---

But the bigger part of the muddle is why Straw felt entitled to privilege his emotional response without questioning it more deeply. Does it not occur to men opining on their sense of "rejection" at the niqab that it could be equally prompted by separatist lesbians? Or on another even more obvious tack: how comfortable does the woman wearing the niqab feel coming to visit her MP ensconced in his cultural context, at ease with enormous power and authority? Comfort is a disastrous new measure for interactions in a diverse society. I've got a long list of discomforts. Does that licence me to make demands of others? I find talking to blind people difficult because I rely on eye contact. Similarly, dark glasses are problematic. And, to my shame, I often give up on conversations with people hard of hearing because I over-rely on chat to kindle warmth.

So forget comfort and accept the starting point for any kind of tolerance: that it's not easy, that it requires imagination, that it makes demands of us. Learn new forms of communication and your world expands.

---

She also observes that the niqab issue is something of a red herring:

quote:

---

There are many far more important barriers to successful integration. Two-thirds of children from families of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin are growing up in poverty. More than 20% of all Muslim youths between 16 and 24 are unemployed. In many areas, the desire of second generation Muslims to integrate is being stymied by "white flight" from residential areas and white families using parental choice in education to avoid schools with large numbers of Asian pupils. Outgoing, confident ethnic communities are built where they find understanding, opportunity and engagement. We need to ask ourselves whether that is what we have provided.

---

Finally, she offers an interesting contextualisation for Jack Straw's remarks:

quote:

---

And there is another, equally ugly, agenda here. Many Muslims were surprised at Straw's comments - including close political Muslim allies - given his long relationship with the community in his constituency. There has been speculation on his political ambitions. But the point that intrigues me is how Straw is elevating this question as one of primary national concern. In an article on Tony Crosland in the New Statesman last month, Straw cited the Labour thinker's belief that class was the great divide in society, and added that, now, "religion" was the great divide.
Obviously, Straw meant Islam. No one is too worried about a shrinking number of Anglicans or Catholics. It's a magnificent convenience for New Labour to let the divides of class slip from view as they prove intractable and social mobility grinds to a halt. In its place, a divide is drawn between a Muslim minority and the vast majority of non-Muslims. It resonates - as the public response to Straw testifies - but it is profoundly mistaken.

---

Read the whole thing here.

[Edited for UBB cretinosity.]

[This message has been edited by liss (edited Oct-11-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Oct-11-2006 11:28 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by liss:
It didn't, really, especially after the Daily Mail got hold of it. But thanks for the thought.

---

You know, I wonder, when God looks down at her creation, sees the death and destruction spread about by the English, does She think to herself "WTF, I put these people on an island away from everybody else for a reason!!"

IP: Logged

posted Oct-11-2006 11:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dervin:
You know, I wonder, when God looks down at her creation, sees the death and destruction spread about by the English, does She think to herself "WTF, I put these people on an island away from everybody else for a reason!!"

---

So, why is Ireland an island?

IP: Logged

posted Oct-11-2006 04:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dervin:
Looks like I hit a nerve there genocide boy, you need to have the same level of guilt Germans need to bear.

Now, now maybe a race riot might cheer you up a bit.

---

The anti-English sentiment is obviously something you feel strongly about, Dervin, but I really am interested in knowing whether you feel that every single inhabitant of a country should be held directly responsible for the appalling actions of some of their countrymen some time ago.

You obviously take your Irish roots seriously, and I respect that, but I still feel there is something disrespectful on your part towards those roots if you feel it is OK to use it to support this kind of vitriol.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-11-2006 04:53 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dervin:
My people were victims by some of the very first genocides. We were systematically starved to death by the English and their Scottish henchmen.

---

No, they weren't.

Yes, there was a famine. Yes, millions died. To describe it as a "genocide" demeans Armenia, European Jewry and Darfur.

Read Cecil Woodham-Smith's The Great Hunger. It's a useful antidote to rural myth.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-11-2006 07:25 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by liss:
So, why is Ireland an island?

---

So the rest of Europe wouldn't feel depressed about how great the Irish are.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-11-2006 07:38 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by grimupnorth:
The anti-English sentiment is obviously something you feel strongly about, Dervin, but I really am interested in knowing whether you feel that every single inhabitant of a country should be held directly responsible for the appalling actions of some of their countrymen some time ago.

You obviously take your Irish roots seriously, and I respect that, but I still feel there is something disrespectful on your part towards those roots if you feel it is OK to use it to support this kind of vitriol.

---

Oh, I'm sorry, you people systematically rape and destroy millions of people and and hundreds of cultures for hundreds of years, I call you on it and I'm the bad guy.

Really we now know what the Liberals support in England.
1) Patriarchal abuse and oppression of Women.
2) Colonialism.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-11-2006 07:41 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iontach:
No, they weren't.

Yes, there was a famine. Yes, millions died. To describe it as a "genocide" demeans Armenia, European Jewry and Darfur.

---

So what happened to the American Indians?

IP: Logged

posted Oct-11-2006 07:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dervin:
So what happened to the American Indians?

---

IP: Logged

posted Oct-11-2006 07:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dervin:
So what happened to the American Indians?

---

Who laid the rail that brought hordes of White Devils to the West?

IP: Logged

posted Oct-11-2006 08:38 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dervin:
Oh, I'm sorry, you people systematically rape and destroy millions of people and and hundreds of cultures for hundreds of years, I call you on it and I'm the bad guy.

---

By the same token, you overthrew Allende and Mossadegh. And Bonhoeffer was a genocidist.

quote:

---

Really we now know what the Liberals support in England.
1) Patriarchal abuse and oppression of Women.
2) Colonialism.

---

Straw isn't a Liberal, you silly man. He's New Labour. For what the latest avatar of the Liberals in Britain (sic.) support, see here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dervin:
So what happened to the American Indians?

---

After 1776, lots. And the Crown can't be held responsible for a bit of it. That was your doing.

The entire thing has to be set against the background of the upcoming resignation of Tony Blair (he's said that he'll be gone by May 2007), and the jockeying for the succession. Straw's throwing his hat in the ring - ill-advisedly, but then, he's got to try to beat a Scot. Yes, another Scot - one has to go back to Michael Foot before you come to a (New) Labour leader who was English.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-11-2006 08:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iontach:
After 1776, lots. And the Crown can't be held responsible for a bit of it. That was your doing.

---

Right, and I have no problems coming to terms with the evil done in the US. Watch, The USA attempted Genocide against the American Indians.

See that wasn't so hard, admitting your guilt is good for the soul.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-11-2006 09:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iontach:
Straw isn't a Liberal, you silly man. He's New Labour. For what the latest avatar of the Liberals in Britain (sic.)

---

Right, and how sad is it when the white male who's defending oppressed brown women is a "conservative."

IP: Logged

posted Oct-11-2006 09:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dervin:
Right, and how sad is it when the white male who's defending oppressed brown women is a "conservative."

---

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here - or who.

I can't for the life of me see how this got turned into what seems to be a fit of rancor directed personally against grimupnorth.

I wonder if Straw has difficulty talking on the phone or debating on radio, and whether he would object to traditional Roman Catholic confessionals, where neither participant can see the other's face. There's arguably a case to be made for the veil being a a male construct for the oppression of women, but as a constituency MP in the North of England, he must have been managing ok in spite of it. Making the statement that he did was simply attention-seeking in the context of a leadership battle.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-11-2006 09:39 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dervin:
You know, I wonder, when God looks down at her creation, sees the death and destruction spread about by the English, does She think to herself "WTF, I put these people on an island away from everybody else for a reason!!"

---

Um, you do know that England isn't an island, yes? If you're looking for a genocide in the British Isles, the Highland Clearances would arguably fit the bill much better than Phytophthora infestans 1845-9. It wasn't in any sense at all a natural disaster; the Irish potato famine was.

But then, the Clearances happened to the Scots. So they wouldn't really count.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-11-2006 09:59 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iontach:
Um, you do know that England isn't an island, yes? If you're looking for a genocide in the British Isles, the Highland Clearances would arguably fit the bill much better than Phytophthora infestans 1845-9. It wasn't in any sense at all a natural disaster; the Irish potato famine was.

But then, the Clearances happened to the Scots. So they wouldn't really count.

---

The Blight was a natural disaster, the starvation of Ireland was systematic and Englishman-made.

During the famine years, Ireland was a net exporter of food.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-11-2006 10:28 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iontach:

I can't for the life of me see how this got turned into what seems to be a fit of rancor directed personally against grimupnorth.

---

Basically because grimupnorth refused to be tolerant to how my people deal with genocide.

In grimupnorth's worldview:
1) Oppression of women by Islam: Good
2) Making jokes about genocide by Irishmen: Bad.

IP: Logged