Friday, March 07, 2008

Racism in the Politically Correct British Media



Asian - Tera Patrick



There is a group of people in Britain who have distinguished themselves by setting off bombs in subways, preaching hatred of Infidels in Mosques, and carrying placards in the streets calling for a "real Holocaust" against Jews.

The media calls these people "Asians".

In other words, the media uses a racial classification to name a group of people who are

1) driven by ideology, not race

and

2) more time than not, NOT ASIAN.

Arabs are not Asians. Persians are not Asians. Turks are not Asians. Africans are not Asians. Albanians are not Asians.

By the way, in case you didn't know (and I know I am not being "politically correct" here) these people who do all the "bad" things are called

MUSLIMS.

Most Muslims in this world are not Pakistani, Malaysian, or Indonesian.

Most Muslims in the world are not Asian in even the broadest sense of the word Asian.

Muslim - Adam Gadahn
And, really race is beside the point.
I can not think of anything more racist than to blame Jihadi violence, which is driven by the ideology of the Koran, and various Islamist groups (Muslim Brotherhood, Wahabbism, Hizbollah, Hamas, etc.) on Asians.

And yet, it is the politically correct media (who believe that they are above racism) who are blaming the Asians for the violence.

What is truly amazing is that the very reason these PC media types blame "Asians" is exactly because they don't want to blame Islam. And, the reason they don't want to blame Islam is because they don't think it is fair.

And yet, it is the height of fairnes to criticize an ideology. Ideas are mental constructs created freely out of the minds of men. Ideas are not born in people, as are racial attributes. When a new idea is proposed, fairness dictates that the idea be tested through the process of critical analysis, to ensure that the idea is sound and will work for the greater good of people.

However, it is not fair to blame a race of people for the bad deeds done in the name of an ideology, even if most of the people who adhere to an ideology are of a certain race.

The PC Media, under the guise of fairness, are blaming the misdeeds of a few ideologically-driven people on a group of people designated by their racial characteristics.

That is racism.

Can you imagine how Chinese people, and Indians, and Filipinos feel about that?

8 comments:

Michael Travis said...

"Turks are not Asians."

Half of them are. Israel is "Asian" also. In Hebrew the people of the region are called "Mizrachim" or "Asian/Oriental". Arabs on the other hand are an Asian tribe, originating in Arabia.

My Japanese secretary loves this sort of conversation!

Pastorius said...

Gee, far be it from me to go against the entire academic discipline of racial classification, but Israelis and Turks are not fucking Asians.

Hispanics are MUCH closer to Asians than are Turks and Israelis.

Asian people have these:

http://kennethomura.tripod.com/asian_eyes/

Michael Travis said...

If you believe in "Races" (As did the Prophet piss all over him) here are the designations;

Overlaps
Of course these are generalisations and there is much variation: Swedes are tall, fair haired and blue eyed aren't they? Well 11% of them are according to the Swedish army recruiting figures.

But even allowing for overlaps and generalisations and mixtures we can classify three broad racial types in the modern world.

Caucasoids. 1,000 million people with variable skin colour; white-dark brown. Hair variable, never woolly, body hair often thick. Lips tend to be thin. Three subdivisions exist, the Nordic, the Mediterranean and the Alpine.

The Nordic group are often tall, blonde and narrow headed - Scandinavia, Baltic, Germany, France, Britain The Mediterranean group (Southern France, Spain, Italy and oddly, Wales Egyptians, Semites, Persians, Afghans and some Indians. Lighter in body build, dark and narrow headed. The Alpine group extends from the Mediterranean to Asia. Broad headed, square jaws, olive skin, brown hair.

Mongoloids Most numerous of the present day populations, split into three groups

* The Eastern Siberians, Eskimos and the Northern American Indians
* The Japanese, Koreans, Chinese
* The Indonesians and Malays

Negroids 100 million from Africa south of the Sahara and Melanesians of the S Pacific.

Others. We also have to fit in somewhere the Central African pigmies, the Bushmen and the Australoids.

Racialism
Noting that there are differences between men from different areas is a very different thing from implying any judgement. Today there is a politically correct view that all men are equal. This is undoubtedly biologically correct too.

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes
/Sciences/Lifescience/HumanRaces/
RacesMan/RacesMan.htm

Asia is a Continent...as is Africa...where Pygmies, Somalis and Ethiopians are not genetically related to "Negroes".

Anonymous said...

I get your point but the British seem to use "East Asian" for what we call "Asian" and "Asian" for what we call "middle-eastern". So to British ears, saying bad stuff about "Asians" doesn't tar the Japanese, Chinese, etc.

Pastorius said...

Anonymous,
Really?

Ok, but still it's a stupid classification.

It is the equivalent of us blaming Islamic terrorism on Arabs.

You never hear that in the American media, do you? For all the faults of our media, at least they tend to call Islamic terrorism what it is.

It would be racism to blame Islamic terrorism on Arabs, just as it is racism to blame it on Asians.

The point remains. The terrorism is born out of ideology, not race.

And now that I have said that, I will also take issue with the idea of calling Arabs, Asians. That is also a stupid classification. Either racial disctinctions point to something which is discerible, or they lack all sense whatsoever.

We can see what a white person is. We can see what a black person is.

If Asians don't look like Asians, then the classification is absurd.

Arabs, Turks, Persians, Armenians, and Sephardic Jews all look more alike than Asians (Chinese, Vietnamese) and Arabs, who look almost nothing alike.

They simply are not of the same race.

This is a fucking stupid conversation, but it is what we are brought to whenever people want to bring race into the discussion.

Fucking idiot God damned British media.

Pastorius said...

By the way, I'm grumpy this morning because we changed the clocks ahead in California and I got all messed up on my sleep. And, when I don't get enough sleep, my stomach hurts.

I'm one bitter Infidel this morning. I'm really glad we don't do suicide bombings, or that might look like a good plan, the way I feel.

Rich Rostrom said...

Asia is a big place. There are lots of different areas in it. I agree that it is silly to refer to the Islamist terrorists in Britain as "Asians" (undifferentiated).

But it is just as ridiculous to deny that Arabia, Iran, and Turkey are parts of Asia. The word "Asia" comes from the ancient Greek word for the lands east of the Mediterranean Sea, i.e. Asia Minor.

Over 1 billion Moslems live in territory geographically defined as "Asia". That's about 80% of the world total. There are 340 million in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Pakistan, and 340M more in India, China, Bangladesh, and Philippines.

As for the Turks: they are descended from Central Asian nomads, and speak a Central Asian language.

A large proportion of jihadis come from Asia. Another section are from North Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Egypt). Yes, they're all Moslem.

Pastorius said...

Rich,
You are right. That is the traditional classification. I am taking issue with it on racial grounds, not on historical or anthropological grounds.

I would also assert as a student of philosophy and religion that there is almost no relation between the religions of

1) Islam/Judaism/Christianity (which were born in the Middle East

and

2) Hinduism and Buddhism, which were actually born in Asia.

India and East of that are a different people, a different culture, and a different philosophical system entirely.