Modi's Muslims

[Trunkage]

Since everyone's too worried about China, India was able to pretty much annex Kashmir. Now, this has passed the lower house. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-india-50670393

Modi is giving a pass to lots of illegal immigrants. Jains, Christians, Parsi, Sheikh, Hindu and Buddhist. But not Muslims. Because the other religions are the ones being persecuted. Despite what's happening in three seperate countries next door.

This is not suprising. India closed it's borders to Muslim refugees running from Myanmar, taking a disaster and turning it into a massacre. They have also been 'relieving' Muslims still in India of their land and sending them off to Pakistan since they tried to take Kashmir.

Anyway, good luck to all in the regions being hunted down by the governments that say they are protecting them

 

[Agema]

Since everyone's too worried about China, India was able to pretty much annex Kashmir. Now, this has passed the lower house. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-india-50670393

Modi is giving a pass to lots of illegal immigrants. Jains, Christians, Parsi, Sheikh, Hindu and Buddhist. But not Muslims. Because the other religions are the ones being persecuted. Despite what's happening in three seperate countries next door.

This is not suprising. India closed it's borders to Muslim refugees running from Myanmar, taking a disaster and turning it into a massacre. They have also been 'relieving' Muslims still in India of their land and sending them off to Pakistan since they tried to take Kashmir.

Anyway, good luck to all in the regions being hunted down by the governments that say they are protecting them

Technically, what Modi has done is remove autonomy from Kashmir & Jammu province: India already owned it so couldn't annex it.

During the partition, there were various states which had not officially been part of British India (allied states, e.g. Hyderabad, Kashmir), so Britain could not bequeath them to Pakistan and India. These states had self-determination but were rapidly pressured into surrendering their independence. Kashmir was a majority Muslim state, but as the Muslim population started agitating, the Maharaja felt threatened and joined India instead. Cue war - Pakistan and India each managed to seize about half. Due to the sensitive nature of the Indian half of the province and its Muslim majority, India granted it considerable autonomy.

As for the citizenship, it's a shitty thing to do - flagrantly discriminatory. Of course, India's treatment of its Muslim minority, especially under Modi, has often amounted to religious persecution.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Here's the real question. Are Indians racist when they take action against Muslims of the same color as they are, doing it just because they're brown, or, are they against their actual ideology? If we are to believe that people who criticize Muslims elsewhere do so because of racism, when a country is actually persecuting them to this degree it can't be a less malignant justification.


(also India didn't turn the Myanmar situation into a massacre, Myanmar did)

 

[Agema]

(also India didn't turn the Myanmar situation into a massacre, Myanmar did)

India hasn't needed to make the Myanmar massacre, it's made its own, e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashimpura_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_riots

Are Indians racist when they take action against Muslims of the same color as they are, doing it just because they're brown, or, are they against their actual ideology?

Why are you introducing race into it from nowhere? It's simple religious discrimination from an ideologically Hindu nationalist party with (in my view) a desire to erode the secular nature of the state. Muslims are the target here because of the hostility dating back to the Islamic invasions (15th century or so), India-Pakistan conflicts and as the largest religious minority, but let's not pretend they won't gun for the Christians, Sikhs and others eventually.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

(also India didn't turn the Myanmar situation into a massacre, Myanmar did)

India hasn't needed to make the Myanmar massacre, it's made its own, e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashimpura_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_riots

Are Indians racist when they take action against Muslims of the same color as they are, doing it just because they're brown, or, are they against their actual ideology?

Why are you introducing race into it from nowhere? It's simple religious discrimination from an ideologically Hindu nationalist party with (in my view) a desire to erode the secular nature of the state. Muslims are the target here because of the hostility dating back to the Islamic invasions (15th century or so), India-Pakistan conflicts and as the largest religious minority, but let's not pretend they won't gun for the Christians, Sikhs and others eventually.

I am in agreement with this assessment, I just wish to apply it everywhere it has similar foundation, even if the people whom Islam invaded are white.

You see, oftentimes people will wave off valid criticism of the ideology with accusations of racism, so I was wondering how it'd be tackled in this case here where you have Indians spearheading the movement.

 

[Silvanus]

You see, oftentimes people will wave off valid criticism of the ideology with accusations of racism, so I was wondering how it'd be tackled in this case here where you have Indians spearheading the movement.

Well, this isn't "criticism of the ideology", is it? This is persecution.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

You see, oftentimes people will wave off valid criticism of the ideology with accusations of racism, so I was wondering how it'd be tackled in this case here where you have Indians spearheading the movement.

Well, this isn't "criticism of the ideology", is it? This is persecution.

Yes, which is worse, hence, should also be racist if mere criticism also is, right?

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

You see, oftentimes people will wave off valid criticism of the ideology with accusations of racism, so I was wondering how it'd be tackled in this case here where you have Indians spearheading the movement.

Well, this isn't "criticism of the ideology", is it? This is persecution.

Yes, which is worse, hence, should also be racist if mere criticism also is, right?

Islam is not a race. It is a religion. You can certainly be racist to a Muslim if they?re from an ethnicity you irrationally hate already but if you hate someone solely due to their religion that?s.......actually now I think about it I cannot think of a word - if there is one - that means to discriminate based on faith. I?m sure there is one.

You want to criticise the Islamic faith, go nuts. Fuck knows it has room for improvement.

 

[Hawki]

actually now I think about it I cannot think of a word - if there is one - that means to discriminate based on faith.

Anti-theist.

That isn't a perfect word to use, but it can serve its purpose. For instance, communist nations are/were anti-theist in a number of ways. We saw this in the Soviet Union (treatment of the Orthodox Church), and in China (Chinese Christians, Muslim Ughyrs). That said, admittedly, I've never seen anti-theism described as an actual system. Usually it comes bundled in as part of a different system.

 

[Agema]

I am in agreement with this assessment, I just wish to apply it everywhere it has similar foundation, even if the people whom Islam invaded are white.

First off, India has racism. It's actually a large number of different (if related) peoples and cultures: Bengali, Gujarati, Tamil, Maratha, Konkani etc. There has long been tensions between various groups. However, this just doesn't tend to apply to their religious conflicts so much, because it's usually at a local level where the local Muslims and Hindus are the same race.

Secondly, in the West the line between racism and religious/cultural hostility can often be thin to nonexistent. You can listen to people criticising Islam, but to a large extent the fact that Muslims overwhelmingly tend to be darker-skinned is a substantial part of what they're thinking about. It's all part of the same package of thinking about other people as outsiders. I don't think it's any surprise that a lot of racists turned enthusiastically to anti-Islamic rhetoric since 2001: it's basically all about darker-skinned people in the country, just from a tangential line of attack because direct racism tends to run into much more opposition much more rapidly.

This is a lot of why "racism" therefore gets accused when people discuss what probably is more technically religious or cultural discrimination. But there's nothing more unutterably tedious than listening to a smug bigot score petty points about how it's not actually racism as if somehow that means he or she is any less of a discriminatory bigot. After all, it's the discrimination that's the problem, not precisely what kind. That and the fact you know, you just absolutely know, as per the above, that some of them are ragingly racist as well anyway, but just trying to hide the fact.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes, which is worse, hence, should also be racist if mere criticism also is, right?

Not unless theres an aspect relating to race/ ethnicity. Which there might be, I don't know: as Agema points out, there exists racism between the distinct groups within India.

In Western Europe at the moment, people will conflate religious groups with racial/ ethnic groups, and then the racism aspect becomes obvious.

Consider, for instance, the increase in discrimination towards Hindus and Sikhs in Britain, resulting from people mistaking them for Muslims. The perpetrator is judging them by... how they look or where they come from (racism), and conflating that with the religion (ignorance). The overlap is clear.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I am in agreement with this assessment, I just wish to apply it everywhere it has similar foundation, even if the people whom Islam invaded are white.

First off, India has racism. It's actually a large number of different (if related) peoples and cultures: Bengali, Gujarati, Tamil, Maratha, Konkani etc. There has long been tensions between various groups. However, this just doesn't tend to apply to their religious conflicts so much, because it's usually at a local level where the local Muslims and Hindus are the same race.

Secondly, in the West the line between racism and religious/cultural hostility can often be thin to nonexistent. You can listen to people criticising Islam, but to a large extent the fact that Muslims overwhelmingly tend to be darker-skinned is a substantial part of what they're thinking about. It's all part of the same package of thinking about other people as outsiders. I don't think it's any surprise that a lot of racists turned enthusiastically to anti-Islamic rhetoric since 2001: it's basically all about darker-skinned people in the country, just from a tangential line of attack because direct racism tends to run into much more opposition much more rapidly.

This is a lot of why "racism" therefore gets accused when people discuss what probably is more technically religious or cultural discrimination. But there's nothing more unutterably tedious than listening to a smug bigot score petty points about how it's not actually racism as if somehow that means he or she is any less of a discriminatory bigot. After all, it's the discrimination that's the problem, not precisely what kind. That and the fact you know, you just absolutely know, as per the above, that some of them are ragingly racist as well anyway, but just trying to hide the fact.

Again full agreement, which is why when people say "only those with power can be racist" my answer is "yeah but you're still being a bigot even if you say you're not being racist". In fact, I think bigotry is the only bad thing about racism. Yet you have people freely acting in bigoted ways because they think the notion that they can't be racist means that they get to be bigots without reprimand.


As for the post 2001 stuff, that may be true in America, but where I come from you had 400 years of Ottoman occupation where you had to be discriminated upon based on your religious identity and literally the only thing you had to keep your identity in place was that you weren't a muslim, so when we finally overthrew the Ottomans in 1821 you can't expect this rivalry to just vanish because in the subsequent century other white people in a different continent happened to prosper based on their enslavement africans during the time of our enslavement to ottoman muslims lol.

Europe is a lot more about what country you're from and not about your actual race so Americans also "being white" is not seen as a commonality at all.

 

[Agema]

Again full agreement, which is why when people say "only those with power can be racist"

Actually, I think the argument "only those with power can be racist" has some truth, but it is about institutional racism. Anyone on an individual level can be racist individually, but when we talk about racism of a wider system, it is almost guaranteed to be an expression of whichever group has power within that system to determine the discrimination.

As for the post 2001 stuff, that may be true in America, but where I come from you had 400 years of Ottoman occupation where you had to be discriminated upon based on your religious identity and literally the only thing you had to keep your identity in place was that you weren't a muslim, so when we finally overthrew the Ottomans in 1821 you can't expect this rivalry to just vanish because in the subsequent century other white people in a different continent happened to prosper based on their enslavement africans during the time of our enslavement to ottoman muslims lol.

Sure. Not everywhere's the same, and lots of places have different cultural contexts.

Europe is a lot more about what country you're from and not about your actual race so Americans also "being white" is not seen as a commonality at all.

Being white is not necessarily a commonality; many immigrants to the USA have been discriminated against (e.g. Italians, Irish). If people want to exclude, they'll find all manner of creative ways to do it. But let's face it, these white groups in the USA were never discriminated against even half as much as black people, native Americans, etc.

 

[Avnger]

SNIP

I really have to ask:

What about a thread opened to discuss the suffering of thousands of people in an entirely different part of the world made you think "I need to make a post JAQing off my self-victimization narrative!"?

Being white is not necessarily a commonality; many immigrants to the USA have been discriminated against (e.g. Italians, Irish). If people want to exclude, they'll find all manner of creative ways to do it. But let's face it, these white groups in the USA were never discriminated against even half as much as black people, native Americans, etc.

I just want to point out that when those groups (Italians, Irish, etc) were being discriminated against, the definition of "white people" literally did not include them. Nowadays you'd get a weird look for even suggesting it, but back then "white," Irish, and Italian were all considered different races (as you pointed out though not to the same degree as other minorities).

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I just want to point out that when those groups (Italians, Irish, etc) were being discriminated against, the definition of "white people" literally did not include them. Nowadays you'd get a weird look for even suggesting it, but back then "white," Irish, and Italian were all considered different races (as you pointed out though not to the same degree as other minorities).

NINA, or "No Irish Need Apply [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/no-irish-need-apply-signs-never-existed.amp]" dotted the landscape.

That discrimination paired with the lack of education opportunities lead to that usual bugaboo of "my child needs to eat, guess I'll crime today [https://www.claddaghdesign.com/history/irish-new-york/]".

Which of course leads to even more discrimination.

America: built on fun times and the best of examples!

 

[Satinavian]

First off, India has racism. It's actually a large number of different (if related) peoples and cultures: Bengali, Gujarati, Tamil, Maratha, Konkani etc. There has long been tensions between various groups. However, this just doesn't tend to apply to their religious conflicts so much, because it's usually at a local level where the local Muslims and Hindus are the same race.

Generally true. There might be some overlap because interreligious marriage is kinda rare and there certainly are people that see Sikhs and even Muslims through more of an ethnic lense based on Mughal history, but in general the tension is purely religious and the Indian racism exists separately from that.

Secondly, in the West the line between racism and religious/cultural hostility can often be thin to nonexistent. You can listen to people criticising Islam, but to a large extent the fact that Muslims overwhelmingly tend to be darker-skinned is a substantial part of what they're thinking about. It's all part of the same package of thinking about other people as outsiders. I don't think it's any surprise that a lot of racists turned enthusiastically to anti-Islamic rhetoric since 2001: it's basically all about darker-skinned people in the country, just from a tangential line of attack because direct racism tends to run into much more opposition much more rapidly.

No. The most important religious conflicts that mattered to the West and were somewhat recent are ISIL, Northern Ireland and all the stuff that happened in Ex-Yugoslavia. Aside from Turks the only sizable group of Muslims present in Western countries without significant colonial baggage is completely white Bosnians. The iconic Muslim in most Western countries is caucasian.

That is why identifying Islamophobia with racism is wrong for the west. There might be something to it for the US where muslim is often understood as Arab or France/Britain where many resident muslims are darker skinned people from former colonies. But it is not really widespread otherwise.

Usually you can see if racism is involved or not if you look how converts (in both directions) are treated.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The iconic Muslim in most Western countries is caucasian.

Iconic as in typical, or as in stereotypical, though? Not necessarily the same thing.

 

[Satinavian]

The iconic Muslim in most Western countries is caucasian.

Iconic as in typical, or as in stereotypical, though? Not necessarily the same thing.

I meant stereotypical.

 

[Gergar12_v1legacy]

He's part of a worldwide fascist resurgence.

What did you expect.