I guess the Communist party just loves Tibet monks, right? Or do you know where the Dalai Lama is or, more importantly, were he was when the Communist came?
He was in Tibet. He
ran, quite famously. The China's grab of Tibet was just that, a land grab. THey didn't care about the Tibetans, except that they claim them as "Chinese," under some ancient imperial boundaries. Being who they are, they will continue to try to exert control over the region through the monks to the extent that the government will probably try to determine who Tenzin Gyatso's successor is, as they have with other lineage holders in Tibetan Buddhism......in any case, their actions aren't motivated by racism.( And what about what Hillary said this past week about China? The
fire Hillary clock officially started ticking....:lol
Thing is, all around the world there is racism now. Far far more raceism than in the U.S. (how many tribes in Africa behead villagers of other tribes
I'm tempted to say "none." However, beheadings do occur in Africa, principally from Muslim believers against non-Muslims and Muslim criminals, and have for centuries in Africa now. THere was a wave of
]jihad against the various Coptic shrches in Mauritania, Mali, Nigeria, Chad, Kenya, etc......there is inter-tribal warfare, and has been for centuries, and when one examines it thoroughly, the conflict between Tutsi and Hutu in Rwanda is absurd in the level of hatred that is generated between two artificial classes-artificial classes that were generated by European colonists, btw-the Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda were essentially the same people before the Europeans came. The conflicts in Chad and Sudan are another special case, in that their primary cause is the most basic and probably the first cause of warfare: a lack of resources, brought on by extended drought, though they are often divided along idelogical and ethnic lines, as human nature is wont , apparently, to do.In any case, if beheadings have occurred elsewhere in Africa, they have been part of general warfare, like the civil war in Congo, and not inter-tribal conflict.
now and what is happening to the Chiapas in Mexico now.)
I actually own property in Mexico.I've go there regularly, and have gone several times not to vacation, but to build houses, churches and community centers. I've been to Chiapas. The problems there have a wide-range of causes that cannot simply be ascibed to "racism," though that might be an easy, knee-jerk sort of answer. In fact, the principal causes are economic.
And that is what seems to get lost in the breast beating over raceism in the U.S. We are not perfect, the most of the world is actually worse off.
Deaf
You know, I've said, time and time again, that my parents (and I, though I guess I was only 3 and really don't remember) marched on Washington, D.C. during the civil rights era. That my parents-without me-marched on Selma, and put their lives on the line more than once. Mind you, we lived in New York, where there was "racism" when I was a kid, and racism when I was an adult, and where there is racism
now. Of course, living in New York, my parents and I might have been "better off" in that regard than people living in Selma or other parts of the deep south-I don't know. THere's something to be said for the more honest and overt racism of "No Coloreds" to the blurry and "secret" ones that I grew up with in New York.My parent, though, didn't have to go to Selma to be able to vote-they went so that others could, because they believed, as I do, that if
one of us is kept in chains, then none of us are free. Previous generations, though, had to eliminate the same sorts of problems in New York in order for my parents to be ready and able to offer others help.
Of course, "a lot of people around the world are worse off than in the U.S."
because there are a lot more people around the world than there are in the U.S.
Their problems are often worse, and we do offer what help we can, but it's not as though we don't have problems of our own.
In any case, "a lot of places are worse off" is not only disingenuous (again, Holder is the
U.S. Attorney General, not
Secretary of State) but seems to be some sort of lame excuse-an offer to dismiss the very real problems that exist here, or a plea to not have the discussion., and, as I said elsewhere,
I never knew a problem of this nature to go away by not talking about it.
