According to the article about France's love of Inuit culture, I am left with the impression that my fellow Canadians are based about Inuit culture. That may be because of their myopia about what culture means to them, especially an unwillingness to accept the Inuit people as equals. Nevertheless the French are willing to embrace the Inuit due to their love and respect of culture.
This may be because the Inuit were not political rivals like the former European empires such as the British, the Dutch, the German and the Russian empire.
Hence are the majority of Canadians jaded due to their ambivalence about the Inuit.
Perhaps this is the legacy of Canadian multiculturalism, for Canada is a commonwealth of cultures, each of which adhere to the notion that my people are my people and your people are your people but never shall we meet as equals.
Thus, it would be a rare day for a Canadian to become a tourist within Canada unless she develops the respect demanded by the appreciation of a democracy arising from the mutual love and esteem of all cultures that make up Canada.
For the monoculture that often represents Canadian culture today - the cultural artefacts called Western civilisation - is only a facsimile of true culture. Indeed, true culture demands that each culture and their respective peoples be appreciated by Canadians as worthy of such regard that each of us are willing to explore them.
Otherwise, Canadian culture is but an artefact of postmodern culture that is barren of any culture save stereotypes based on hockey, Canadian beer, and figures of speech.
I am Canadian not because of our cultural icons, but because of the richness of being the citizen of a multicultural state.
I am Canadian because I am proud that Canada is a nation of many cultures.
Indeed, I am a Canadian who is proud that my tax dollars are at work in Tourism Canada keeping Inuit culture alive.
Reference:
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/m/article/inuit-culture-all-the-rage-in-france/
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
20150117
Anarchy: Harmony without Rule (satire)
We are all political creatures, but often are in denial about it,
because of the bad taste politicians leave in our mouths due to the fact
that they are privileged elites that some of us elect to do something
we would never dare to do.
Yet they are successful sociopaths. What that means is they hide the truth behind flowery prose and compliments that make us glad we voted for him.
However, we still love the politician when he has stolen our tax dollars to build his fortune due to the same reason why cult leaders can cause his followers to foment a revolution or failing that, stockpile weapons.
This is why on the local level, a small collective of individuals develop a leaderless way of doing things that works. Everyone in that collective would decide how to sustain their group.
Yet the number one rule shall always be harmony without rule. No one is the boss, but everyone governs his or her own actions.
If this sounds foreign to the gentle reader, then the best example of anarchy is childs' play. The minute any child in a group of children tries to be the leader, the other children rebel and call him "bossy." At which point, the quick-witted kid will abandon his post and apologize.
Then the children will be friends again, and the playing continues.
Hence, children are nascent politicians, but lack the sociopathic qualities of a real politician due to their youth. If only adults could be so innocent, then the world will be less a democracy forced on each of us and more of an anarchy where everyone works in harmony with everyone else, without a ruler.
IMO democracy cannot be forced on another person. Rather the individual relinquishes some of her independence in exchange for the freedoms that democracy provides.
Anarchism is not chaos. It is a committee of self governing people who are their own bosses.
Probably my depiction of anarchism is partially naïve but that is because the New Left have rejected mutualism in favor of a political movement that considers Proudhonian anarchism to be obsolete and mutualism to not be their cup of tea.
Harmony without rule implies that you are able to govern yourself so that you get along with everyone else, regardless of political background.
Yet, too easily, the anarchists fall back to the same them versus us mentality found in a democracy. That is because we are human following the same herd mentality of mammals.
Even so, mutualism is workable but in small groups of people. Sometimes it works even in families.
Yet they are successful sociopaths. What that means is they hide the truth behind flowery prose and compliments that make us glad we voted for him.
However, we still love the politician when he has stolen our tax dollars to build his fortune due to the same reason why cult leaders can cause his followers to foment a revolution or failing that, stockpile weapons.
This is why on the local level, a small collective of individuals develop a leaderless way of doing things that works. Everyone in that collective would decide how to sustain their group.
Yet the number one rule shall always be harmony without rule. No one is the boss, but everyone governs his or her own actions.
If this sounds foreign to the gentle reader, then the best example of anarchy is childs' play. The minute any child in a group of children tries to be the leader, the other children rebel and call him "bossy." At which point, the quick-witted kid will abandon his post and apologize.
Then the children will be friends again, and the playing continues.
Hence, children are nascent politicians, but lack the sociopathic qualities of a real politician due to their youth. If only adults could be so innocent, then the world will be less a democracy forced on each of us and more of an anarchy where everyone works in harmony with everyone else, without a ruler.
IMO democracy cannot be forced on another person. Rather the individual relinquishes some of her independence in exchange for the freedoms that democracy provides.
Anarchism is not chaos. It is a committee of self governing people who are their own bosses.
Probably my depiction of anarchism is partially naïve but that is because the New Left have rejected mutualism in favor of a political movement that considers Proudhonian anarchism to be obsolete and mutualism to not be their cup of tea.
Harmony without rule implies that you are able to govern yourself so that you get along with everyone else, regardless of political background.
Yet, too easily, the anarchists fall back to the same them versus us mentality found in a democracy. That is because we are human following the same herd mentality of mammals.
Even so, mutualism is workable but in small groups of people. Sometimes it works even in families.
20140805
Everyday is Armistice (satire)
It is a big coincidence I was born on Armistice Day (Nov.11). While I'm thankful for the Allieds winning the Great War, the causes of World War 1 were imperialism, militarism and nationalism going back to the 1870s.
In the uneasy peace that followed Armistice in 1918, peace prevailed only to have militarism arise again, leading to World War 2 with Germany and later Japan entering the war.
In Japan's case, the peace-loving government was replaced through assassinations by young military officers with militarists between World War 1 and World War 2. This led to Japan's role as aggressor in Asia, which to this day is propagandized by China and South Korea, despite the fact that most Asians are peace-loving.
Today, it is unlikely there will be another world war.
While there may be minor wars such as the crises in Africa since 1947, Israel -Palestinian conflict, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Ukraine, and the like, most nations know that total war is a costly prospect.
Even though I have stated that the Islamic State should be bombed into submission, it is an impossible act of war that would offend the Arab League. Therefore I am retracting that statement because it was an off-the-cuff response based on a distaste for violent Islamist and especially Jihadist conflict, which violates the message of peace and submission in Islam.
For I believe in peace and nonviolence, and loathe Jihadi warfare because its sharia makes a mockery of Islam.
However, Islam is not the cause of 911. Rather, it was due to the inaction of supposedly great men who failed to act when they were warned. Even Afghan and Iraq conflicts happen because these same men fail to act in the name of peace and non-violence.
True, the West claims to act in the name of democracy, but when forced on a people, only anarchy will result. This is true for the Middle East, the Ukraine, Sudan, and Nigeria as it is for the West.
While I know that my love of peace and nonviolence cannot effect world peace, I know that it affects my life greatly, much more than the same old story since Armistice Day in 1918. Instead, I vow to make every day my armistice day from this day forward, while I briefly and silently mourn for lives lost in conflicts around the world...
When my birthday comes, hopefully the karma of my statement of peace and nonviolence will bear fruit.
Love, peace, respect, and solidarity to all likeminded people.
In the uneasy peace that followed Armistice in 1918, peace prevailed only to have militarism arise again, leading to World War 2 with Germany and later Japan entering the war.
In Japan's case, the peace-loving government was replaced through assassinations by young military officers with militarists between World War 1 and World War 2. This led to Japan's role as aggressor in Asia, which to this day is propagandized by China and South Korea, despite the fact that most Asians are peace-loving.
Today, it is unlikely there will be another world war.
While there may be minor wars such as the crises in Africa since 1947, Israel -Palestinian conflict, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Ukraine, and the like, most nations know that total war is a costly prospect.
Even though I have stated that the Islamic State should be bombed into submission, it is an impossible act of war that would offend the Arab League. Therefore I am retracting that statement because it was an off-the-cuff response based on a distaste for violent Islamist and especially Jihadist conflict, which violates the message of peace and submission in Islam.
For I believe in peace and nonviolence, and loathe Jihadi warfare because its sharia makes a mockery of Islam.
However, Islam is not the cause of 911. Rather, it was due to the inaction of supposedly great men who failed to act when they were warned. Even Afghan and Iraq conflicts happen because these same men fail to act in the name of peace and non-violence.
True, the West claims to act in the name of democracy, but when forced on a people, only anarchy will result. This is true for the Middle East, the Ukraine, Sudan, and Nigeria as it is for the West.
While I know that my love of peace and nonviolence cannot effect world peace, I know that it affects my life greatly, much more than the same old story since Armistice Day in 1918. Instead, I vow to make every day my armistice day from this day forward, while I briefly and silently mourn for lives lost in conflicts around the world...
When my birthday comes, hopefully the karma of my statement of peace and nonviolence will bear fruit.
Love, peace, respect, and solidarity to all likeminded people.
20140330
Tunisia To Get Moderate Islamists Back
It's great to hear that the dictator Bel Ali has fled with the Tunisian people's head tax to hide out in Dubai and bribe Saudi officials in anticipation of "disappearing" amongst his oil-wealthy Saudi buddies.
Yet I am still saddened to hear that the police have used the shock and awe method of keeping order in a country where their primary use was as a tool for Ben Ali to cling to power as only a dictator can, i.e. lots of bribes from America, more bribes from tourists holidaying in a de facto socialist state, and even more bribes from Saudis who considered Ben Ali to be an honorable Muslim even Qutb would be proud of.
In the future, I predict there may be a protest march in major cities in the West in solidarity with the moderates of Tunis. Let the cry be heard: INSHALLAH!
Let "peace, love, unity, solidarity and respect" be in their hearts!
Let us also hope that democracy rules in Tunis.
انه لشيء رائع أن نسمع أن الديكتاتور علي بلحاج قد فر مع ضريبة الرأس الشعب التونسي على الاختباء في دبي ورشوة مسؤولين سعوديين تحسبا من "الاختفاء" بين رفاقه السعودية الغنية بالنفط.
بعد ما زلت أشعر بالحزن لسماع ان الشرطة استخدمت أسلوب الصدمة والترويع من أجل حفظ في بلد استخدامها الابتدائي كأداة لزين العابدين بن علي التمسك بالسلطة كما ديكتاتور واحد فقط يمكن، أي الكثير من الرشاوى من أمريكا وأكثر رشاوى من السياح يقضون عطلات في دولة بحكم الامر الواقع الاشتراكي، والرشاوى حتى أكثر من السعوديين الذين يعتبرون زين العابدين بن علي ليكون مسلم الشرفاء حتى أن سيد قطب أن نفخر به.
في المستقبل، وأتوقع أنه قد يكون هناك مسيرة احتجاج في المدن الكبرى في الغرب في التضامن مع المعتدلين من تونس. واسمحوا أن يسمع صراخ : إن شاء الله.
السماح "السلام والمحبة والوحدة والتضامن والاحترام" يكون في قلوبهم!
دعونا نأمل أيضا أن قواعد الديمقراطية في تونس.
Originally posted: January 26, 2011 6:41 PM
Reference:
ben Ali has left Tunisia: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/tunisia/index.html
Yet I am still saddened to hear that the police have used the shock and awe method of keeping order in a country where their primary use was as a tool for Ben Ali to cling to power as only a dictator can, i.e. lots of bribes from America, more bribes from tourists holidaying in a de facto socialist state, and even more bribes from Saudis who considered Ben Ali to be an honorable Muslim even Qutb would be proud of.
In the future, I predict there may be a protest march in major cities in the West in solidarity with the moderates of Tunis. Let the cry be heard: INSHALLAH!
Let "peace, love, unity, solidarity and respect" be in their hearts!
Let us also hope that democracy rules in Tunis.
انه لشيء رائع أن نسمع أن الديكتاتور علي بلحاج قد فر مع ضريبة الرأس الشعب التونسي على الاختباء في دبي ورشوة مسؤولين سعوديين تحسبا من "الاختفاء" بين رفاقه السعودية الغنية بالنفط.
بعد ما زلت أشعر بالحزن لسماع ان الشرطة استخدمت أسلوب الصدمة والترويع من أجل حفظ في بلد استخدامها الابتدائي كأداة لزين العابدين بن علي التمسك بالسلطة كما ديكتاتور واحد فقط يمكن، أي الكثير من الرشاوى من أمريكا وأكثر رشاوى من السياح يقضون عطلات في دولة بحكم الامر الواقع الاشتراكي، والرشاوى حتى أكثر من السعوديين الذين يعتبرون زين العابدين بن علي ليكون مسلم الشرفاء حتى أن سيد قطب أن نفخر به.
في المستقبل، وأتوقع أنه قد يكون هناك مسيرة احتجاج في المدن الكبرى في الغرب في التضامن مع المعتدلين من تونس. واسمحوا أن يسمع صراخ : إن شاء الله.
السماح "السلام والمحبة والوحدة والتضامن والاحترام" يكون في قلوبهم!
دعونا نأمل أيضا أن قواعد الديمقراطية في تونس.
Originally posted: January 26, 2011 6:41 PM
Reference:
ben Ali has left Tunisia: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/tunisia/index.html
20131204
The Egalitarian Matriarchy (satire)
According to the feminists and the goddess movement, the world is run by a patriarchal system known by other names such as the world bank system.
While the conspiracy theory that purports such a system is anti-Semitic and thus unworthy of respect, the term "patriarchy" deserves definition, being a system run by men for the benefit of men by keeping men in power.
In contrast, the term "matriarchy" must first be defined by what it isn't: it isn't a system run by women for the benefit of women by replacing men in power with women. Rather, a matriarchy is essentially an egalitarian system in which men, women, and children exist, free of the need for men or women to have power over everyone.
Thus, a matriarchy is potentially more democratic than a patriarchy which has more often than not co-opted democracy to keep men in power.
Yet men who derive their power from a patriarchy are adverse to the idea of a matriarchy, sometimes referring to it as a "tyranny of women" that trumps male power.
Ironically, male power within a patriarchy is a myth as boys and men are a higher risk of death and rape at an earlier age than girls and women.
While it is unknown if a matriarchy would reduce the risks inherent in a patriarchy such as murder and rape, it would be workable within populations of 10,000 people, and does not require dismantling the overlaying patriarchy.
For a matriarchy exists when a group of mothers and daughters rule their families in an egalitarian fashion.
In contrast, when the girlfriend or wife rule in an unfair manner ("women are allowed to freely express their anger but men are censured for being angry"), this is a form of patriarchal suppression since the reason for women censuring male anger is out of fear of male rage. In such situations, compliant men learn express male anger in a manner acceptable to women.
Such matriarchies exist in secret within Muslim culture, especially in Middle Eastern countries where the State is secular. In Afghanistan during the Taleban regime prior to 2003, matriarchies were disassembled one by one through what amounted to violent genocide.
Thus, within Muslim fundamentalist regimes, the overlaying patriarchy fears greatly the power of the matriarchy, and are killing key members of society, both male and female, to reduce its influence over women.
How well does a patriarchy rule its men, using fear and the myth of male power? For not only does such a regime kill women and girls, it also kills any boy or man who does not support its way of doing things.
In essence, a patriarchy works when everyone believes in the myth of male power.
Yet statistics prove time and time again that more men and boys die at the hands of men more often than girls and women do.
Even so, a fair matriarchy which operates in an egalitarian fashion within a family protects everyone from the ravages of patriarchy.
However, it is up to the wives, mothers and daughters to trump male power by exposing the myth to their children instead of perpetuating it.
For democracy is learned at the knee of a mother, not in the marketplace.
Originally written January 7, 2013 at 4:15 PM
Matriarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy
While the conspiracy theory that purports such a system is anti-Semitic and thus unworthy of respect, the term "patriarchy" deserves definition, being a system run by men for the benefit of men by keeping men in power.
In contrast, the term "matriarchy" must first be defined by what it isn't: it isn't a system run by women for the benefit of women by replacing men in power with women. Rather, a matriarchy is essentially an egalitarian system in which men, women, and children exist, free of the need for men or women to have power over everyone.
Thus, a matriarchy is potentially more democratic than a patriarchy which has more often than not co-opted democracy to keep men in power.
Yet men who derive their power from a patriarchy are adverse to the idea of a matriarchy, sometimes referring to it as a "tyranny of women" that trumps male power.
Ironically, male power within a patriarchy is a myth as boys and men are a higher risk of death and rape at an earlier age than girls and women.
While it is unknown if a matriarchy would reduce the risks inherent in a patriarchy such as murder and rape, it would be workable within populations of 10,000 people, and does not require dismantling the overlaying patriarchy.
For a matriarchy exists when a group of mothers and daughters rule their families in an egalitarian fashion.
In contrast, when the girlfriend or wife rule in an unfair manner ("women are allowed to freely express their anger but men are censured for being angry"), this is a form of patriarchal suppression since the reason for women censuring male anger is out of fear of male rage. In such situations, compliant men learn express male anger in a manner acceptable to women.
Such matriarchies exist in secret within Muslim culture, especially in Middle Eastern countries where the State is secular. In Afghanistan during the Taleban regime prior to 2003, matriarchies were disassembled one by one through what amounted to violent genocide.
Thus, within Muslim fundamentalist regimes, the overlaying patriarchy fears greatly the power of the matriarchy, and are killing key members of society, both male and female, to reduce its influence over women.
How well does a patriarchy rule its men, using fear and the myth of male power? For not only does such a regime kill women and girls, it also kills any boy or man who does not support its way of doing things.
In essence, a patriarchy works when everyone believes in the myth of male power.
Yet statistics prove time and time again that more men and boys die at the hands of men more often than girls and women do.
Even so, a fair matriarchy which operates in an egalitarian fashion within a family protects everyone from the ravages of patriarchy.
However, it is up to the wives, mothers and daughters to trump male power by exposing the myth to their children instead of perpetuating it.
For democracy is learned at the knee of a mother, not in the marketplace.
Originally written January 7, 2013 at 4:15 PM
Matriarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy
20130604
Fuck Liberty and Democracy!
i'm waiting for someone inspired by Curtis' The Trap" series to argue against negative liberty and its effect on iraq and Afghanistan.
How can the Alliance effect positive liberty and encourage democracy in both nations by DICTATING a government into existence which denies the right to form labor unions and allows 10% of American money ($36billion) to flow into the military industrial complex along with 100% of profits. That's not a government; that's client state capitalism.
It's also why both Taleban and Shi'a versus Sunni violence is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively.
By making liberty an ideal based on being free of coercion, it becomes devoid of a freedom of human potential.
And today's international policies only worsen the problem.
How can the Alliance effect positive liberty and encourage democracy in both nations by DICTATING a government into existence which denies the right to form labor unions and allows 10% of American money ($36billion) to flow into the military industrial complex along with 100% of profits. That's not a government; that's client state capitalism.
It's also why both Taleban and Shi'a versus Sunni violence is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively.
By making liberty an ideal based on being free of coercion, it becomes devoid of a freedom of human potential.
And today's international policies only worsen the problem.
20130406
The Fallacy of a Democratic Government
Are today's Western nations democracies? While I have yet to find an affirmation of this, I am compelled to rant about this topic today. Thank you to Bobbi Jo, for inspiring me. While I am not an American or Indian citizen, my choice of including them in this rant is because leaders of both nations claim they live in a democracy. Though I am not convinced their governments are run like a democracy, I only use them as examples. Hopefully my rhetoric will inspire others to question their government and their lip service to democracy.
In my opinion, America and India think they have a democracy when in actual fact, only the bill of rights and privileges potential grant citizens of both countries the rights and freedoms of democracy.
Yet the minute they exercise their right to protest injustice, the radical right arises to suppress them and take away those rights by force, and force their own privileges on everyone else who is excluded by them i.e. visible minorities, the poor, and the mentally challenged.
These rights and freedoms are slowly taken away from us at home, in public education, and at work. By the time some of us make it to university, we learn that our rights and freedoms are invoilable and still remaion, despite oppression and everyday suppression we exert to protect our lives.
In any given country, it is true that some people (the upper class) have more rights than the underprivileged. If a person from the middle class does not abide by the status quo, then he or she may be bullied into accepting it by force.
If a person tries ot exercises his rights, then he treads a rocky road because, despite free legal aid, the lawyer usually sides with his oppressor.
For example, when corruption such as sexual slavery is exposed, the whistleblower is usually forced into a psychiatric ward and given medication. Later, the nation's scions will send their representative to force him to abandon his just cause and their collaborators in mass media will tarnish his name, forcing him to abandon his legal career. Then he will retire in the country to tend an orchard on his hobby farm with the money he accumulated whilst defending the poor and underprivileged, who were mainly prostitutes, drug addicts and the poor.
America is a sick society that presents its citizens with the illusion of democracy. When the smoke and mirrors are exposed, rather than admitting the truth ("government is not a democracy but a plutocracy with lip service paid 24/7 through mass media"), the majority will attack the whistle-blower rather than face the truth.
What then is truth and justice when the American way is based on a sickness in society that never goes away but worsens by the day?
Mass media perpetuates this sickness, sometimes making a parody of it to entertain the masses, and sometimes exposing their version of the truth so as to profit from it whilst a scapegoat is chosen in a feeble attempt to absolve themselves of their participation in a new round of smoke and mirrors.
Whereas in the Americas, democracy at the grassroots level often meets imprisonment for their activism, in Asia and in Africa, there appears to be a handful of nations which are either dictatorships or run as classical democracies where the majority rules, and the large number of the poor live in abject poverty. Corruption exists because most people of the middle class realize that bribery smooths the wheel of progress and hush money is often paid to repair the honor of the privileged when they err.
Muslim martyrdom falls into this part of my rant, because blood money usually prevents the surviving family from legally challenging the injustice. If anyone objects, then the radical right will harass them and bribe the legal system so that if anyone dares to confront corruption, off to prison they go.
In other nations, particularly in Africa, the native Africans are militantly confrontative towards Asians (Indians), the Chinese and other "visible" minorities who are usually the majority back in their ancestral homelands (China, India, Pakistan, and sometimes South-East Asians).
It is delusion to declare that free-market capitalism empowers democratic rights. If this were true, then why did the US government bailout mortgage banks? If capitalism helps grease the wheels of democracy, then why did not the Mexican government closely scrutinize HSBC Mexico to ensure transparency to prevent money laundering? Perhaps it is because HSBC Mexico is a legal person, and thus has more privacy rights than the poor in Mexico.
I wish I could rant longer, but I must prepare for work soon. Were I to devote time to asking these questions which rarely are answered by the government, I'd be one of the "lazy poor" rather than a merely the "working poor."
In conclusion, I like to thank the people who act to discover the answers to my questions. We are all in this together. Peace to you all.
In my opinion, America and India think they have a democracy when in actual fact, only the bill of rights and privileges potential grant citizens of both countries the rights and freedoms of democracy.
Yet the minute they exercise their right to protest injustice, the radical right arises to suppress them and take away those rights by force, and force their own privileges on everyone else who is excluded by them i.e. visible minorities, the poor, and the mentally challenged.
These rights and freedoms are slowly taken away from us at home, in public education, and at work. By the time some of us make it to university, we learn that our rights and freedoms are invoilable and still remaion, despite oppression and everyday suppression we exert to protect our lives.
In any given country, it is true that some people (the upper class) have more rights than the underprivileged. If a person from the middle class does not abide by the status quo, then he or she may be bullied into accepting it by force.
If a person tries ot exercises his rights, then he treads a rocky road because, despite free legal aid, the lawyer usually sides with his oppressor.
For example, when corruption such as sexual slavery is exposed, the whistleblower is usually forced into a psychiatric ward and given medication. Later, the nation's scions will send their representative to force him to abandon his just cause and their collaborators in mass media will tarnish his name, forcing him to abandon his legal career. Then he will retire in the country to tend an orchard on his hobby farm with the money he accumulated whilst defending the poor and underprivileged, who were mainly prostitutes, drug addicts and the poor.
America is a sick society that presents its citizens with the illusion of democracy. When the smoke and mirrors are exposed, rather than admitting the truth ("government is not a democracy but a plutocracy with lip service paid 24/7 through mass media"), the majority will attack the whistle-blower rather than face the truth.
What then is truth and justice when the American way is based on a sickness in society that never goes away but worsens by the day?
Mass media perpetuates this sickness, sometimes making a parody of it to entertain the masses, and sometimes exposing their version of the truth so as to profit from it whilst a scapegoat is chosen in a feeble attempt to absolve themselves of their participation in a new round of smoke and mirrors.
Whereas in the Americas, democracy at the grassroots level often meets imprisonment for their activism, in Asia and in Africa, there appears to be a handful of nations which are either dictatorships or run as classical democracies where the majority rules, and the large number of the poor live in abject poverty. Corruption exists because most people of the middle class realize that bribery smooths the wheel of progress and hush money is often paid to repair the honor of the privileged when they err.
Muslim martyrdom falls into this part of my rant, because blood money usually prevents the surviving family from legally challenging the injustice. If anyone objects, then the radical right will harass them and bribe the legal system so that if anyone dares to confront corruption, off to prison they go.
In other nations, particularly in Africa, the native Africans are militantly confrontative towards Asians (Indians), the Chinese and other "visible" minorities who are usually the majority back in their ancestral homelands (China, India, Pakistan, and sometimes South-East Asians).
It is delusion to declare that free-market capitalism empowers democratic rights. If this were true, then why did the US government bailout mortgage banks? If capitalism helps grease the wheels of democracy, then why did not the Mexican government closely scrutinize HSBC Mexico to ensure transparency to prevent money laundering? Perhaps it is because HSBC Mexico is a legal person, and thus has more privacy rights than the poor in Mexico.
I wish I could rant longer, but I must prepare for work soon. Were I to devote time to asking these questions which rarely are answered by the government, I'd be one of the "lazy poor" rather than a merely the "working poor."
In conclusion, I like to thank the people who act to discover the answers to my questions. We are all in this together. Peace to you all.
20121229
You can Get Raped But Not Protest Rape in the World's Largest Democracy
While the lady raped on the bus in Delhi got emergency treatment in Singapore, the 17-year old girl who was raped recently by an auto rickshaw driver committed suicide.
The reason why has led to police officials getting canned.
Why should a minor who has been raped either choose between marrying the man who raped her or settling for blood money from his rapists? Especially when the police refused to file the rape complaint, which actually victimized the young woman as much as the rape itself.
If this is how the officials of the world's biggest democracy handle rape cases, it shows that the State is highly patriarchal in nature.
Even though India may be a nuclear power, domestically it seems democracy cannot inculcate in its men full respect for its women.
IMO it looks like in both cases, the men were investing in their manhood more than in any respect for women.
Their actions were predatory in nature, and in both cases, the police have failed in their duty to the State to protect The People.
The reason why has led to police officials getting canned.
Why should a minor who has been raped either choose between marrying the man who raped her or settling for blood money from his rapists? Especially when the police refused to file the rape complaint, which actually victimized the young woman as much as the rape itself.
If this is how the officials of the world's biggest democracy handle rape cases, it shows that the State is highly patriarchal in nature.
Even though India may be a nuclear power, domestically it seems democracy cannot inculcate in its men full respect for its women.
IMO it looks like in both cases, the men were investing in their manhood more than in any respect for women.
Their actions were predatory in nature, and in both cases, the police have failed in their duty to the State to protect The People.
Ahmad's a Real American
The following essay is a pro-American statement that denies Dye and Zeigler's contention that the small educated and wealthy elite in America wrote the US Constitution.
This revisionist view of American independence is a form of socialist thought that is undermining not only American values promote by the Constitution, but also compromising US foreign policy both with its global allies but also with the Middle East.
In this essay, a Kuwaiti denies the socialist view of the US Constitution and does honour to America including Jefferson and especially Bush.
Give Ahmad US citizenship. He deserves it, rather than psychotherapy.
Dye and Zeigler contend that the constitution of the United States was not “ordained and established” by “the people” as we have so often been led to believe. They contend instead that it was written by small educated and wealthy elite in America who were representative of powerful economic and political interests. This paper will CRITICALLY analyze the US constitution and how it was a progressive document FOR ITS TIME. And how it symbolizes and embodies what America is today a just and democratic society where all men and women are created equal and that men and women are free to pursue their own happiness and fulfillment.
I completely disagree with Dye and Zeigler’s contention that the founding father had ONLY their best interests at heart and that that the constitution of the United States was a progressive document for its time compared to the aristocratic monarchies of Western Europe (excluding Britain). The American constitution worried monarchs in Europe. The right for men to choose their own representatives was unheard of in the rest of the world. Yet in a young country which freed itself from the shackles of the greatest empire of the time. The founding fathers were stalwart heroes who led the brave young men of this great land and in order to establish a democracy maybe not a direct or perfect democracy but one that guarantees the freedom of its citizens. It is ludicrous to assume that a direct democracy can succeed in the United States. Yet in the last ballots of November 2nd 2004 the people of the United States DID get a chance of influencing their political decisions in their country and that is thanks to the US constitution established by the great men of America like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
These men paved the way for what America is today the country of opportunity and freedom. These men were men of nationalism and men who took great pride in formulating what is today the greatest country in the world and thank god that it is so. Because of America the world is free. America vanquished Nazi Germany. America helped establish the great nation of Israel a democratic society in a troubled region. America freed Japan and South Korea. America freed Kuwait and now is currently in a fight to free Iraq and its 25,000,000 residents and vanquish the tyranny and monstrosity of Saddam Hussein. The US constitution and the Founding Fathers helped build the foundation to which all this was established.
It is through the efforts of America’s great leaders like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Frederick Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, current President Bush and most importantly the American troops who risked their lives for the freedom of America and the freedom of others that this country is so great and prosperous.
The US constitution might have required many amendments for its to catch up with modern times but no nation had a constitution which challenged the US in terms of equality and freedom at that particular time which made the document a very sophisticated one for its time a document which was feared by monarchs as being “too progressive”. It’s because of the American constitution and the American “elites” that Dye and Zeigler could critique this constitution and Americas Founding Fathers. It is because of America’s constitution that thousands of people wish to live there and walk amongst the free. “The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest.”
President Thomas Jefferson.
The United States constitution might have excluded the majority of people at the time. But it progressed and America like every nation in the world progressed and became a greater nation the constitution is now a document held in great esteem by Americans the Founding Fathers of America are greatly enshrined in dollar bills and the American people are proud of their country and history.
It is the American constitution that helps the American government to solve its problems in legal ways and in ways that will bring true American justice and resolve. The American foundation was built by the American constitution and the Founding Fathers and nothing can destroy these foundations.
“Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.” President George W Bush.
America is a nation which has survived problems and many attacks on its soil yet the American will did not hesitate. America stood its ground and the Founding Fathers are the ones who built the Foundation that this ground were built upon. It is wonderful to have the freedom to argue Dye and Zeigler contentions and that is also due to the US constitution.
If the constitution was so negative then how did the United States the most powerful nation in the world today. If it was so negative how did the Soviet Union collapse in the Cold War? The United States constitution is a great document which for its time was extremely progressive and the evidence to the that is the United States’ accomplishments to date.
Reference:
Original essay: http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive/December2004/Ahmad%27sessay121004.htm
Michelle Malkin's spin on the al-Qloushi incident: http://michellemalkin.com/2005/01/17/grading-ahmad-al-qloushi-2/
This revisionist view of American independence is a form of socialist thought that is undermining not only American values promote by the Constitution, but also compromising US foreign policy both with its global allies but also with the Middle East.
In this essay, a Kuwaiti denies the socialist view of the US Constitution and does honour to America including Jefferson and especially Bush.
Give Ahmad US citizenship. He deserves it, rather than psychotherapy.
Dye and Zeigler contend that the constitution of the United States was not “ordained and established” by “the people” as we have so often been led to believe. They contend instead that it was written by small educated and wealthy elite in America who were representative of powerful economic and political interests. This paper will CRITICALLY analyze the US constitution and how it was a progressive document FOR ITS TIME. And how it symbolizes and embodies what America is today a just and democratic society where all men and women are created equal and that men and women are free to pursue their own happiness and fulfillment.
I completely disagree with Dye and Zeigler’s contention that the founding father had ONLY their best interests at heart and that that the constitution of the United States was a progressive document for its time compared to the aristocratic monarchies of Western Europe (excluding Britain). The American constitution worried monarchs in Europe. The right for men to choose their own representatives was unheard of in the rest of the world. Yet in a young country which freed itself from the shackles of the greatest empire of the time. The founding fathers were stalwart heroes who led the brave young men of this great land and in order to establish a democracy maybe not a direct or perfect democracy but one that guarantees the freedom of its citizens. It is ludicrous to assume that a direct democracy can succeed in the United States. Yet in the last ballots of November 2nd 2004 the people of the United States DID get a chance of influencing their political decisions in their country and that is thanks to the US constitution established by the great men of America like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
These men paved the way for what America is today the country of opportunity and freedom. These men were men of nationalism and men who took great pride in formulating what is today the greatest country in the world and thank god that it is so. Because of America the world is free. America vanquished Nazi Germany. America helped establish the great nation of Israel a democratic society in a troubled region. America freed Japan and South Korea. America freed Kuwait and now is currently in a fight to free Iraq and its 25,000,000 residents and vanquish the tyranny and monstrosity of Saddam Hussein. The US constitution and the Founding Fathers helped build the foundation to which all this was established.
It is through the efforts of America’s great leaders like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Frederick Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, current President Bush and most importantly the American troops who risked their lives for the freedom of America and the freedom of others that this country is so great and prosperous.
The US constitution might have required many amendments for its to catch up with modern times but no nation had a constitution which challenged the US in terms of equality and freedom at that particular time which made the document a very sophisticated one for its time a document which was feared by monarchs as being “too progressive”. It’s because of the American constitution and the American “elites” that Dye and Zeigler could critique this constitution and Americas Founding Fathers. It is because of America’s constitution that thousands of people wish to live there and walk amongst the free. “The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest.”
President Thomas Jefferson.
The United States constitution might have excluded the majority of people at the time. But it progressed and America like every nation in the world progressed and became a greater nation the constitution is now a document held in great esteem by Americans the Founding Fathers of America are greatly enshrined in dollar bills and the American people are proud of their country and history.
It is the American constitution that helps the American government to solve its problems in legal ways and in ways that will bring true American justice and resolve. The American foundation was built by the American constitution and the Founding Fathers and nothing can destroy these foundations.
“Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.” President George W Bush.
America is a nation which has survived problems and many attacks on its soil yet the American will did not hesitate. America stood its ground and the Founding Fathers are the ones who built the Foundation that this ground were built upon. It is wonderful to have the freedom to argue Dye and Zeigler contentions and that is also due to the US constitution.
If the constitution was so negative then how did the United States the most powerful nation in the world today. If it was so negative how did the Soviet Union collapse in the Cold War? The United States constitution is a great document which for its time was extremely progressive and the evidence to the that is the United States’ accomplishments to date.
Reference:
Original essay: http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive/December2004/Ahmad%27sessay121004.htm
Michelle Malkin's spin on the al-Qloushi incident: http://michellemalkin.com/2005/01/17/grading-ahmad-al-qloushi-2/
20110208
Is Egypt Ripe for Democracy?
"Reports from the Committee to Protect Journalists show that 30 journalists and their support staff from both Egyptian and international news organisations have been detained, attacked or had their equipment confiscated in the past 48 hours.
In addition, there are reports that a number of civil society activists have been arrested following a raid on the Hisham Mubarak Centre for Human Rights, the, Egyptian Centre for Political and Social Rights and the Egyptian Centre for Housing Rights." - http://www.transparency.org/news_room/latest_news/press_releases/2011/2011_02_04_egypt
I doubt Egypt is ready for democracy, because the poor has been left out of the picture.
Approximately 25 percent of Egyptians are poor, with 14 million living in rural areas of Upper Egypt (south of Khartoum). They include tenant farmers and small-scale farmers, landless laborers, unemployed youth, and women. Few of them have visited Lower Egypt and Cairo.
If Egypt goes democratic, the fallacy that democracy permits corruption of youth and breakdown of society becomes more unreal and untrue.
Yet democracy does not make a nation strong; rather, it makes the voice of the people heard, providing a politically active outlet for activists willing to vote for democracy with their feet, marching for peace. Indeed, democracy may be a tool of the educated to share liberal ideology in an egalitarian manner but for the poor, it offers hope.
For the poor hope that one day, their children will prosper in a democratic Egypt.
Yet the military in Egypt seek to control this peaceful protest because of the irrational belief that such protests foment violence. In actual fact, the Egyptian military turn a blind eye to right-wing militias' help to "control" the democracy advocates in Cairo.
Why suppress democracy?
So that the average rural villager knows her place as servant to the rich. It also does her family no good to have her go to university, when she should be at home for the good of family and motherhood, despite the wretched conditions of birth.
Would Egypt's activists be willing to emancipate the rural poor? Who is to say?
I wonder how this change in Egypt will impact the rural poor trickling into the cities of Egypt in the name of democracy.
For the poor live in the reality of poverty, just barely getting by without any thought for politics, save for the threat of starvation and barely surviving in an unsafe world.
Update:
February 11, 2011: former President Mubarak reigns and leaves Cairo. Vice President Omar Suleiman announces on national TV that Mubarak has stepped down, and that the Egyptian military is temporarily in control. Jubilant crowds celebrate on Tahrir Square.
February 13: high level military command announces both constitution and parliament of Egypt is dissolved. Parliamentary election is to be held in September.
March 19: constitutional referendum is held. Democratic leaders delay election from September 2011 tp November 2011.
April 13: Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt (which is controlled by its military) orders Mubarak and his two sons detained.
August 3: Trial begins for Mubarak who is also investigated for Sadat's death.
October 9-10: Coptic Christian church is torn down in Aswan after Copts refuse to not display cross. In march from Shubra to Maspero, Egyptian army tries to escalate hostilities, first by broadcasting unfounded rumors Copts were attacking the military. Out of a crowd of 240 Copts,
November 28: Egypt holds its first parliamentary election since previous regime was in power. Turnout high and no reports of irregularities or violence. Members of some parties break ban on campaigning at polling places by handing out pamphlets and banners.
February 16, 2012: Coptic activist gets travel ban in Mespero incident. He calls it politicized.
June 2: Mubarak sentenced to life imprisonment.
July 8: Egypt's new president Mohamed Morsi call lawmakers back into session.
July 10: Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt negates decision by President Mohamed Morsi to call parliament back into session
August 2: Egypt’s Prime Minister Hisham Qandil announces 35 member cabinet comprising 28 newcomers including four from influential Muslim Brotherhood, six others and former military ruler Tantawi as the Defence Minister from previous Government
Freedom House rates Egypt as "Not Free". In their report, it turns out the military was controlling the show until the elections finished in early January 2012. There was regular harassment of NGOs whom the military targets accusing them of being controlled by foreign interests, despite the fact that most NGOs in Egypt are grassroots organizations.
Commentary:
Even though Mubarak had been sentenced to life imprisonment in June, today Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court still remains the pawn of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which had Mohamed Hussein Tantawi as Chairman and chief of state since February 11, 2011. He was only instated as Defense Minister three months ago only to retire on August 12.
Quite possibly Tantawi was a figurehead as Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. He was ordered by President Mosri to retire but retained as advisor. It has been speculated that the military junta plans to step down in exchange for immunity.
Until that time, the fruits of the 2011 Egyptian Revolution are not yet ripe for democracy.
Updated 20121117.0432
Reference:
Wikipedia: Egypt: Revolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt#Revolution
Wikipedia: 2011-2012 Egyptian Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%932012_Egyptian_revolution
Mespero demonstrations in Octo 9-10, 2011 show Egyptian military in charge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maspero_demonstrations
USA Today: Train hits school bus in al-Mandara, Manfaloot district, Assuit:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/11/17/egypt-train-hits-school-bus-22-children-killed/1710935/
Wikipedia: Mubarak:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mubarak
In addition, there are reports that a number of civil society activists have been arrested following a raid on the Hisham Mubarak Centre for Human Rights, the, Egyptian Centre for Political and Social Rights and the Egyptian Centre for Housing Rights." - http://www.transparency.org/news_room/latest_news/press_releases/2011/2011_02_04_egypt
I doubt Egypt is ready for democracy, because the poor has been left out of the picture.
Approximately 25 percent of Egyptians are poor, with 14 million living in rural areas of Upper Egypt (south of Khartoum). They include tenant farmers and small-scale farmers, landless laborers, unemployed youth, and women. Few of them have visited Lower Egypt and Cairo.
If Egypt goes democratic, the fallacy that democracy permits corruption of youth and breakdown of society becomes more unreal and untrue.
Yet democracy does not make a nation strong; rather, it makes the voice of the people heard, providing a politically active outlet for activists willing to vote for democracy with their feet, marching for peace. Indeed, democracy may be a tool of the educated to share liberal ideology in an egalitarian manner but for the poor, it offers hope.
For the poor hope that one day, their children will prosper in a democratic Egypt.
Yet the military in Egypt seek to control this peaceful protest because of the irrational belief that such protests foment violence. In actual fact, the Egyptian military turn a blind eye to right-wing militias' help to "control" the democracy advocates in Cairo.
Why suppress democracy?
So that the average rural villager knows her place as servant to the rich. It also does her family no good to have her go to university, when she should be at home for the good of family and motherhood, despite the wretched conditions of birth.
Would Egypt's activists be willing to emancipate the rural poor? Who is to say?
I wonder how this change in Egypt will impact the rural poor trickling into the cities of Egypt in the name of democracy.
For the poor live in the reality of poverty, just barely getting by without any thought for politics, save for the threat of starvation and barely surviving in an unsafe world.
Update:
February 11, 2011: former President Mubarak reigns and leaves Cairo. Vice President Omar Suleiman announces on national TV that Mubarak has stepped down, and that the Egyptian military is temporarily in control. Jubilant crowds celebrate on Tahrir Square.
February 13: high level military command announces both constitution and parliament of Egypt is dissolved. Parliamentary election is to be held in September.
March 19: constitutional referendum is held. Democratic leaders delay election from September 2011 tp November 2011.
April 13: Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt (which is controlled by its military) orders Mubarak and his two sons detained.
August 3: Trial begins for Mubarak who is also investigated for Sadat's death.
October 9-10: Coptic Christian church is torn down in Aswan after Copts refuse to not display cross. In march from Shubra to Maspero, Egyptian army tries to escalate hostilities, first by broadcasting unfounded rumors Copts were attacking the military. Out of a crowd of 240 Copts,
November 28: Egypt holds its first parliamentary election since previous regime was in power. Turnout high and no reports of irregularities or violence. Members of some parties break ban on campaigning at polling places by handing out pamphlets and banners.
February 16, 2012: Coptic activist gets travel ban in Mespero incident. He calls it politicized.
June 2: Mubarak sentenced to life imprisonment.
July 8: Egypt's new president Mohamed Morsi call lawmakers back into session.
July 10: Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt negates decision by President Mohamed Morsi to call parliament back into session
August 2: Egypt’s Prime Minister Hisham Qandil announces 35 member cabinet comprising 28 newcomers including four from influential Muslim Brotherhood, six others and former military ruler Tantawi as the Defence Minister from previous Government
Freedom House rates Egypt as "Not Free". In their report, it turns out the military was controlling the show until the elections finished in early January 2012. There was regular harassment of NGOs whom the military targets accusing them of being controlled by foreign interests, despite the fact that most NGOs in Egypt are grassroots organizations.
Commentary:
Even though Mubarak had been sentenced to life imprisonment in June, today Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court still remains the pawn of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which had Mohamed Hussein Tantawi as Chairman and chief of state since February 11, 2011. He was only instated as Defense Minister three months ago only to retire on August 12.
Quite possibly Tantawi was a figurehead as Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. He was ordered by President Mosri to retire but retained as advisor. It has been speculated that the military junta plans to step down in exchange for immunity.
Until that time, the fruits of the 2011 Egyptian Revolution are not yet ripe for democracy.
Updated 20121117.0432
Reference:
Wikipedia: Egypt: Revolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt#Revolution
Wikipedia: 2011-2012 Egyptian Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%932012_Egyptian_revolution
Mespero demonstrations in Octo 9-10, 2011 show Egyptian military in charge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maspero_demonstrations
USA Today: Train hits school bus in al-Mandara, Manfaloot district, Assuit:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/11/17/egypt-train-hits-school-bus-22-children-killed/1710935/
Wikipedia: Mubarak:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mubarak
20100625
Tact and Trust on the Internet: Can We Be Honest on the 'net?
Tact consists of being able to say a white lie without regret once in a while, and mainly to not reply when honesty would ruin group harmony.
Indeed, tact proves that situation ethics (appropriateness depends on the situation) is consistently applied in real life practice while everyone pretends to practice a general moral code of appropriateness.
IMHO in private, tact is usually abandoned in the intimacy of friendship due to investment of trust.
In public, tact is practiced when the situation calls for it (most of the time).
For it would be inappropriate to be bluntly honest with people in public.
The Internet is different, in that there is no intimacy in cyberspace. So blunt honesty may only used between real life friends, and tact is a given because anonymity does not build trust. Rather, trust only occurs once each party builds a one-on-one relationship in real-life.
Anonymity is why we hate trolls, and treat helpful advice from others as overstepping boundaries on-line.
At the root of this is the concept of earning trust, which is a real life behavior that does not always work on-line.
Those courageous on-line users who buck the trend and offer trust now do so hoping that the other party will honor that trust. Anyone who violates this accord becomes untrustworthy, and revenge is dependent on the nature of the one whose trust is violated.
This explains banning of IP numbers, Facebook disabled accounts and other on-line account hijacks.
YMMV
Indeed, tact proves that situation ethics (appropriateness depends on the situation) is consistently applied in real life practice while everyone pretends to practice a general moral code of appropriateness.
IMHO in private, tact is usually abandoned in the intimacy of friendship due to investment of trust.
In public, tact is practiced when the situation calls for it (most of the time).
For it would be inappropriate to be bluntly honest with people in public.
The Internet is different, in that there is no intimacy in cyberspace. So blunt honesty may only used between real life friends, and tact is a given because anonymity does not build trust. Rather, trust only occurs once each party builds a one-on-one relationship in real-life.
Anonymity is why we hate trolls, and treat helpful advice from others as overstepping boundaries on-line.
At the root of this is the concept of earning trust, which is a real life behavior that does not always work on-line.
Those courageous on-line users who buck the trend and offer trust now do so hoping that the other party will honor that trust. Anyone who violates this accord becomes untrustworthy, and revenge is dependent on the nature of the one whose trust is violated.
This explains banning of IP numbers, Facebook disabled accounts and other on-line account hijacks.
YMMV
20081202
Stand up to the Conservatives!
According to the Toronto Sun, the Conservatives are holding a rally in major cities across Canada.
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2008/12/02/7607646.html
Bah! Humbug! Everyone but the Conservatives are for Canada.
All the Conservatives are for are for right-wing conservatism, and kowtowing to America.
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2008/12/02/7607646.html
Bah! Humbug! Everyone but the Conservatives are for Canada.
All the Conservatives are for are for right-wing conservatism, and kowtowing to America.
20080311
Nohchallah - Chechen Hospitality and Moral Code of Tribals
"Nohcho" means a Chechen. The term "nohchalla" encompasses all features of the Chechen character in one word. These included the entire range of moral, ethical and moral norms of Chechen life. You could also say that this is Chechen "code of honour".
Hospitality is "nohchalla." Politeness and docility is "nohchalla." Mutual reciprocity is "nohchalla." Yet the term "nohchalla" is incompatible with "rank" and "status". Thus, the Chechens have never been princes nor have they formed a kingdom.
"Nohchalla" is the ability to build lasting relationships with people, in no way demonstrating one's superiority, even being in a privileged position. Rather, in such a situation one should be especially courteous and friendly, so as not to hurt anybody's feelings.
"Nohchalla" is friendship for life: in the days of sadness and joy in the days. Friendship for life has the notion of the sacred. Inattentiveness or discourtesy towards a brother is forgiven, but never towards a friend!
"Nohchalla" has a special reverence for women. While stressing respect for the relatives of his mother or his wife, a man with a horse goes right to the entrance to the village where they live. So cherish the honour given women that only a man brought up in the spirit of "nohchalla" displays.
A personal sense of freedom and the willingness to defend it is "nohchalla." For "nohchalla" obligates the Chechen to respect anyone, but to reject coercion, force, and violence.
Indeed, "nohchalla" is not law but what a Chechen does knowingly and voluntarily. It is currently the democracy of the Nokhchiin.
Translated from http://www.chechnyafree.ru/index.php?lng=eng§ion=musiceng&row=15
Hospitality is "nohchalla." Politeness and docility is "nohchalla." Mutual reciprocity is "nohchalla." Yet the term "nohchalla" is incompatible with "rank" and "status". Thus, the Chechens have never been princes nor have they formed a kingdom.
"Nohchalla" is the ability to build lasting relationships with people, in no way demonstrating one's superiority, even being in a privileged position. Rather, in such a situation one should be especially courteous and friendly, so as not to hurt anybody's feelings.
"Nohchalla" is friendship for life: in the days of sadness and joy in the days. Friendship for life has the notion of the sacred. Inattentiveness or discourtesy towards a brother is forgiven, but never towards a friend!
"Nohchalla" has a special reverence for women. While stressing respect for the relatives of his mother or his wife, a man with a horse goes right to the entrance to the village where they live. So cherish the honour given women that only a man brought up in the spirit of "nohchalla" displays.
A personal sense of freedom and the willingness to defend it is "nohchalla." For "nohchalla" obligates the Chechen to respect anyone, but to reject coercion, force, and violence.
Indeed, "nohchalla" is not law but what a Chechen does knowingly and voluntarily. It is currently the democracy of the Nokhchiin.
Translated from http://www.chechnyafree.ru/index.php?lng=eng§ion=musiceng&row=15
20070525
The Democracy of the Munda
Once upon a time in Travancore, modern day south Kerala and northwest Tamil Nadu, to wear the munda (kilt) appeared modest and democratic in that both lower caste men and women showed both bare leg and breast.
Over time, it became part of the caste system.
In time it became to represent oppression of women after colonization by the British in the 1700s since a woman was barred from covering her upper body.
Then in 1859, the Channar Lahala or the Upper Cloth Revolt (Channar Mutiny) occurred after 50 years of violent struggle in the name of women's liberation for the right of women of all castes to cover their upper bodies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_cloth_revolt
Over time, it became part of the caste system.
In time it became to represent oppression of women after colonization by the British in the 1700s since a woman was barred from covering her upper body.
Then in 1859, the Channar Lahala or the Upper Cloth Revolt (Channar Mutiny) occurred after 50 years of violent struggle in the name of women's liberation for the right of women of all castes to cover their upper bodies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_cloth_revolt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)