Muslims Muslims Muslims

[M.Dancer]

Canada has 20% less non-white "minorities" then the US.. . i dunno how you figure..

Even if we had 50% less, they are still part and parcel with mainstream society.

...on the otherhand we have about 95% more french...yet we still place in the top.

[lictor616]

Even if we had 50% less, they are still part and parcel with mainstream society.

...on the otherhand we have about 95% more french...yet we still place in the top.

you have no way to sustain this argument...

swapping 15 million white canadians with say ... 15 million middle easterners could very well mean any of the following: sharia law, islamic community planning (economic and otherwise), different languages, different dietary habits, different relationships vis-a-vis trading nations...

either way I,m not so sure how the tamils that are our protesting for their terrorist brethren, or any number of the eminently disposable minority unnassimilables, irreconcilables are "part and parcel" with mainstream society... unless you greatly alter any reasonable definition of what is mainstream Canadian society.

Edited September 9, 2009 by lictor616

[M.Dancer]

you have no way to sustain this argument...

swapping 15 million white canadians with say ... 15 million middle easterners could very well mean any of the following: sharia law, islamic community planning (economic and otherwise), different languages, different dietary habits, different relationships vis-a-vis trading nations...

I'm not sure that making Canada something it isn't for the sake of an argument qualifies as rational. We could aslo swap 15 million white Canadians for 15 million russians and we will be as eaqually differnt than what we were. We would have rampant crime, prostitution etc etc....

either way I,m not so sure how the tamils that are our protesting for their terrorist brethren, or any number of the eminently disposable minority unnassimilables, irreconcilables are "part and parcel" with mainstream society... unless you greatly alter any reasonable definition of what is mainstream Canadian society.

That because you are young and naive. Protests are as much part of Canada as snow in winter. Whether you don't like, or like has no bearing on whether the protesters are integrating into our society.

Whether you choose to face reality or not is not germaine to the facts. Tamils like most others who come here learn the language, send their kids to schools, buy houses, shop at loblaws, pay taxes, start business .....I'm afraid they can't do much more than that, your little social club won't have them as members.

[lictor616]

I'm not sure that making Canada something it isn't for the sake of an argument qualifies as rational.

ahem... i'm sorry dancer but you were the first to come up with the laughable hypothetical proposition that

"Even if we had 50% less, they are still part and parcel with mainstream society."

you're the one changing canada to what it is not to make a point you cannot make. namely that no matter what mix of people reside in canada... that they will always have the same qualities, and characteristics, values and ways of viewing the world...

This isn't true for the overwhelming majority of third worlders here ... and it could be even less true if these same third worlders would be numerical majorities...

[M.Dancer]

ahem... i'm sorry dancer but you were the first to come up with the laughable hypothetical proposition that

Comprehension isn't your strong suit.

QUOTE (lictor616 @ Sep 9 2009, 02:57 PM)

Canada has 20% less non-white "minorities" then the US.. . i dunno how you figure..

Even if we had 50% less, they are still part and parcel with mainstream society.

Explain why having 50% less non whites is equal to deporting 15 million canadians and replacing them with 15 million mid easteners...

On the otherhand, don't bother, concentrate on backing up your other lie about race quotas and the south shore cops...

[justme]

That because you are young and naive. Protests are as much part of Canada as snow in winter. Whether you don't like, or like has no bearing on whether the protesters are integrating into our society.

When the protesters are waving the flag of what Canada officially recognizes as a terrorist group in support of said terrorist group, I disagree with you. I recall reading about an Australian tourist's disgust by it in the Toronto Star, and quite frankly, I share her disgust.

By the way, the question was asked if I would live somewhere other than Canada, and the answer is that I think I would be quite happy in Australia. It's something that I've thought about, and might do at some point in the future. Not that I dislike Canada, but I also really like Australia and they have similar living standards.

[M.Dancer]

When the protesters are waving the flag of what Canada officially recognizes as a terrorist group in support of said terrorist group, I disagree with you. I recall reading about an Australian tourist's disgust by it in the Toronto Star, and quite frankly, I share her disgust.

Feel free to disagree, won't make you right though. I remember watching demos in the 80s..white canadians protesting US interference in the soviet invasion of afghanistan...waving the soviet flag. Being imbeciles didn't take a atom away from being Canadian.

[JB Globe]

Just because I ignore YOU, doesn't mean I ignore valid, logical, factual information presented elsewhere.

This isn't the first time you've said you ignore me, it's also not the first time you've followed that statement with a huge post. So which is it? Are you ignoring me or are you responding to me?

Make up your mind please.

As for your claim that you don't ignore valid, logical and factual information - you've managed to completely ignore the Topkapi Declaration and Amman Message. I've actually addressed both of the quotes you posted, and you've completely ignored mine. I guess you realize that you really have nothing to counter them, in terms of a consensus statement from hundreds of influential Muslim leaders on various vital issues, and you must be thinking that by simply not addressing them, you're discrediting them. If you had to address them, you'd have to acknowledge their significance.

Well, yeah, it would, since you posited that I do so, and have now adopted that completely unsupported (and dumb) opinion as an accepted fact.

I doubt that's true. It's bound to be out there, but I didn't have to search the web. I took the quotes from one of my own posts here from 2004. One states the Sun was the source, the other is unsourced. Although later I cite the Free Muslims Coalition, which I rather doubt is anti-muslim.

When you Google any sentence from those quotes, all you get is anti-Islamic websites. Even when you google-search mapleleafweb, you don't get anything. When you use this site's in-forum search engine for the names of the two Imams, there are no posts from 2004. The oldest is 2006, and none of them mention where you got the quotes from.

All this could be settled with a link to the source material, or even to a link that references the original source. I'll even apologize if it turns out I'm wrong.

But from where I stand it looks like my initial claim is correct: that one of your primary sources of information on Islam are anti-Islamic websites.

You said this earlier: "Yeah, sure I might google on occasion and come up with a site which can be correctly described as anti-Islamic, but that does not make the facts presented incorrect"

Actually, hack-sites like those are most often extremely incorrect. I steer far away from sites that might support my argument but read extremely amateurish (and I'm not talking about the web-design) because I can be sure that some of the articles on there are plagiarized. Some of the articles you've read on those websites which you thought were from newspapers may have actually been anonymous chainmails, and the "facts" they mentioned may be complete fabrications or distortions. In general, it's a terrible idea to use those websites for anything.

But again, that isn't the point. You're trying to make it the point because whenever anyone says anything or gives an opinion a PC zealot like you doesn't like, your immediate inclination is to attack that person, to insult them, to demonize them, to suggest some great fault of morality and values - and only deal with the actual statement as a secondary issue, and only then if absolutely necessary.

Actually I addressed the statements already, I acknowledged them, I noted that they're representative of a problem in parts the Muslim world. But what I also said is that they're not representative of most Muslims' opinions, and I backed that up with the two declarations I mentioned earlier.

Either you missed that part, or your intentionally claiming I never addressed it as a means of discrediting me.

You always claim I deny that there are problems in the Muslim world, but I always acknowledge them, where we disagree is the scale of these problems. You think they are all-encompassing, that every Muslim is the same thing as a terrorist or a extreme-conservative. With that worldview a solution to dealing with the "Muslim problem" can only involve global war, and national policies of discrimination against Muslims, or violence, or both. Of course, you always allude to this sort of neo-Crusade approach, but never articulate it.

My view is that these problems are found throughout the Muslim world in small but potentially serious quantities. You want to put the fires out before they spread, and you want to cut off any fuel that may be keeping them going. Some of these problems might have legitimate concerns that fuel them - but they are expressed in illegitimate ways (ie - Palestinian statehood = good, using terrorism to get Palestinian statehood = not good) My approach would involve working with Muslims to put down these problems, which apparently you find a repulsive idea because you have already made up in your mind that they are the enemy.

Actually, my statement, if one chose to paraphrase it, is that the Muslim world is socially backwards.

That's pretty much the same thing as "Islam is a backward religion" except you're focusing on the followers (Muslims) and not the religion (Islam). But that's kind of disingenuous, because you've quoted Islamic texts before as a means of discrediting the religion itself, so I suppose you really do think both are awful.

I didn't quote a couple of major religious figures to prove anything. You demanded I quote some major religious figures to show radicalism so I complied.

Actually, when you make a statement such as "the Muslim world is socially backward" the onus is on you to prove that statement to be true. That's what I was looking for - I was looking to see if your argument has any legs to stand on, and the opinions of two Imams who may have an audience of 1-2% of the total population of the Muslim world do not in any way account for what the other 98% think.

As it stands, your opinion of the Muslim world is still just that - your own personal opinion, not a fact.

I don't need to quote religious figures to show that the Muslim world is socially backwards. I don't have to recite examples of the backwards and racist newspaper editorials and opinions, the school textbooks, the governmental statements. I don't even have to list the endless brutal political and religious violence or the brutality of religious law as applied in Muslim nations. I could instead simply go over the rather well-known attitudes of the world's Muslim nations and societies with regard to such things as womens rights, gay rights, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. In every Muslim nation the majority of the population, in some cases a very substantial majority, are in favour of Sharia law. That alone is more than enough indication for a honest mind to consider them socially backward.

Go ahead and list away. Go ahead and post the Sharia Law poll results. At least then we would have an objective base of facts to debate. That's normally how this stuff works. Generally people try and prove their statements to be true instead of alluding to things that may or may not be true, or trying to get out of doing their own homework and telling people: "if you don't believe me, go and look at all the news stories that prove that Muslims are evil!"

Oh yes, for every thousand or so acts of Muslim terrorism, there are probably three or four by non-Muslims, too, maybe even half a dozen.

Terrorism is a tactic used by groups to exert control over a larger group, nation or institution with whom they could not or choose not to engage with directly in conflict. It's also a crime against humanity, and there are many other crimes against humanity - genocide, forced exodus, state torture, forced labour, etc - all of these are brutal and terrible. I prefer looking at the whole picture when it comes to judging how "backward" a society is.

If you were to look at the last 100 years, at all of the deaths and the suffering caused by humanity, would you conclude that most of the crimes against humanity have been committed by Muslims? How about the past 50 years? 25? 10?

I'm sorry but I just don't think the history books back up your worldview. It is simply not a radical notion to suggest that Muslims are not inherently more brutal than the rest of us, and that the current situation in some Muslim nations might have more to do with the economic and political realities faced by all post-colonial states, than some inherent barbarism within Islam you keep alluding to.

Like?

Turkey, Guyana, Senegal, UAE, Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey. I think any of these states have made big positive steps from where they were when they gained independence, or in the case of Turkey, from the Ottoman period. And if you look at the curve of progress in terms of economic equality, social services, democratic rights, innovation, equality and stability, they're good examples.

But of course, they are post-colonial states for the most part, and as a result have had to deal with problems that the colonial powers never had to, and as a result, I'm sure a cherry-picker such as yourself can find a bone to pick.

Now you can go ahead and try and find a news article on an incident in one of these countries to blow out of proportion/take out of context.

Blah, blah, blah, blah blah. It's all whitey's fault! Bullshit.

Looks like I struck a nerve. What was it specifically? The implication that the problems in the developing world aren't just a result of those people's social backwardness? That maybe the several centuries that Europe sucked money out of their countries and oppressed their indigenous development towards modernity might have had something to do with it?

That maybe 200-400 years or more of a shrinking economy and repressing domestic reform and evolution at the hands of a European power might take more than a half century to correct? Especially when those powers are still interfering in these nations to this very day?

How long are you people on the far left going to continue to excuse the behaviour of nations and cultures because of colonialism?

Explaining isn't excusing. And this isn't a far-left argument, this is a viewpoint that most of humanity shares, because most of humanity lives in a nation that was formerly under colonial occupation.

And I will stop saying that the situation of the developing world is party the fault of the West the minute Western nations stop supporting leaders in developing countries based on the criteria of if these leaders are going to align themselves with our economic/strategic interests and sell out their people for their own personal gain in the process.

Colonialism is a rotten process for the colonized. The Americans had it the best in the colonial world but that still didn't stop them from rising up against Britain and attaining independence. If it was bad enough there to make people want a revolution, imagine how bad it was in countries that weren't majority-populated by Europeans.

Do you really think there'd be so much violence directed against Western interests in these countries if we didn't support corrupt and/or dictatorial regimes? I mean, the West has overthrown democratic governments because some countries didn't like the (perfectly legal) policies that government was going to introduce.

Most of the world was colonized, yet the level of barbarism from the Muslim world remains consistently above everyone elses. The level of democratic advancement remains below everyone elses. The level of educational and scientific achievement remains well below everyone else.

See, this is the problem with relying on anti-Islamic websites, you think bad things only happen in Muslim countries . . .

What are the worst cases of genocide in the last 100 years? How many of them occured in a Muslim-majority country? How democratic is Congo compared with Senegal? North Korea to Turkey? Burma to Malaysia? China to Indonesia? As for educational and scientific achievement - that's lower than European countries (us included) because colonial nations don't have the same tax base to fund them as well as we do, because (as explaned earlier) we were shrinking their economies for a few centuries and funneled all the growth to build our own systems. They're catching up.

The West has little interest in the Muslim world save to stop terrorism and to continue to ensure oil gets shipped out. I think most of us would prefer democratic nations in that region, but there seems to be no particular interest in such by the locals. There are anti-government pressures in all Islamic countries, but they are virtually all agitating for religious dictatorship, not democracy and democratic values.

Frankly I don't think it's any nation's right to decide the internal affairs of another, especially something as oppressive as preventing a population from deciding their own government. It smacks of hypocrisy that a country born out of colonial revolution (US) and forging a new political order would limit the means of a nation to decide their own affairs.

Don't be obtuse. I'm comparing their social backwardness to the West because the West is the epicentre of societal and cultural development today.

And this brief blip in human history where the centre of global power wasn't in the Middle East, India or China appears to be coming to an end. Frankly I don't know how people like yourself are going to handle not being the centre of the universe anymore.

And because part of the argument I've made is that bringing socially backward Muslims into Canada by the hundreds of thousands is not good for our cultural development as a nation.

I don't need to pick and choose among Muslim nations. They're ALL socially backward.

Jesus Christ, is this the level of debate here? "I don't actually need to give specific examples" Of course you do, you need to be specific otherwise anyone can make any sort of claim about anything.

Case in point (disclaimer, I don't actually believe what I'm about to write):

All Western-nations are war-mongerers and their public likes to dress up their wars of Imperialism but in their heart of hearts they know that they are savage conquerors no different than their colonial ancestors.

There, both your and my arguments are just as legit, since we don't have to be specific and ARTICULATE what we actually mean, there's no way that either can be disproven. Either they're both right or they're both wrong, take a pick.

You're just avoiding being specific because you CAN'T be specific, you don't really know much about the histories of individual Muslim countries, or their current domestic situations. That's why you lump them together as one unit - even though Kyrgyzstan and Guyana have about as much in common as the Philippines and Brazil.

here, it's just as airtight

Remember that when the world court indicted Sudan's president for the slaughter in Darfur, the entire Muslim world, in the person of the Organization of the Islamic Congress, jumped in and defended him, saying he was doing nothing at all wrong. He then went on a tour of various Muslim nations, and was greeted as a friend and statesman.

Here again, your ignorance leads you to the wrong conclusion. If you had ever read any colonial studies, you'd understand that most post-colonial nations are deeply distrustful of any international institutions that are supported by the West, and for very good reasons most of the time. That includes the ICC which is trying to try the Sudanese Prez. Sometimes this distrust causes people to rationalize away bad things that other African/Muslim/post-colonial national leaders are doing because they also appear to be standing up to Western neo-colonialism. The Prez is exploiting this much in the same way Mugabe did before (and it's not working anymore) and Idi Amin did in the past.

It's wrong, but I can't really criticize this as irrational paranoia - when you muck around in countries the way we do, this is what happens.

It happens every where on different issues. The Poles for example react much stronger and more fearful to every move Russia makes, even when they're not aggressive sometimes, it's not that they're irrational - but it's because of their history with Russia that makes them view things differently.

Well by all means, then, go ahead and post all the reams of positive information about the great cultural awakening of the Muslim world, it's social enlightenment and the great upwelling of equality and respect for individuality! Let's hear about the wonderful scientific accomplishments and achievements, the numerous Nobel prizes for literature and the arts directed to the Muslim world!

I never said the Muslim world was any of those things, all I said is that the Muslim world is almost all post-colonial, and the nations within it are no better or worse off than most other post-colonial countries.

That statement of mine was in response to your earlier claim of the "social backwardness" of Muslims, for which after all these thousands of words, you haven't provided and substantial information to prove your viewpoint.

Fact is, the only thing that's come out of the Muslim world in the last century that has had any importance or relevence to the world is oil. And the Muslims didn't discover it, drill for it, build the pipelines or the refineries or the ports. They just sat on it and held their hands out for money from those who did.

You could say the same thing about the non-Muslim developing world in general, though - couldn't you?

You could also say regions of the world rise in fall in influence and power, and while Europe might be enjoying a historical anomaly now, it wasn't so in the past - when during the Dark Ages in Europe Muslims were enjoying a Golden Age. They did what all great societies do: take in ideas from outside, combine them with your own, and innovate. That's why they translated so many Greek and Roman texts, that's why years later when their Golden Age was done, European scholars came to their libraries to copy the works of the ancients that had disappeared in their countries.

You have a very Supremacist view of history (and therefor inaccurate) - sorry to break it to you, but Europe is not the centre of all of humanity for all history. You've got to share that stage with people who aren't white - will you be able to handle it without throwing a hissy fit?

You go on and on about the need for proof and then take it as a given that I'm a White Supremacist simply because I don't feel the need to dignify your moronic personal insults with a denial?

I take it as a given because your views are IDENTICAL to the common views of White Nationalism.

It's kind of like this:

"I am not a communist! You don't know what you're talking about. Just because I hate free-markets and private property, and I advocate full government control of the economy doesn't make me a communist!"

Let's summarize: You think all Muslims and all (or most) non-Europeans are culturally backward, you think that most of the major advances in humanity have come from Europeans (either in the last 500 years or even beyond that), you think that all of the problems in the developing world are a result of those people's own incompetence, you believe that might makes right and that we have the right to impose our strategic interests on other nations even if it goes against their self-determination because we are culturally superior to them and our interests matter more than theirs, you believe that all European societies are primarily for people of European and/or Christian background and as such can institute discriminatory policies for non-Europeans, and non-Christians. You also believe that the source of most of the current problems in Western nations are a result of immigration from non-European nations. You also allude to a kind of neo-Crusade against the entire Muslim world that is needed and blur the lines between combatant and civilian, since in your mind all Muslims are terrorist-supporters to some degree.

Is any of this off-base?

Hope you don't mind me doing this, just returning the favour for that rant about me being a welfare-writer or whatever it was. Which by the way I responded to, because I'm not a coward and I can stand up and state my beliefs clearly and concisely without worrying about what others might call me. You should try it sometime, maybe it will help with that long look in the mirror I talked about earlier.

Researched every post I've ever made, have you, chump? Read every word I've written on the subject? Or is that I'm expected to summarize everything in every single post?

I've read many posts by you, and never seen one iota of a solution to any of the problems you document. In fact that's all your posts are - you post an article, claim that there is a catastrophic and widespread problem (usually involving Islam) and then when pressed as to your solutions, you either don't respond or disappear from the post.

And MANY people have asked you to clarify your solution to these issues, not just me.

Personally I think you don't respond because you DON'T HAVE A SOLUTION, the only thing you can think of is a global crusade or turning into a racist state and you're not Lictor - you're not under the impression that such an idea has any more support than turning this country into a communist state.

Honestly, you just wrote thousands of words in this post, but you won't write a few hundred to clarify your position on two things?

I'm sorry but I just don't buy this "I'm too honourable" routine of yours.

Spare me your drivel about personal anecdotes being so dreadfully important in understanding the Muslim world. I don't have any personal acquaintance with street gang members either, but I don't feel that's particularly relevant in condemning their behaviour.

Wow. Wonderful, you condemn behaviour. Thank you great white man, I'm sure lots of gang members and terrorists will listen to you now. How about you spend less time on things that never work like finger-waving and tsk-tsking and spend more time trying to understand a problem so that you can actually solve it.

Or would that involve too much listening to people who aren't white and taking their word for things? Would you be able to stand trying to empathize with someone who has more melanin than you?

Maybe if there weren't any more gang-violence or terrorism, you wouldn't know what to do with yourself and who to hate? Well they're always us Jews if you ever get lonely, we've been done a lot worse by a lot better than you Argus and we're still here. Personally I think everyone else will move on up despite the drivel you post here.

Have a nice life writing whatever it is you write.

[jbg]

none of your top 10 are majority black or even all that "integrated". In fact the majority of the top countries cited are +95% white, with the duly noted exception of the US (which is progressively weakening).

I decry the white supremacist nature of your posts.

The remark I quoted is ill-informed and wrong. We are a far stronger nation than we were 30 years ago. The fact is that many of our country's greats are ethnic minorities. George Washington Carver and Joseph Pulitzer rank among them.

Youo hatred and bigotry will not go unnoticed.

[lictor616]

I decry the white supremacist nature of your posts.

The remark I quoted is ill-informed and wrong. We are a far stronger nation than we were 30 years ago. The fact is that many of our country's greats are ethnic minorities. George Washington Carver and Joseph Pulitzer rank among them.

Youo hatred and bigotry will not go unnoticed.

The US is far weaker then it was vis-a-vis the rest of the world then it was in the 70,s.... actually the US is fast approaching bankruptcy and are currently permitted to delay their collapse thanks only to the condescending generosity given them by such trading nations as Japan, India, Japan etc... The US is no longer the strongest industrial nation... its industry has been exported to countries such as china and japan out of sheer shortsightedness. In every aspect from literacy rates to childhood obesity, to eduction to crime, poverty etc, the US is much worse off then it was 30 years ago... I actually referenced statistics to that effect many times here.

yes G. Washington Carver the Great inventor of "starch and peanut butter"...

yes who would have thought of mashing peanuts into a paste! Thank god for that man...

never mind that the incas had peanut butter and starch 2000 years before carver ever thought of it.. never mind that you can check out the patent of peanut butter being registered over at Mcgill University... its actually US patent #306727 issued to Marcellus Gilmore Edson of Montreal, Quebec in 1884,

so whoops I guess that Carver like so many of these brilliant black minds are pure exaggerations to over inflate the sense of superiority of black kids, and lower the self esteem of white kids who believe what disgusting little toads in our schools tell them...

Edited September 10, 2009 by lictor616

[Guest American Woman]

yes G. Washington Carver the Great inventor of "starch and peanut butter"...

yes who would have thought of mashing peanuts into a paste! Thank god for that man...

never mind that the incas had peanut butter and starch 2000 years before carver ever thought of it.. never mind that you can check out the patent of peanut butter being registered over at Mcgill University... its actually US patent #306727 issued to Marcellus Gilmore Edson of Montreal, Quebec in 1884,

so whoops I guess that Carver like so many of these brilliant black minds are pure exaggerations to over inflate the sense of superiority of black kids, and lower the self esteem of white kids who believe what disgusting little toads in our schools tell them...

If that's all you know about Carver, peanut butter, you are a prime example of why there's a need for Black History Month.

[Bonam]

If that's all you know about Carver, peanut butter, you are a prime example of why there's a need for Black History Month.

I disagree, all that's needed is Wikipedia and 5 minutes of time:

George Washington Carver (January 1864[1][2] – January 5, 1943), was an American scientist, botanist, educator and inventor whose studies and teaching revolutionized agriculture in the Southern United States. The day and year of his birth are unknown; he is believed to have been born before slavery was abolished in Missouri in January 1864.[1]

Much of Carver's fame is based on his research into and promotion of alternative crops to cotton, such as peanuts and sweet potatoes. He wanted poor farmers to grow alternative crops both as a source of their own food and as a source of other products to improve their quality of life. The most popular of his 44 practical bulletins for farmers contained 105 food recipes that used peanuts.[3] He also created or disseminated[clarification needed] about 100 products made from peanuts that were useful for the house and farm, including cosmetics, dyes, paints, plastics, gasoline, and nitroglycerin.

In the Reconstruction South, an agricultural monoculture of cotton depleted the soil, and in the early 20th century the boll weevil destroyed much of the cotton crop. Carver's work on peanuts was intended to provide an alternative crop.

In addition to his work on agricultural extension education for purposes of advocacy of sustainable agriculture and appreciation of plants and nature, Carver's important accomplishments also included improvement of racial relations, mentoring children, poetry, painting, and religion. He served as an example of the importance of hard work, a positive attitude, and a good education. His humility, humanitarianism, good nature, frugality, and rejection of economic materialism also have been admired widely.

One of his most important roles was in undermining, through the fame of his achievements and many talents, the widespread stereotype of the time that the black race was intellectually inferior to the white race. In 1941, Time magazine dubbed him a "Black Leonardo", a reference to the Renaissance Italian polymath Leonardo da Vinci.[4] To commemorate his life and inventions, George Washington Carver Recognition Day is celebrated on January 5, the anniversary of Carver's death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Carver

Edited September 10, 2009 by Bonam

[jbg]

If that's all you know about Carver, peanut butter, you are a prime example of why there's a need for Black History Month.

If racist Lictor 616 isn't curious enough or smart enough to do his own research, here's some help (link):

At Tuskegee, Carver developed his crop rotation method, which alternated nitrate producing legumes-such as peanuts and peas-with cotton, which depletes soil of its nutrients. Following Carver's lead, southern farmers soon began planting peanuts one year and cotton the next. While many of the peanuts were used to feed livestock, large surpluses quickly developed. Carver then developed 325 different uses for the extra peanuts-from cooking oil to printers ink. When he discovered that the sweet potato and the pecan also enriched depleted soils, Carver found almost 20 uses for these crops, including synthetic rubber and material for paving highways.

The farmers were ecstatic with the tremendous quality of cotton and tobacco they grew later but quickly grew angry because the amount of peanuts they harvested was too plentiful and began to rot in overflowing warehouses. Within a week, Carver had experimented with and devised dozens of uses for the peanut, including milk and cheese. In later years he would produce more than 300 products that could be developed from the lowly peanut, including ink, facial cream, shampoo and soap.

Suddenly, the same farmers who cursed him now found that a new industry had sprung up that could use their surplus peanuts. Next, Carver looked at ways of utilizing the sweet potato and was able to develop more than 115 products from it including flour, starch and synthetic rubber (the United States Army utilized many of his products during World War I.)

Edited September 10, 2009 by jbg

[Guest American Woman]

I disagree, all that's needed is Wikipedia and 5 minutes of time:

All anyone needs is to take the time to find things out; to learn and educate themselves. But people don't. Obviously lictor didn't. He wasn't even right about the peanut butter thing. Carter came up with peanut butter in 1880, four years prior to the patent he mentioned, but he didn't take a patent out. So I repeat-- lictor's a prime example of the need for a Black History month.

But I must point out that Black History Month is responsible for your looking up George Washington Carver, so some good does come out of it.

Edited September 10, 2009 by American Woman

[jbg]

To commemorate his life and inventions, George Washington Carver Recognition Day is celebrated on January 5, the anniversary of Carver's death.[/i]

He shares a date of death with another distinguished (though not as famous) American; my father, in 1973.

[jbg]

Carter came up with peanut butter in 1880, four years prior to the patent he mentioned, but he didn't take a patent out.

Carver's views on patenting (link, same as my post above):

Although he did hold three patents, Carver never patented most of the many discoveries he made while at Tuskegee, saying "God gave them to me, how can I sell them to someone else?" Three different patents were issued: US 1,522,176 Cosmetics and Producing the Same. Jan. 6,1925 George Washington Carver. Tuskegee, Alabama. US 1,541,478 Paint and Stain and Producing the Same. June 9, 1925 George Washington Carver. Tuskegee, Alabama US 1,632,365 Producing Paints and Stains June 14, 1927 George Washington Carver. Tuskegee, Alabama.

[Bonam]

All anyone needs is to take the time to find things out; to learn and educate themselves. But people don't. Obviously lictor didn't. He wasn't even right about the peanut butter thing. Carter came up with peanut butter in 1880, four years prior to the patent he mentioned, but he didn't take a patent out. So I repeat-- lictor's a prime example of the need for a Black History month.

People learn what interests them. Lictor may not care about black history or black accomplishment, I don't know. But if he doesn't care about learning such things then imposing "black history month" isn't gonna change anything. Or should the information be bludgeoned into everyone, even against their will?

But I must point out that Black History Month is responsible for your looking up George Washington Carver, so some good does come out of it.

No this thread is responsible for me looking him up, and the subject of this thread happens to be "Muslims Muslims Muslims" not black history month.

[Guest American Woman]

People learn what interests them. Lictor may not care about black history or black accomplishment, I don't know. But if he doesn't care about learning such things then imposing "black history month" isn't gonna change anything. Or should the information be bludgeoned into everyone, even against their will?

If he's not interested, then he shouldn't be mouthing off about it. Incorrectly mouthing off about it, I might add.

No this thread is responsible for me looking him up, and the subject of this thread happens to be "Muslims Muslims Muslims" not black history month.

My comment about Black History Month was responsible for your looking him up.

[Bonam]

If he's not interested, then he shouldn't be mouthing off about it. Incorrectly mouthing off about it, I might add.

Well I believe that people are entitled to their opinions. Even white supremacists. I think suppressing any kind of speech, even the most unsavory, is a bad policy.

My comment about Black History Month was responsible for your looking him up.

Sure, and lictor's comment before that was responsible for you making that comment, and he made his comment in response to something else, etc. Can trace it back to the start of the thread Haha but that's just nitpicking obviously, doesn't matter either way. That's one of the reasons I enjoy spending some of my time debating stuff on here, I look up quite a bit of information in the process and learn a lot of things I wouldn't have otherwise.

[Guest American Woman]

Well I believe that people are entitled to their opinions. Even white supremacists. I think suppressing any kind of speech, even the most unsavory, is a bad policy.

You do realize that there's a difference between "opinion" and "fact," right? And lictor's "opinion" about Carver was in "fact" incorrect.

That's one of the reasons I enjoy spending some of my time debating stuff on here, I look up quite a bit of information in the process and learn a lot of things I wouldn't have otherwise.

That's cool that you look up information and learn things because of the forum. I do too. Don't know why you have to deny that Black History Month had anything to do with it in this particular instance, though; is it so difficult to admit that people can learn something as a result?

[Bonam]

You do realize that there's a difference between "opinion" and "fact," right? And lictor's "opinion" about Carver was in "fact" incorrect.

That's cool that you look up information and learn things because of the forum. I do too. Don't know why you have to deny that Black History Month had anything to do with it in this particular instance, though; is it so difficult to admit that people can learn something as a result?

No I'm sure they can learn things as a result. But there are plenty of fields of knowledge worthy of being learned by people. What's so special about black history that it needs its own month, especially in Canada? Why not Mongol history month? Mexican history month? Or perhaps the month of mathematics? The month of psychology? The month of quantum chromodynamics? These are all valid subjects, no less valid than black history.

Why do we have to have a month of some specific subject rammed down our throats?

Edited September 10, 2009 by Bonam

[M.Dancer]

Well I believe that people are entitled to their opinions.

I believe everyone is entitled to my opinion. White Nationalists though should fill out a disclaimer form first before they distort it.

[Guest American Woman]

No I'm sure they can learn things as a result. But there are plenty of fields of knowledge worthy of being learned by people. What's so special about black history that it needs its own month, especially in Canada? Why not Mongol history month? Mexican history month? Or perhaps the month of mathematics? The month of psychology? The month of quantum chromodynamics? These are all valid subjects, no less valid than black history.

Don't know why Black History wouldn't be necessary "especially in Canada;" everybody up there already know all there is to know about Black history? As for your other suggestions, I'd be fine with them. Don't know that there's anyone out there lobbying for them, though. But the more knowledge we're subjected to, the better; because I agree with you. We can learn things as a result.

I think it would be a good idea to have 'history' and 'geography' spots on tv the way the U.S. used to have "bi-centennial minutes." With all the time people spend watching tv, maybe kids would learn from that what they don't learn in school.

[Bonam]

Don't know why Black History wouldn't be necessary "especially in Canada;" everybody up there already know all there is to know about Black history? As for your other suggestions, I'd be fine with them.

Well in that case we disagree. People should be free to learn about what they want when they want. I don't want any groups organizing "months" all the time to ram specific knowledge down our throats. Rather, we should have useful information on all subjects simply made more available for everyone. If someone wants to learn about black history, great, if someone wants to learn about something else and not black history, that's fine too.

Don't know that there's anyone out there lobbying for them, though. But the more knowledge we're subjected to, the better; because I agree with you. We can learn things as a result

See, I don't think we should be "subjected to" knowledge. We should go out and seek knowledge if we want it. Knowledge can be presented, can be made available and easily accessible. But to be "subjected" to it? That is like being forced to watch propaganda.

I think it would be a good idea to have 'history' and 'geography' spots on tv the way the U.S. used to have "bi-centennial minutes." With all the time people spend watching tv, maybe kids would learn from that what they don't learn in school.

Sure, I'm all for having more useful education content on TV. When I was a kid I watched Discovery, TLC, and History more than any of the other channels. But I don't think the information presented to us on TV should have a month where it is all focused on one specific field (I realize that's not what happens, just hypothetical). We should have a choice of what we want to learn about.

[Guest American Woman]

Well in that case we disagree. People should be free to learn about what they want when they want. I don't want any groups organizing "months" all the time to ram specific knowledge down our throats. Rather, we should have useful information on all subjects simply made more available for everyone. If someone wants to learn about black history, great, if someone wants to learn about something else and not black history, that's fine too.

if you don't want to learn about Black history, don't pay attention. Choose not to learn anything about it. Kids are doing that in school all the time regarding all kinds of "specific knowledge" that they are having "rammed down their throats." It's the fact that you have a problem with it being presented that I don't get.

See, I don't think we should be "subjected to" knowledge. We should go out and seek knowledge if we want it. Knowledge can be presented, can be made available and easily accessible. But to be "subjected" to it? That is like being forced to watch propaganda.

Yet we're "subjected" to all kinds of knowledge throughout our lives. Whether we want to learn it or not. We're "subjected" to all of the subjects that are deemed necessary to give us a good education and earn a high school diploma. We're subjected to learn math that most of us will never use in a million years. We're "subjected" to all of the classes deemed necessary to be granted degrees.

Sure, I'm all for having more useful education content on TV. When I was a kid I watched Discovery, TLC, and History more than any of the other channels. But I don't think the information presented to us on TV should have a month where it is all focused on one specific field (I realize that's not what happens, just hypothetical). We should have a choice of what we want to learn about.

You do have a choice. Chose not to watch Black History Month.

But I do think if there were all kinds of educational spots on television, covering all the bases so to speak, maybe people wouldn't feel such a need for Black History Month, et al. In the meantime, rather than be upset about it, simply don't watch if you don't have any interest in learning about accomplishments made by Black people. If you'd rather specifially not know about that, for reasons I can't fathom, simply don't watch. Don't learn.