What's new

Assalamu alaikum. New member here from Khanabadosh community

All in a good day's work then. Well done. :tup: And did you win the fair maiden as well ? :D



Zibago, @Novus ordu seclorum, I will generally go with the above including because I am a Communist which is a trans-national ideology though it may not be the reason for Joe to embrace a trans-national society. The other reasons for me including being a past listener to Radio Netherlands and BBC World Service which had programs on what they called World Music which is nothing but folk music from various parts of the world where some of the music may have blended with other music streams like the flamenco that Joe posted.
The irony of citing Radio Netherlands and British Broadcasting Corporation while talking against the idea of national identity! We cannot get away from being Indian, Chinese, Russian, German, Persian, Greek, Turk, and the traditional old world identities. White Americans are generally proud of their European national identity. They call themselves Irish American, Italian American, Scottish American, English American, Polish American, and such. It is in the New World -- in the Americas and Australiasia -- established by colonial European powers such as Britain and Spain, where proud immigrant identities emerged.
 
The irony of citing Radio Netherlands and British Broadcasting Corporation while talking against the idea of national identity! We cannot get away from being Indian, Chinese, Russian, German, Persian, Greek, Turk, and the traditional old world identities. White Americans are generally proud of their European national identity. They call themselves Irish American, Italian American, Scottish American, English American, Polish American, and such. It is in the New World -- in the Americas and Australiasia -- established by colonial European powers such as Britain and Spain, where proud immigrant identities emerged.

The association between lack of melanin and that of superior education, wealth or upbringing is a social construct propagated and maintained as status quo by "colorless" folks who have created it in order to oppress people with higher melanin content (darker skinned folks) and continue to propagate the idea (denying wealth, education and other resources) to people with melanin ("coloreds"). Sometimes even uprooting colored from their native lands.



The maintenance of the current status quo therefore is in question because darker and olive/brown skinned folks are becoming more educated (especially immigrants in First world "colorless" dominated countries) compared to "colorless" folks who were at the top of the heap socially.

That has now upset the apple cart and the younger "colorless" are now rebelling, as evidenced by the increase in the ranks of supremacist movements in US, UK and EU (even Eastern Slavic colorless who aren't considered "proper" colorless). The Colorless always thought that they were "entitled" because of their lack of color. This is no longer the case.

It is somewhat revealing that the "improper" colorless countries (Greece, Southern Italy, Slavic countries) have more supremacist movements nowadays, owing to the change in economic fortunes.

Are things going to get worse? Probably. Hyphenated Colored Americans should take note of this.
 
Last edited:
The word Chamar refers to people collecting and processing animal skins, which is a messy and sub-human job looked down at by upper castes.

Yes and it is unfortunate that many South Asian Muslims participate in that discrimination. Among my Deccan Urdu relatives there is a word called "Dhedh" possibly coming from the Zoroastrian abuse word Dhera and is used for Hindus but in particular the lower caste Hindus. This anti-Islamic cultural remnant has to be seen in the context of the non-intellectual activities of most current Deccani Muslims and thus the current "Pehle hijab, phir kitaab" sentiment.

@Joe Shearer

The irony of citing Radio Netherlands and British Broadcasting Corporation while talking against the idea of national identity! We cannot get away from being Indian, Chinese, Russian, German, Persian, Greek, Turk, and the traditional old world identities. White Americans are generally proud of their European national identity. They call themselves Irish American, Italian American, Scottish American, English American, Polish American, and such. It is in the New World -- in the Americas and Australiasia -- established by colonial European powers such as Britain and Spain, where proud immigrant identities emerged.

I stopped listening to BBC and RN 11 years ago because especially BBC became intolerably pro-NATO. About nationalism, sorry but you are stuck in obsolete thinking, that too not older than the 1700s. If many Americans are proud in calling themselves Irish Americans and so on these particular ones also won't be comfortable with pan-human Communism or even the progressive movement called Occupy Wall Street that started in their own New York in 2011 and spread to other parts of the Western bloc. Those particular nationalist Americans also won't find anything wrong in their governments doing imperialism while at the same time their governments keep their own American citizens in political and socio-economic disparity. So, should we really be casting these nationalist Americans as models of something good ? Let them first speak of bringing democracy in their two-party Capitalist plutocratic dictatorship country.

Lastly, when people begin to settle Mars in large numbers starting the mid-2030s this will be a transnational effort. There should be no scope left to take along there the obsolete and obscene concept of Earthly nationalism. In fact by the mid-2030s there will have been many discussions about erasing the artificial borders on Earth and adopting progressive political, socio-economic and technological systems that will enable harmony among humans and with other elements of Nature.
 
The association between lack of melanin (which I lack quite a bit) and that of superior education, wealth or upbringing is a social construct propagated and maintained as status quo by "colorless" folks who have created it in order to oppress people with higher melanin content (darker skinned folks) and continue to propagate the idea (denying wealth, education and other resources) to people with melanin ("coloreds"

Foundation of the New World in North America was laid by British, French and Dutch colonizers, yet today an African American is defense secretary of USA and a Kenyan American was President. The "colored world" could do the same. But, Arabs, Afghans, Turks, Iranians, Africans, Central Asians, Slavs, Chinese, Indians, and East Asians haven't achieved what the West did because they did not go through the philosophy of enlightenment and human rights which became the basis of the modern world laid by the West. Is there a document outside the West which states all men are created equal, as in the American declaration of independence. Well, Allah gave Arabs kind of a head start. Quran says all humans are equal in the sight of God, but Arabs/Muslims blew it.
 
The implication is that in Pakistan, 'higher' caste means 'higher' status, and that the situation in India is unlike this, and that status varies independently of caste.

Unfortunately, this is not true. Even today, status is largely determined by caste.
 
Foundation of the New World in North America was laid by British, French and Dutch colonizers, yet today an African American is defense secretary of USA and a Kenyan American was President. The "colored world" could do the same. But, Arabs, Afghans, Turks, Iranians, Africans, Central Asians, Slavs, Chinese, Indians, and East Asians haven't achieved what the West did because they did not go through the philosophy of enlightenment and human rights which became the basis of the modern world laid by the West. Is there a document outside the West which states all men are created equal, as in the American declaration of independence. Well, Allah gave Arabs kind of a head start. Quran says all humans are equal in the sight of God, but Arabs/Muslims blew it.

Very enthusiastic I see you are, yet misguided... superficial even.
The people who wrote declaration of independence were slave owners and G. W. amongst the biggest... voting for specific few. The document of incorporation is ever evolving though(for that you'll have check what drives legislation, electoral process and private wealth)... let me channel Chomsky's observations on 1831 Jamaican Slave revolt ...

  • In fact, just take a look at the history of "trucking and bartering" itself; look at the history of modern capitalism, about which we know a lot. The first thing you'll notice is, peasants had to be driven by force and violence into a wage-labor system they did not want; then major efforts were undertaken—conscious efforts—to create wants. In fact, if you look back, there's a whole interesting literature of conscious discussion of the need to manufacture wants in the general population. It's happened over the whole long stretch of capitalism of course, but one place where you can see it very nicely encapsulated is around the time when slavery was terminated. It's very dramatic too at cases like these. For example, in 1831 there was a big slave revolt in Jamaica—which was one of the things that led the British to decide to give up slavery in their colonies: after some slave revolts, they basically said, "It's not paying anymore." So within a couple of years the British wanted to move from a slave economy to a so-called "free" economy, but they still wanted the basic structure to remain exactly the same—and if you take a look back at the parliamentary debates in England at the time, they were talking very consciously about all this. They were saying: look, we've got to keep it the way it is, the masters have to become the owners, the slave have to become the happy workers—somehow we've got to work it all out. Well, there was a little problem in Jamaica: since there was a lot of open land there, when the British let the slaves go free they just wanted to move out onto the land and be perfectly happy, they didn't want to work for the British sugar plantations anymore. So what everyone was asking in Parliament in London was, "How can we force them to keep working for us, even when they're no longer enslaved into it?" Alright, two things were decided upon: first, they would use state force to close off the open land and prevent people from going and surviving on their own. And secondly, they realized that since all these workers didn't really want a lot of things—they just wanted to satisfy their basic needs, which they could easily do in that tropical climate—the British capitalists would have to start creating a whole set of wants for them, and make them start desiring things they didn't then desire, so then the only way they'd be able to satisfy their new material desires would be by working for wages in the British sugar plantations. There was very conscious discussion of the need to create wants—and in fact, extensive efforts were then undertaken to do exactly what they do on T.V. today: to create wants, to make you want the latest pair of sneakers you don't really need, so then people will be driven into a wage-labor society. And that pattern has been repeated over and over again through the whole entire history of capitalism. In fact, what the whole history of capitalism shows is that people have had to be driven into situations which are then claimed to be their nature. But if the history of capitalism shows anything, it shows it's not their nature, that they've had to be forced into it, and that that effort has had to be maintained right until this day.


So, in a capitalist society indeed races transcend structures ...
Chomsky again...
"See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist—it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn't built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist—just because it's anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic—there's no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all the junk that's produced—that's their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance."

So, if you want to balance economic plight with political and their intersection in proper context... understand the nuances of the subject at hand.

Enlightenment?
 
Very enthusiastic I see you are, yet misguided... superficial even.
The people who wrote declaration of independence were slave owners and G. W. amongst the biggest... voting for specific few. The document of incorporation is ever evolving though(for that you'll have check what drives legislation, electoral process and private wealth)... let me channel Chomsky's observations on 1831 Jamaican Slave revolt ...

  • In fact, just take a look at the history of "trucking and bartering" itself; look at the history of modern capitalism, about which we know a lot. The first thing you'll notice is, peasants had to be driven by force and violence into a wage-labor system they did not want; then major efforts were undertaken—conscious efforts—to create wants. In fact, if you look back, there's a whole interesting literature of conscious discussion of the need to manufacture wants in the general population. It's happened over the whole long stretch of capitalism of course, but one place where you can see it very nicely encapsulated is around the time when slavery was terminated. It's very dramatic too at cases like these. For example, in 1831 there was a big slave revolt in Jamaica—which was one of the things that led the British to decide to give up slavery in their colonies: after some slave revolts, they basically said, "It's not paying anymore." So within a couple of years the British wanted to move from a slave economy to a so-called "free" economy, but they still wanted the basic structure to remain exactly the same—and if you take a look back at the parliamentary debates in England at the time, they were talking very consciously about all this. They were saying: look, we've got to keep it the way it is, the masters have to become the owners, the slave have to become the happy workers—somehow we've got to work it all out. Well, there was a little problem in Jamaica: since there was a lot of open land there, when the British let the slaves go free they just wanted to move out onto the land and be perfectly happy, they didn't want to work for the British sugar plantations anymore. So what everyone was asking in Parliament in London was, "How can we force them to keep working for us, even when they're no longer enslaved into it?" Alright, two things were decided upon: first, they would use state force to close off the open land and prevent people from going and surviving on their own. And secondly, they realized that since all these workers didn't really want a lot of things—they just wanted to satisfy their basic needs, which they could easily do in that tropical climate—the British capitalists would have to start creating a whole set of wants for them, and make them start desiring things they didn't then desire, so then the only way they'd be able to satisfy their new material desires would be by working for wages in the British sugar plantations. There was very conscious discussion of the need to create wants—and in fact, extensive efforts were then undertaken to do exactly what they do on T.V. today: to create wants, to make you want the latest pair of sneakers you don't really need, so then people will be driven into a wage-labor society. And that pattern has been repeated over and over again through the whole entire history of capitalism. In fact, what the whole history of capitalism shows is that people have had to be driven into situations which are then claimed to be their nature. But if the history of capitalism shows anything, it shows it's not their nature, that they've had to be forced into it, and that that effort has had to be maintained right until this day.


So, in a capitalist society indeed races transcend structures ...
Chomsky again...
"See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist—it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn't built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist—just because it's anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic—there's no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all the junk that's produced—that's their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance."

So, if you want to balance economic plight with political and their intersection in proper context... understand the nuances of the subject at hand.

Enlightenment?
As if I didn't know the history? Yet, you live in America. And, have the freedom to talk smack against it. Try that in China.
 
My name here is Awara Pardesi and these are not empty words to me, they are my reality.

I belong a tribe of gypsies and our origin is with the untouchable Dalit caste and I am very proud of this. My tribe is caught between India, Pakistan and Afghanistan but now since we can’t get Indian visa and Afghan removed us, we are more comfortable in Pakistan and as Pakistanis

Unlike most people from our community, my family was in better position and I am educated and settled in the UK since last 3 years and I left Pakistan in 2009. Many of our relatives do not have any shanakhti cards.

You can ask me any question you like. I had written a long message on detail about the condition of my people but let us first start with introduction!

I am happy to be here
Welcome, I hope you have a profitable time here, your background reminds me of Rumi's words:-

“Come, come, whoever you are. Wanderer, worshiper, lover of leaving. It doesn't matter. Ours is not a caravan of despair. come, even if you have broken your vows a thousand times. Come, yet again , come , come.”​


― Jelaluddin Rumi
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom