Raj62 wrote:
DevilKisses wrote:
Niall wrote:
Raj62 wrote:
Niall wrote:
DevilKisses wrote:
Raj62 wrote:
FredOak3 wrote:
The religions of the Anglo-Saxon/Germanic/Vikings prior to christianity.
you sound racist to me.
I disagree.
A viewpoint on Anglo-Saxon/Germanic/Viking was hijacked by the extreme right.
To state that someone who is interested in these subjects must be racist follows the same logic that Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore all vegetarians must be fascists. It's a fallacy.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Vegetarianism does not directly relate to racism the same way anglo-saxon/germanic/viking history does. There is no excuse other than some sort of ingrained racist tendency to take a sole interest in "white" history and exclude the histories of other great ethnicities. Why not study Indian history and African history as well? Both are just as great, and many would say even more great in fact, Indian civilization is much older and richer than Europe's. Also the fact he made a point of saying "pre-christian" was a warning flag. I find many racists are leaning away from Christianity now that it is a proven fact Jesus was Jewish and was murdered by white Romans. So he studies white history at the exclusion of other people's histories, and even goes on to specifically say he's only interested pre-judeo-christian Europe. To me there are a lot of red flags in his statement, and I don't think I am being paranoid here, given how as you even admit to yourself, studying those topics are extremely popular among the extreme right. He should learn to broaden his mind and study other people's cultures rather than succumbing to ignorance and focusing exclusively on his own. That is xenophobic and extremely narrow minded. This may surprise you, but there is A LOT more history and culture to be found outside Europe than there is inside it. Don't be so ignorant as to deny yourself all the diversity the world has to offer by wasting your time studying European history when there is so much more to be found elsewhere.
I'll be the first to accept that some people with an interest in pre-Christian European history are racist. That said, just because someone has an interest in Islam doesn't make them a member of al-Qaeda, or just because someone has an interest in Hinduism doesn't make them a member of Shiv Sena.
As someone who has visited India twice I have a great respect for its history and culture, but I reserve the right to disapprove of Hindutva.
In the same way it seems possible to be interested in pre-Christian European history, noting the arrival of Christianity as a point of great cultural upheaval, without advocating the forcible removal of anyone non-white from the continent. I know many neo-Pagans, with similar interests, who despise the far right as much as I do.
I note that many aspies tend to get highly interested, even obsessed, with one particular subject, without it necessarily having a bearing on their political views. That is the point of this thread.
I don't think it's racist to only be interested in "white history". I think being interested in "white history" just means you're interested in "white history". I don't think it has anything to do with being racist or political views.
But can't you see how you are wrong? If someone is only interested in "black" crime, or "Latino" gang violence, of course that person is racist, it is a question of motivation. What motivates someone to want to study white history, except for a misguided conception that white history is somehow better or more interesting than the histories of other peoples? Now if he had said he was interested in African history, Chinese history, and European history then that would be different, but he specifically said only white history, and not just white history, but pre Judeo-Christian history. Please stop making excuses for racism, the biased media does that enough already. The media in the US and UK has a love affair with racism, defending every inbred white bigot that crops up. The least we as real people can do to combat this is have a zero tolerance policy towards racism in all of its guises. Of course it is not 100% sure he is racist, but I think after slavery, colonialism, and the holocaust, I deserve at least the benefit of the doubt on this. Would it have killed you to say "hey, maybe you're right"? And would it killl that original psoter to reevaluate his motivations and maybe broaden his mind a little and study some African history as well as his precious European history? Of course not!
I've left this entire passage in deliberately, so Raj can look over it.
Where does anyone say anything about "white" apart from you?
Fredoak3 said:
FredOak3 wrote:
The religions of the Anglo-Saxon/Germanic/Vikings prior to christianity.
Where does it say "white"?
He talks about a group of religions from a particular part of north-west Europe that predate the arrival of the now-dominant religious force. That's a perfectly legitimate field of study
For all I know FredOak3 is racist, but I cannot accuse him of racism on this evidence alone. Just because he is studying something that has also been studied by scum who are racist does not make him racist. He way perfectly well be someone who hates racists trying to find out why they think the way they do, or someone who is simply interested in that period of European history. On this evidence alone I cannot make a fair judgment.
If he had a name like Raj73 and was interested in the pre-Moghul religions of northern India would he also be a racist, just because some extreme right-wing nutcase Hindus have the same interest?
Personally, I don't think so.
For what it's worth, I have studied Indian culture and history. I have read the Mahabharata, as well as works by Gandhi and Tagore, and would recommend them all to anyone sufficiently literate.
02 Mar 2011, 4:57 am
