Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


If Muslims were White

- Tue, 04 Apr 2017 09:40:56 EST 54PBc7Id No.207974
File: 1491313256272.jpg -(65536B / 64.00KB, 645x484) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. If Muslims were White
100% serious question, this is about how society responds to race.

How would the conversation about Muslims change if they weren't mostly brown, but instead mostly white?
Like, what if the 9/11 guys were white, and all these people fighting in the ME were white, all the people bombing India and Malaysia were white, all the people who were banned by Trump were white? What if the people wearing Burqas that were being banned were all white?
How would people react? What would they say?
Phyllis Wollerstock - Tue, 04 Apr 2017 13:42:50 EST vLHv7MNW No.207978 Reply
I expect 9/11 would be seen as a practical joke that went too far, Osama Bin Laden would be described as a "controversial figure" and ISIS would be thought of as some ordinary guys blowing off steam.
Alice Duckdock - Tue, 04 Apr 2017 15:52:43 EST Ya59RsKY No.207979 Reply
Let's not forget that the violent, ideological driven suppression of women and minorities would not be seen as 'the disgusting relics of a savage desert cult spreading hateful ideas like aplague' that we would feel the need to invade to stop, but 'people standing up for their traditional religious beliefs in the face of a corrupt global order.'
Ebenezer Darrykig - Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:22:45 EST d4DXKOh3 No.207981 Reply
As someone who is half European and half African, I don't understand this thread. All those muslims are white. Whiter than me. Whities did 9/11. Why can't you white motherfuckers not see you are all killing yourselves?
Jarvis Biffingpere - Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:16:37 EST 54PBc7Id No.207982 Reply
>half European and half African
One of my best friends is English/Tunisian, and he's just as white as an Italian mutt like me.

>All those Muslims are white.
Literally none of the Muslims south of Eastern Europe are white. North African Muslims are not white. Middle Eastern Muslims are not white. They're brown. The guys who did 9/11 were definitely brown.

>You are all killing yourselves
No, it's just Muslims trying to kill the rest of us. Us 'Whites' have pretty much zero direct affiliation with Muslims; only the Eastern European ones do.

Well, according to liberals, Muslims are
>people standing up for their traditional religious beliefs in the face of a corrupt global order.
And according to conservatives, Muslims are
>the disgusting relics of a savage desert cult spreading hateful ideas like a plague.

So, what you're saying is, Conservatives and Liberals would entirely switch stances on Muslims?

But also, am I the only non-liberal here?? I get that feeling... Only because none of you seem to grasp conservative ideologies aside from the sort of 'this is what a conservative thinks' rhetoric the liberals spew.
Jarvis Biffingpere - Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:27:53 EST 54PBc7Id No.207984 Reply
This thread isn't about Whites vs Blacks, it's about how the West reacts to Muslims crossed with how the West reacts to race.
Rebecca Dandleshaw - Wed, 05 Apr 2017 10:32:35 EST BzBJrJab No.207985 Reply
What a retarded counterfactual. This is literally on the same tier as "What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly?"

"Hurr Durr, what if mooselems were white? Do you think stupid republicans would be less racis or would they still be evil, Nazi shitbags? #whiteprivilege"
Molly Clillerspear - Wed, 05 Apr 2017 11:44:08 EST d4DXKOh3 No.207986 Reply
>Literally none of the Muslims south of Eastern Europe are white. North African Muslims are not white. Middle Eastern Muslims are not white. They're brown. The guys who did 9/11 were definitely brown.

You're fucking retarded. I AM BROWN. Arabs and North-Africans are all white. I cannot tell the difference between an Algerian and an Portugese. They're all hairy whities with black or dark brown hair. All the same shit.

>Us 'Whites' have pretty much zero direct affiliation with Muslims; only the Eastern European ones do.
The fuck you on faggot? You all believe in the same retarded bronze-age desert demon worshipping death cult. Doesn't matter if it's called judaism, islam or christianity. Literally the same retarded death cult.
Basil Clemmleshaw - Wed, 05 Apr 2017 14:47:33 EST jYcEvk8u No.207987 Reply
The amount of dumb shit in this thread is already staggering.

Imagine if your perceptions of reality were made up of one-dimensional strawmen
Henry Hannerhall - Wed, 05 Apr 2017 15:34:11 EST Ya59RsKY No.207989 Reply
OP is talking about Muslim extremist radicals ('what if the 9/11 guys were white') not all Muslims. My point, which I thought was obvious but I guess was too subtle, is that there is no real difference between the cultures of Christianity and Islam, but because it's self serving, the West will paint itself with the positive characterization and Islam with the negative one, when in fact both characterizations represent the same facts and are equally applicable to both.

So obviously that Muslims in *general* are people who are following a traditional religion and should be allowed to do as they please.
But also that radical Muslims and Christians could be described as hateful, spreading cults, but they only lob that accusation at each other along religious and ethnic lines.

>> I cannot tell the difference between an Algerian and an Portugese
Ok, but the issue over the differences between ethnic groups is not based on what you can tell the difference between. Just because both arabs and white people have lighter pigmentation than you doesn't change the fact that they are separate ethnic groups. What a silly argument; 'because I can't tell the difference between two things, the difference doesn't actually exist.'
Basil Clemmleshaw - Wed, 05 Apr 2017 15:39:01 EST jYcEvk8u No.207990 Reply

>there is no real difference between the cultures of Christianity and Islam, but because it's self serving, the West will paint itself with the positive characterization and Islam with the negative one, when in fact both characterizations represent the same facts and are equally applicable to both.

What facts?
Henry Hannerhall - Wed, 05 Apr 2017 16:09:19 EST Ya59RsKY No.207992 Reply
That both Christianity and Islam are dangerous desert death cults which have been spreading death, disease and destruction across this planet for millennia, and which are both responsible for the current despicable state of human rights world-wide.
Basil Clemmleshaw - Wed, 05 Apr 2017 16:39:38 EST jYcEvk8u No.207993 Reply

Those are facts? They sound more like beliefs to me, given that they're both grounded in subjective opinion, or perhaps conclusions without the relevant facts attached. Just expressing what you happen to believe doesn't really do much for anyone.
Henry Hannerhall - Wed, 05 Apr 2017 18:06:44 EST Ya59RsKY No.207994 Reply
1491430004994.png -(235434B / 229.92KB, 615x411) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Well, again, I felt like that was such an obvious truth there would be no need to belabor the point (are you seriously about to argue that Christianity and Islam aren't violent religions, at least when taken to the extreme?) but you want proof?

Pic related. What can we learn from this chart? A few things; people of all kinds of ideological backgrounds commit extreme acts. Extreme ideologies are dangerous, and push people to do dangerous things. Now, I'm not saying we should ignore the significant numbers of Hindu or Secular terrorists this chart tells us exist, those are also just as bad kinds of extremism. But, so are Christianity and Islam, and their extreme aspects shouldn't be protected on either side just because they are components of a religion.

Is that the kind of answer you're looking for? Or are you hoping for something more abstract, like why the desert demon cults are ontologically and metaphysically immoral?
Fanny Honeyforth - Fri, 07 Apr 2017 10:14:31 EST 54PBc7Id No.207996 Reply
Most of those Unknowns are most likely Muslims.
Sadly, there's quite a few countries who refuse to take note of the race/religion of their criminals, and yet the people in those countries, like Sweden, know it's the Muslims.
Fanny Honeyforth - Fri, 07 Apr 2017 10:28:55 EST 54PBc7Id No.207997 Reply
What makes a Muslim 'radical'?
Because if it's a willingness to use violence to spread Islam, then you're talking about roughly 25% of Muslims, which is like 400 million Muslims.

But I don't even care much about them. The real problem are fundamental Muslims. Muslims who want Sharia law. They indirectly support the radical Muslims because they don't disagree with what they're accomplishing even though they disagree with the means. But when it comes to fundamentalist Muslims, we're talking at least 50%, which is 800 million, about.

800 million Muslims are a problem. How many millions of Christians are a problem? 0? 1 at most?
Martha Sombledid - Fri, 07 Apr 2017 16:04:55 EST d4DXKOh3 No.207998 Reply
>Just because both arabs and white people have lighter pigmentation than you doesn't change the fact that they are separate ethnic groups.

You're straight up talking bullshit faggot.

Arabs and Europeans are all the same shit. Ethnically, culturally (the same Jewish fairy tales) and genetically. For fucks sake, there are Afghan tribes where people have red and blonde hair, and blue and green eyes.
Matilda Habberway - Fri, 07 Apr 2017 17:12:56 EST Ya59RsKY No.208000 Reply
No, I say most of those unknowns are probably Christians. I thought we were harping on about proof? If we can just say x thing is actually z thing, then why not just say whatever?
>>800 millions Muslims support violent institution of Sharia law
[citation needed]
>>How many Christians are a problem?
If you think that the Christian religion is a violent, disgusting, dangerous lie, then all of them are a problem. When they gum up the works of your secular state with abeyance to tribal fairy tales, they are a problem. They may not be a problem of the same type and quantity as Islam, but since both Islam and Christianity share the same ideological roots, I don't see how you are going to chop down the whole rotten tree while preserving one and not the other. If you want fundamentalist Islam to go, then all the fundamentalist Abrahamic religions have to go, too, in the long run. Otherwise, ultimately, fundamentalist Christianity will morph into what fundamentalist Islam is today (if the ME was 100% Christian, we would still be having the same problems, because the tension between the ME and West is over technological and resource disparity, the religious strife is just a pretext. We would have ultra-fundamentalist Arabic Christians destroying corrupt secular America for there failure to follow the word of Jesus Christ. So we can also say, along with the OP, 'what if Arabs were Christians' instead of 'what if Muslims were white' we would still have the same issue.)

You can believe that if you want, but it's not true. Europeans and Arabs have very distinct genetic markers and profiles, so much so that medical research has to focus on them as separate groups. So genetically, they aren't the same.

Culturally, Europe was shaped by a thousand years of Christianity, while Arabs were shaped by a thousand years of Islam. They have different languages, customs, traditions, religious beliefs and behaviors. Those are the things that constitute culture, and since those things are different, they have different cultures.

Since ethnic groups are just an colloquial way of thinking about genetic/cultural groups, since they aren't genetically and culturally the same, they also aren't ethnically the same.

So it sounds like the straight up bullshit talking faggot is you, friend.
Cornelius Bloshridge - Sat, 08 Apr 2017 04:48:38 EST vLHv7MNW No.208001 Reply
The thing is, if all Muslims were white, they'd probably be a lot less crazy and violent.
Hamilton Blackstock - Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:39:00 EST 54PBc7Id No.208003 Reply
Meh. Us white people had a dark ages, we spent hundreds of years follow Christian doctrine and never modernizing, just as the Middle East is doing right now. They've been in a Dark Age for quite some time now.

The number I posted (800 million supporters of Sharia) was a rough number. Here's a video by the Clarion project's Raheel Raza on the subject of fundamentalist Islamists by the numbers and so on.
Jack Trotfield - Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:47:48 EST Ya59RsKY No.208004 Reply
Did we spend hundreds of years modernizing Christianity, or did we spend hundreds of years industrializing, and Christianity was forced to adapt itself to the circumstances of modern life?

Secularization of values and industrialization go hand in hand. So while you may be tempted to think that the reason Christianity is about 600 years ahead of Islam in secularization is that Christianity had a 600 years head start on Islam, in reality the gap is secularization between the two is much smaller -- comparable to the gap in industrialization between the West and the ME. So the more the ME industrializes, the more necessarily will Islam secularize, and it's behind not because Christianity is better or faster at tinkering with its doctrine, just that Christianity has been under the secularizing pressure for longer.

As for that link, how about some evidence not produced by a recognized anti-Islam hate group?
David Fungerlock - Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:43:57 EST quAOtaCi No.208007 Reply
1491875037005.jpg -(111937B / 109.31KB, 800x507) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
the islamic world was doing pretty well in the modernization department until the cold war resulted in a lot of insane religious wackjobs being heavily armed and funded and they just sort of took over and ruined everything. you can thanks the shitfuckers in the soviet and us governments.

Look at this picutre, this was afghanistan before the taliban. This was in the early 70s too, it wasn't that long ago. they had female scientists then. now they're stoned for adultery if they're raped. But they WILL bounce back eventually, and faster than you think. secularism is growing among muslims so we'll probably get back to that point within a matter of decades. people on other corners of the internet like to claim that muslims have always been like this, it's "in their genes" and they'll take over europe, but in reality all the refugees they worry about are gonna be secularized as hell within a generation. mark my words, in fifty years the average muslim will eat bacon watch american tv and think nothing of it.
Phoebe Crunkinbury - Tue, 11 Apr 2017 15:09:47 EST YXMsMuFM No.208008 Reply

>Rehashing old myths

The westernization of the ME back in the day was almost only limited to the urbanized upper class.

This was one of the reasons why the Iranian revolution was successful for example. The westernized elite was completely outmatched by the majority uneducated rural people being played by a bunch of theocratic revolutionaries.
David Cocklespear - Tue, 11 Apr 2017 15:14:19 EST 54PBc7Id No.208009 Reply
Yeah, I mean you can go to Saudi Arabia today and find teenagers running around in American clothes and drinking booze out on their yachts with hotties in bikinis, but all of those people are rich and therefore above the religious police who go around beating people up for not adhering to strict Islam.
Sophie Worthinghood - Tue, 11 Apr 2017 16:41:30 EST Ya59RsKY No.208010 Reply
So again, we are back to the reason people turn to radicalism is because they are poor, not because they are from the ME. If the benefits of secular industrialized society were available to a larger percentage of the population, then the uneducated rural rubes wouldn't be able to overthrow the government simply because they would be a much smaller percentage of the population.

In all honesty, it's capitalism that ruined the middle east. All of the success stories of modernization there came when the state took control of the oil industry and funneled the insane profits into society. After we knocked over every one of those and installed capitalism, naturally all that profit got sucked up into a small elite that would naturally be isolated from and ideologically opposed to the masses.

It's like a super high speed, concentrated version of what happened in the West in general due to it being centered around the concentrated fuel of the industrial world, rather than it's growth being based upon industrialization itself (and then later, soft-power.) The power of the West grew for a long time by leveraging part of its productive power into its own society and thus its own long term growth, but eventually it was talked into allowing a very small set of actors suck up all the excess, and thus is now in an advanced state of degeneration.

How many times will people keep blaming symptoms before they are willing to examine the underlying causes?
Samuel Pockham - Wed, 12 Apr 2017 10:26:46 EST GoJD6tHg No.208012 Reply
>capitalism was the cause of modernization in the Middle East
>capitalism is the cause of all problems in the Middle East
The governments that caused all the modernization to happen were set up by the west.
I agree that all the turmoil in the Middle East is caused by oil fuckery but don't act like most of the Middle East wasn't an irrelevant shithole
untill westeners decided that it would be useful to have someone installed who could get them oil in trade for power.
User is currently banned from all boards
Jarvis Chabblespear - Wed, 12 Apr 2017 10:41:43 EST jDHD98qF No.208013 Reply
1492008103335.jpg -(139575B / 136.30KB, 546x700) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Do you even know the reason behind the Iranian revolution? It was more like the arab spring than the whole trump phenomenon of rich people leading the common man astray. I think people are fighting an ideological battle in this thread, it's not about who wins the debate anymore it's about who wins the fight.

The truth is, the history is long and complicated. Like Africa, the ME was largely cut up and colonized by western powers a long time ago. As is common with colonial situations, the rulers didn't really give a shit about the subjects and they all got fucked over. Now a decades later, you have a bunch of pissed off people with nothing to lose that are mad that Americans actually think the reason they're pissed off is because they hate their freedom or something. Not because our government bombed their grandma, aided al queda to fight their grandpa, and then killed their parents with drone strikes. It's desperate people who have been shit on again and again trying to be heard. I saw a Vice documentary about child drug addiction in Afghanistan. It had footage of a bunch of homeless kids, as young as 13, hanging out under a bridge and doing heroin. The girl interviewed some of them, and they were basically saying "well the reason I do it is because my parents got kicked in the war and now I'm just sad". Like fuck these kids hardly have to language to communicate just how shitty their lives are. But no-- it's definitely because their Muslims. Keep in mind that Afghanistan gave women the right to vote BEFORE THE US DID. So no it's not just rich people, even though progressive social change often starts with the wealthier classes. So no, it's not an 'irrelevant shithole' either.
The fact that that shit is getting passed as an argument in a /pss/ thread makes me sad for /pss/ and tells me this thread is already dominated by alt-wight trolls. NB.
Nigel Sannerhudge - Wed, 12 Apr 2017 13:59:19 EST 54PBc7Id No.208015 Reply
It doesn't sound like any of you have any idea how the Middle East works or what it's history was like, so if you've got all these wild hypothesis to share about the ME you should at least back it up with sources.
Martha Ponningworth - Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:11:48 EST Ya59RsKY No.208016 Reply
>>don't act like most of the Middle East wasn't an irrelevant shithole
Uhh, before WWI the Ottoman Empire was one of the longest lived, most stable and advanced empires in world history. The Middle East was turned into a shithole by the west's blind grab at dividing up what was left of them in the aftermath, blindly pitting tribal factions against each other that the Ottomans had kept in check for centuries, precisely because they were both so advanced and had a native understanding of the politics involved.

I think the analysis being offered is generally sound and based on deep historical facts. Those screeching about how the ME is and has always been a shithole seem based on genetic/moral superiority fairytales. So perhaps you should specify what you're so incredulous about?
Shitting Nepperstick - Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:36:26 EST YXMsMuFM No.208017 Reply

Historical circumstance has a huge role in ME's current state no doubt. Consider how the Ottomans left their conquered territory shitty for example, while their successor state of Turkey is doing rather fine.

However, it's rather suspicious how Asian countries with historically feudal societies so easily integrate Western ideologies and experience massive growth as a result, while the ME does not and stays poor.

I'd chalk this difference down to cultural acceptance of Western materialistic thought, but if you got a better reason for this then shoot.
Shitting Nepperstick - Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:47:01 EST YXMsMuFM No.208018 Reply
1492030021265.jpg -(307967B / 300.75KB, 650x488) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Sorry for the double post but hey.

>Do you even know the reason behind the Iranian revolution? It was more like the arab spring than the whole trump phenomenon of rich people leading the common man astray. I think people are fighting an ideological battle in this thread, it's not about who wins the debate anymore it's about who wins the fight.

I don't really know why you want to make an ideological argument in response to my post. In fact my post is very much in line with your opinion, as was the Arab spring; poor people being pissed off at the elite because their situation sucks in comparison.

The religious element was just tacked on, an easy point to exploit the masses with. The Islamic 'decadence' of the ruling class of Iran was just a scape-goat in the Iranian context, that was what I wanted to communicate with my previous post.
Samuel Daggleled - Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:49:29 EST PhIyC0p1 No.208019 Reply
1492037369696.jpg -(89475B / 87.38KB, 960x540) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Y'all may be interested in The Bridge on the Drina which revolves around this bridge in the Balkans through the ages, from when the Ottomans began construction in 1566 to WW1 when the bridge is partially destroyed. It may
help with better contextual understanading of life under the Ottoman Empire, then afterwards too.

Historically the Middle East has as rich and complex of a history as that of Europe. Major influences go both directions as one empire or another conquer then dissipate. Below is a brief /his/ of a few of those empires, not /pss/ but seems relevant here.

>Through Alexander and his successors, the Achaemenids had passed to Rome the ideas and style of a divine kingship whose roots lay in ancient Mesopotamia; from Rome they went on to flower in the Byzantine Christian empire which fought the Sassanids.

>[In the tenth century] the whole area from the Levant to the Hindu Kush was pervaded for the first time in history by a single religion and it was to endure. Within that zone, the Christian inheritance of Rome hung on as a major cultural force only until the eleventh century, bottled up beyond the Taurus Mountains in Asia Minor. After that, Christianity declined in the Middle East to become only a matter of the communities tolerated by Islam.

The mongols conquered northern China, much of Asia, the Middle East, and some of Eastern Europe, intermixing all of the cultures and assimilating their technology and ideas. The Mongol Empire's communication network of post-houses along the main roads allowed rapidly moving messengers and agents.

During the ebb of the Mongol Empire the Byzantium Empire was crumbling as well. In many of its maritime territories Venice arose. Between Byzantium.and the dissolved Abbasid caliphate there were scattered independent petty princes called ghazis. One of the ghazis, Osman, showed leadership and enterprise and rallied to eventually form the Ottomans.

>They had a military organization somewhat like that of merchant guilds or religious orders in medieval Europe and it has been suggested Europeans learnt in these matters from the Ottomans. Their situation on a curious borderland of cultures, half-Christian, half-Islamic, must also have encouraged their ambition. Whatever its ultimate source, their staggering record of conquest rivals that of Arab and Mongol. They were in the end to reassemble under one ruler the territory of the old eastern Roman empire and more.

Sixteenth century:
>Behind the Ottoman frontiers a new multi-racial empire was organized. [..] [Mehment] seemed to have wanted a multi-religous society. He brought back Greeks to Constantinople from Trebizond and appointed a new patriarch under whom the Greeks were eventually given a kind of self-government. The Turkish record towards Jew and Christian was much better than that of Spanish Christians towards Jew and Muslim.

While Europe had multiple internal influences (particularly pagan Norsemen and the Scandinavians upto 1000 AD), the Arabs shaped the destiny of the west Mediterranean coasts of Europe.
>Not only were they established in Spain, but even in Provence they had more or less permanent bases (one of them being St. Tropez). The inhabitants of the European coasts of the Mediterranean had, perforce, a complex relationship with the Arabs, who appeared to them both as freebooters and as traders; the mixture was not unlike that observable in the Viking descents except that the Arabs showed little tendency to settle. Southern France and Catalonia were areas in which Frankish had followed Gothic conquest, but many factors differentiated them from the Frankish north. The physical reminiscences of the Roman past were plentiful in these areas and so was a Mediterranean agriculture.
via The Penguin History of the World 6th ed.
Samuel Daggleled - Wed, 12 Apr 2017 19:05:55 EST PhIyC0p1 No.208020 Reply
1492038355696.jpg -(74790B / 73.04KB, 720x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
In response to OP's question, discrimination would probably be less since Middle Easterners wouldn't so easily be made "Other", be distinguished as not belonging. If they had white skin as many in Europe and the US do, people from the Middle East could blend in better.

Present day Middle East is worse off than past Middle East, although there were plenty of disparate times. What if instead of OP's question about skin color changing, what if wealth was reversed? If countries and people in the ME were wealthy and the European countries and the US were impoverished, how would the relations be different? There probably wouldn't be a refugee crisis or wars in the ME. I wonder if discrimination would similarly be reversed.
Shitting Nepperstick - Wed, 12 Apr 2017 19:15:27 EST YXMsMuFM No.208021 Reply

Yeah, regarding OP's question I just don't know.

Yugoslavia is a classic example of when shit goes wrong I'm disregarding the ethnic component here, but hey they do look alike but then again atheists and religious people live along just fine.
Shit Beshwater - Thu, 13 Apr 2017 09:36:04 EST 54PBc7Id No.208022 Reply
OP here.
I asked about race because I see a lot of people mentioning race as a hugely significant factor in life these days. I see liberals championing Muslims and condemning Christians, and it feels like the one reason is their average skin color. Like I wonder how conservatives and liberals would react to world events if Muslims were white and Christians were brown; would Muslim terrorism all of a sudden be a part of White Supremacy? And so on.

Wealth isn't as interesting of a topic in my opinion. I mean, one of the absolute BIGGEST problems about the ME is the fact that so many people, hundreds of millions of people, are poor are shit, and their lack of decent education comes from how poor they are and how little of access to things like the uninhibited internet they have. I mean, we know for a fact that wealthy ME folk live like Westerners, enjoying the finest things in life and not being concerned with religion, while the poor ME folk are constantly practicing uptight theocratic ways.

That's what I loved about Muammar Gaddafi. He took all the oil money Libya earned, starting back in the 70's, and spent it all on people. He spent all of his country's oil money on national infrastructure as well as international philanthropy across Africa in an attempt to unify Africa. He was a truly beloved man in most parts of Africa, yet truth be told, his ultra-modern Sunni Islam was not welcomed in the Muslim world, and the heads of Sunni Islam despised him for doing things like giving women equal rights in the 70's to men. That being said, Gaddafi practiced his own utopian version of socialism, and while it increased the livelihood of all Libyans, the most skilled and educated Libyans emigrated from the country because they wanted to earn more money elsewhere. But that being said, maybe if countries like Saudi Arabia and other OPEC heads did with their oil money what Gaddafi did, we'd be looking at a much wealthier populace and a much more educated ME.
Doris Bellyfudge - Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:13:52 EST CMVbW7K1 No.208023 Reply
whoa, slow down, professor, let's correct a few things.
>. I see liberals championing Muslims and condemning Christians,
those are pretty strong and blanket terms for what happens. Liberals may champion minority rights and support minority groups like muslims but they are also atheistic and liberal and thus not at ease with the strict conservative islamism that rampages in the middle east and neither are they at ease with conservative (politicised) christianity at home.

>and it feels like the one reason is their average skin color.
I hope you're not so ignorant to not know that globally vast numbers of christians (possibly the majority) are in fact brown or black and there is quite a number of white muslims.

> if Muslims were white and Christians were brown; would Muslim terrorism all of a sudden be a part of White Supremacy?
you're talking about stuff which is so integrated into our history and our language that youre basically asking an 'alternative reality' type question. to answer the question though: no

> one of the absolute BIGGEST problems about the ME is the fact that so many people, hundreds of millions of people, are poor are shit
not really, not like India and other south asian countries or african countries which are also majority muslim and where there is alot more poverty. Arabs arent really so poor or uneducated as long as their countries arent in the midst of a war.

>maybe if countries like Saudi Arabia and other OPEC heads did with their oil money what Gaddafi did, we'd be looking at a much wealthier populace and a much more educated ME
You realise that Iran is doing that and because of that the US hates it? The same happened with Gaddafi. The west is friends with the Saudis (and helped them get to the throne btw) because they sell their oil to the west. Its mainly those Western and american policies which inspire islamist terrorism.
Rebecca Cruddlehune - Fri, 14 Apr 2017 06:24:32 EST d4DXKOh3 No.208024 Reply
Are you fucking retarded? Do you even read the wikis you post yourself? Arabs and Europeans are closer to each other than Europeans/Arabs and Africans. Arabs and Europeans are closer to each other than Europeans/Arabs and Asians.

They ARE the SAME shit!

>but there are genetic differences

And there are genetic differences between Portugese people and balloon animal Slavs too. You fucking retard. Stop with your fucking retarded ideological bullshit wanker and accept the facts. Cunt.
John Blythebanks - Fri, 14 Apr 2017 16:50:06 EST Ya59RsKY No.208025 Reply
You *are* fucking retarded if you could read those articles and come away with that message. I suggest you read them again.
I'm done with your childish attempts to derail this already highly questionable thread with false equivalencies and semantics. Tomatoes and Eggplants are closer to each other than Eggplants are close to Bananas. Tomatoes are closer to Tobacco than they are to Bananas. Does that mean Tomatoes and Eggplants ARE the SAME shit?

Let's try the argument your way. There is no such thing as divergent classifications of people. All individual people differ from each other genetically, but are over 99% more similar to each other than to members of any other species. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to say that Europeans and Arabs are the same but Africans are not, because Europeans/Arabs/Asians/Natives/Hispancis/Africans ARE the SAME shit! Accept the facts retard wanker bullshit cunt poo poo head.
Alice Cackleteck - Sat, 15 Apr 2017 06:49:02 EST d4DXKOh3 No.208026 Reply
Actually, genetically there's more difference between an Ethiopean and a Kenian than between a Frenchman and a Chinese, so yeah. I'm right. You're wrong.

Genetics are weird. And the best thing about genetics is, this is all objective scientific fact. So no opinioning yourself out of this mate.
Hugh Nottinghere - Sat, 15 Apr 2017 16:18:57 EST Ya59RsKY No.208027 Reply
1492287537273.png -(594265B / 580.34KB, 1024x649) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Actually, there isn't. Yes, genetics are weird, and thankfully we do have lots of objective scientific facts about them. You aren't arguing over genetic facts, you're arguing over semantics and equivalencies, saying these things are the same but these other things are different, without a shred of evidence.

Kindly explain this chart. I have circled the regions you mentioned. Are the two red circled places, Ethiopia and Kenya, the same color? Are the two green circled places, France and China, different colors?

You also haven't responded to my assertion that if you're going to claim there is no meaningful difference between Europeans and Arabs and Asians, then there is also no grounds to claim that Africans are any different. We are the same species, and we vary more within groups than we do across groups. Apart from the issue of Neanderthal/Denisovian/Pure Human ancestry, I dare you to prove to me that Europeans and Arabs are 'the same' and use the same evidence to demonstrate that Africans are not 'the same'.

You keep claiming the facts support your side. I have brought up a lot of evidence in support of my claims and argued for them, you keep responding with terse, evidence-less, vulgar statements. It's time to put up or shut up buddy.
Shit Cliffinglore - Sun, 16 Apr 2017 07:01:43 EST d4DXKOh3 No.208028 Reply
Genetics is about more than just colours on a map mate.

The genes that give Chinese their pale skin are the same genes that give French their pale skin. Because the Chinese and the French have common ancestry in the mammoth hunters that migrated from Africa, through the Fertile Cresent upwards into Siberia, with one group going East, and another going West, a couple thousand years later, having formed cultures in Europe and the other in Asia.
Eugene Bunfield - Sun, 16 Apr 2017 15:33:55 EST Ya59RsKY No.208029 Reply
1492371235902.jpg -(25465B / 24.87KB, 540x231) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>genetics is about more than colors on a map
Those colors represent the distribution of y-DNA haplogroups, which basically traces the path of male ancestry. Are you going to say THAT has nothing to do with genetics?
>>The genes that give Chinese their pale skin are the same genes that give French their pale skin.
Actually, that's not entirely accurate either. 6 genes control the expression of melanin in human skin, and are what lead to the variants of melanin that produce 'yellow-brown' or 'red-brown' types. So for example while both Europeans and Asians to a high degree share KITLG and ASIP genes and this contributes to part of their shared coloration, the SLC and TYR genes are found to be highly unique to the coloration of Europeans. However both KITLG and ASIP can also be found to a high degree in African populations, so it's likely that this was an inherent genetic variant that began to be selected for once humans left Africa, rather than a new mutation or a gene that crossed over from one of the other proto-human populations.

>>Because the Chinese and the French have common ancestry in the mammoth hunters that migrated from Africa
This is actually debatable. Of course all humans have some descendants which migrated out of Africa. However, we are only beginning to understand the role which interaction between humans and the other hominids that lived in the regions they were colonizing affected the human genome.
It is possible that the humans which migrated to Europe and mixed with Neanderthals then partially migrated to Asia, however, probably not farther than the sub continent, since we begin to see a proportionally higher mix of human with Denisovan proto-human DNA at that point. It's also probable that a lot of African populations went straight to Asia to mix with Denisovans, bypassing Europe and Neanderthals altogether. Obviously there exist individuals that are hybrids of all three, but this was relatively rare until recent history as genetic geneological studies have revealed.
Pic related, the darker green side of the spectrum is populations heavily mixed with Neanderthal, while moving up the scale you get a higher proportion of Denisovan. Obviously, Africa is not included, since the Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes aren't really present there.

All this to say that there is a fantastic amount of complexity in the study of the relationship between genetics, ethnic groups, and cultures. We need that complexity and nuance to describe the complexity and nuance of the human being. Trying to hand wave away all that complexity just by placing billions of people in bins that say 'same' and 'different' reduces what we are to the point of absurdity. Do you see that now?
Doris Gevingshit - Tue, 18 Apr 2017 05:07:45 EST d4DXKOh3 No.208031 Reply
No shit a lot of Asians went straight to Asia. You had three major migrations. The first one being the Papuans etc. who appear very African. Then the South-Asians, who have the typical Asian facial expressions, but have brown skin. And later, the North-Asians migrated.
Henry Gebbershaw - Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:31:21 EST Ya59RsKY No.208032 Reply
Well no argument here since you are just reiterating what I said. Since you seem to be conceding my point and have offered no arguments as to why, despite all of this, all other races are 'the same' but Africans are 'different' I assume you have finally accepted that's not the case, and we can finally put false equivalencies to rest and return to the point of the OP.
Frederick Gummerwotch - Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:33:53 EST ESoyfdMt No.208033 Reply
Islam is not a race, it is a religion. Islam needs reform but no one can talk about it without regressive leftists shouting, "Islamaphobia!"
Lydia Sennernatch - Thu, 27 Apr 2017 16:16:47 EST d4DXKOh3 No.208070 Reply
What point of OP? OP is a fucking retarded cocksucker from 4chan, circlejerk, Facebook, 8chan whatever and his fucking retarded shit thread does not deserve any discussion.
Clara Chanderdock - Mon, 01 May 2017 15:15:56 EST 54PBc7Id No.208080 Reply
If you're afraid of discussing race and how society perceives race, feel free to run away back to a libtard safe-space.
If you had the patience to read any of the responses here, you'd notice that at least some people on this board aren't afraid to talk about race analytically.
Doris Channerkut - Tue, 02 May 2017 05:22:12 EST d4DXKOh3 No.208083 Reply
Fuck off back to circlejerk you fucking 8chan immigrant. Fuck off, your kind is not wanted here.
Jenny Dungerspear - Mon, 08 May 2017 08:32:51 EST 54PBc7Id No.208126 Reply
So kind of you, Syn, to tell both of us to stop fighting when this jagoff just came up to me austistically screeching while I was actively discussion philosophy.
Just lump me, the one philosophizing, in with the "GO BACK TO 4SKIN" thread derailers.
Esther Chonderwell - Sun, 01 Mar 2020 03:26:55 EST kBvj4hT4 No.209995 Reply
>Middle East

We have lots of really descriptive words like "North Africa" "Southwest Asia" "The Levant"

I really think "Middle East" is some kind of Orwellian new speak meant to keep us ignorant about geography.
Esther Chonderwell - Sun, 01 Mar 2020 03:27:47 EST kBvj4hT4 No.209996 Reply
Oh, I forgot some

"east africa"

"the gulf"

"the red sea"
Oliver Fenkinnadging - Sun, 01 Mar 2020 04:14:14 EST JyDTI0YA No.209997 Reply
you ever considered going back to a place where you can discuss your muh racial realism to your heart's content?

like a site called 4___n.org?
Martin Billingwater - Sun, 01 Mar 2020 09:09:52 EST gPDHtM8c No.209998 Reply
To put it simply: Jews pretty much became white and integrated into society but it didn't really improve their situation.
Ebenezer Sumbleway - Sun, 03 May 2020 04:21:17 EST ahN/G+D7 No.210062 Reply
9/11 was, in large part, a reaction to American imperialism. Bin Laden said as much. Definitely not a justified, or just, reaction, but a reaction nonetheless. That imperialism was justified, sometimes subtly, sometimes overtly, by depicting Muslims as a lesser race.

The definition of "whiteness" has always been flexible, and mostly based on what's convenient for the imperial powers at the time. Remember how the Irish used to be considered non-white? That's because the British needed a justification to subjugate them.

So it depends on what you mean by "if Muslims were white". If you mean they had white skin, they would probably still be treated like a racial other, and it wouldn't really change that much, apart from aesthetics. If you mean they were considered white by the imperial powers, then that would probably mean they were an imperial power, which means no subjugation, which means there probably wouldn't be a 9/11.

That's my take, anyway.
John Gellywell - Fri, 15 May 2020 05:36:30 EST UcZcOgV6 No.210102 Reply
You do realize Muslims are religious followers of Allah, not a race of people?

It wouldn't make much difference because people have and will continue to fight over what god to worship.
Shitting Handlesug - Wed, 17 Jun 2020 16:30:58 EST PjzV5gHZ No.210169 Reply
They wouldn't be a protected class in the west and would be treated like Nazis.
User is currently banned from all boards
Cornelius Funkinbuck - Mon, 20 Jul 2020 02:52:03 EST DjpVXflu No.210240 Reply
lmao, negatively? They ran an airplane into a fucking building
User is currently banned from all boards

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.