hidden racist agenda

[Captain]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
I think that doing a whole thread on this subject in an on-topic forum is definitely overkill. This small thing is just a mecanism for God's sake !

that's overkill? well, now it is. I'm definitely flogging a dead horse. but so are the spearman versus tank people, and the culture flip kills garrison, and etc.... all of those happen fairly rarely, but they're quite the noisemakers.
besides, Firaxis changed stacked movement based on the uproar (no?) and gave lethal bombard because of the same. there's no way to get them to change if you don't raise the issue.

out of curiosity, if this is making such a big noise over such a small thing, why so much effort expended (I don't mean you Akka) to make it a non-issue? Perhaps there are some skeletons in the closet? I think it's funny (not haha funny). it's like how some people (not on these forums) spend so much time emphatically arguing that they're unbiased, you have to wonder who they're trying to convince - themselves or you? why is it such a hard idea for us to accept that we're all biased?

(out of curiosity, ever step into a store and have the people eye you suspiciously? pull their purses closer to their bodies, move a little further away on the sidewalk? lock the cash register? sure, it could be coincidence, but body language gives a lot away. maybe we're just reading into it, but if you haven't experienced it, then you don't understand how it's an issue, and why some of us spend so much of our time talking about it.

yes, a game. but First Nations people had the right to be offended by the Clevelands Indians logo even though that was just a logo for a team playing a game. if you think it's just cute instead of offensive, you haven't put yourself in the place of First Nations people)

All in all, I'm all for the way it works now. On an abstraction point of view, the culture faces represent for me the integration of people in my culture. Still having other faces in my cities after centuries would mean that I utterly failed to overcome the ghettoisation of my civ, and that the people were not assimilated nor integrated nor accepted in my population.
For me, the faces represent my CULTURE, not my ETHNICITY. My culture accept these foreigner, and assimilate them. It does not mean that they become uniformized, it means that my culture was made more rich and they melted into.

Ok, I can see your point. And if that's your interpretation, it's good. Your point about ghettoization is well taken. Your idea of integration works. I can accept that, except I'm having trouble with the visualization. Again, with the mining cows idea. Just doesn't get past the image for me.

[Captain]

Originally posted by wase
This is just my two sense, but maybe the firaxian world is one where people don't see the racial differences around them and thus interbreed making a uniform people. You could say infact that the presence of multiple races (over very extended periods of time) show an integrated system of segregation with in the society if only at the social level (people A wont have children with people B). Anyway what does race matter, everything should be based on your ability to perform. My great alma mater, the univeristy of Michigan just shot down this concept of equality by negating the constitution because they believe that diversity (race-wise) helps people understand the world. Do we really need the govenment telling us there are differences among us?

I guess the issue for me was that my "Romans" kept having Roman babies, that didn't look anything like Zulu babies. And the Zulus just disappeared, until everyone looked like Romans, not Romano-Zulu mixes.

You are right about the presence of multiple races showing a level of segregation, but that's not necessarily the case. After a certain amount of mixing, if people are attracted to others and have children in a completely random fashion, you'll still get "pure" ethnicities existing based on chance. Of course, it isn't just all chance (though some would say so )and the reasons why people get together are way to complex for me to really contribute much insight. So maybe it should be a mix in the end.

I'm curious, could you elaborate on the U of M shooting down the constitution bit? What happened?

[Captain]

Originally posted by Bella Hella
thanks to the people who liked my idea (a simple change of clothing color to indicate that the people are now part of your civilization).

another idea - the "race" of your people wouldn't be dependent of whether you're the english or the zulus, but rather on WHERE YOU ARE GEOGRAPHICALLY. if you start near the equator, your people would be more dark-skinned, etc. i often thought it was kind of ridiculous when i started off as the zulu all the way up north in the tundra, and my people still looked like they had lived in the sun for millions of years. geography often determines culture, and definitely has an effect on the way people look. we adapt to our surroundings.

just a little food for thought...

Bella, another great idea!
I'd settle for UUs based on play style first though. Lots of forests? you get rangers that move all as roads. Lots of islands? You get faster ships. Lots of desert? You get... uh... camels? if it worked for AoK....

[Captain]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
Just to post on topic. IMO Captain seems to have waay to much free time on his hands...

As properly evidenced by my last 10? 20? posts?

Yes.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Field Marshal Klesh
Dude, Civ has always been this way. My frend's call the game (CivII that is) Genocide II. Because you are killing and taking peoples over all the time. Don't like it? Get away from it all in your spaceship.

-FMK.

well, you don't have to play that way. but you can't help but "absorb" the other minorities so they disappear as a distinct society. that's automatic. I'd like to keep my diversity. Even better would be immigration as well. All the people flock to our cities to see the wonders and prosper under my free and democratic government.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Trevman
Captain,
Gosh- Is anything not "rascist" anymore
Seriously, if you find rascism in Civ3, then your're a little bit out of touch with reality. Why don't you find some actual issues to comment on instead of making mountains out of molehills.
Also, although this post isn't an attack, it still reminds me of how almost everythin is labeled "rascist" these days.

I can see how you might be tired of hearing things that way, and yes, I was being extra-inflammatory with the title of the thread, but if you've read the rest, do you really think it's that extreme? well, perhaps, but no more so than some other things I've seen.

Also, in the same way, I'm tired of hearing others reject things because they're just PC. Maybe it is because we have talked about racism for so long that people eventually got tired of hearing about it. The PC idea has done so much to hurt genuine change. The problem is that we've tried for the last forty years to effect real change but we got sidelined by the superficial views. (yes, you could say what I'm advocating in Civ 3 is superficial, Andrew Cory brought that up quite well, I'm impressed with his insight).

It's like how multicultural shows and food displays distract. Instead of talking about issues in employment and education, the civil rights movement now bakes moussaka and serves up perogies. Multiculturalism without having to rethink your biases! Insidiously or innocently, the status quo remains because activists' energies are put towards shows instead of issues.

And now, with people so tired of hearing about race issues, they don't even want to hear about any of them anymore.

[Captain]

Originally posted by bigvic
I guess everyone's got a right to their opinion. I find it a bit tediously nitpicking. I remember the old All Madden football. Way back when all the players were white, which was kind of funny, watching a white Walter Payton scamper down the sideline for another TD. Then, in a later incarnation of the same game, they were all black, which I must say was a bit more realistic. I thought the whole thing was hilarious, wondered if someone somewhere had laboriously argued over it for hours. One thing's for sure - someone can always get offended. With all due respect to the starter of this thread and to all it means something to, I think its a superflous non-issue.

Are you a visible minority, or part of the dominant culture? I t would help me to understand what perspective you're coming from. That's not to say those of the dominant culture can't be sensitive, just checking to see if we can break some stereotypes here.

(And I say visible minority, meaning noticeably different in other ways besides vision, because if you don't appear different to the majority, you're not treated differently.)

I couldn't care less, except for the fact that innacurate perception of racism by highly sensitive people is unfortunate and wearisome to those who either a) are simply doing their thing oblivious or semi-oblivious to the possibility of accidentily offending someone in terms of ethnicity or b) have perhaps risen so far above these things that they may have assumed (wrongfully, it always happens) that most other people share their own genuine desire to ignore/rise above divisive attitudes based on ethnicity.

it would be great to rise above it, but to do that, we need to understand it first and accept that it's not so easy when you're not in the dominant group.

let me give you an example from Peggy McIntosh's article "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack". She argues that certain privileges are conferred that have nothing to do with merit, ability, or any other kind of virtue. And white people do not even know these privileges exist because, their lives are the norm and the culturally invisible environment in which we function is never identified as "White", it's just regular society.
(again, all this is from a NA perspective)

Here are some from her list:
- I can turn on the tv or open the front page of the paper and see people of my own race widely represented
- When I am told about our national heritage or civilization, I am shown that people of my colour made it what it is
- I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existince of their race
(you don't think that's a problem? what about native residential schools where we tried to eradicate all traces of their culture? founding fathers? forget mentioning the First Nations)
- whether I use cheques, creidt cards, or cahs, I can count onmy skin colour not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.
- i can swear, or dress in secondhand clothes or not answer letters without having people attribute these to the bad morals, the poverty, or the illteracy of my race
-i can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial
-i can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race
-i am never asked to speak for all members of my racial group
(I get this all the time, so what do your people think? my people?I'm an ambassador for them?)
-if a traffic cop pulls me over, I can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race
-if I take a job with an (equal opportunity) employer without having co-workers on the job suspect it was because of my race
(also, any achievement, this goes for gender too. consider the popular and prevalent attitude of guys in the work place are "natural", females in power got there "on their backs" or are vicious power hungry manipulators)


that's the last one for tonight, in this thread anyways...

[Jon Shafer]

For all the arguments I've had struck down (depends on how you look at it ), I commend you. It's not the most important aspect of the game to address, but it's just another one of those things you think about and say "what if it were like this" or "what if I could do this".

With that said, I agree, though not so passionately as you. Cultural ethnicity could be retained, and as long as I know they're not rioting, and they're my people, then I have no problem with that. Just cause one little icon looks different from another doesn't make it any harder to figure stuff out.

[bigvic]

Originally posted by Captain


Are you a visible minority, or part of the dominant culture? I t would help me to understand what perspective you're coming from. That's not to say those of the dominant culture can't be sensitive, just checking to see if we can break some stereotypes here.

(

You seem like a real ok hombre, captain, so sorry if i sounded dismissive or harsh. I'm a member of that much reviled ethno-gender subgroup so often blamed for all the world's ills, white southern male. I'm a democrat and a Buddhist. I lived in Latin America for a year and am currently getting divorced from a Latina, dating a Thai/African American (hopefully) and really don't think of myself as a racist. BTW, I hate running through the "this is why I say I'm not a racist" litany as I find it somewhat pretentious and, well, sort of compensatory when i hear others do the same. But , being a member of the ethnogender I am, unfortunately b/c of other's preconcieved notions (and my own South Carolina perverseness), I find myself having to defend my attitudes in this matter all too often. No prob. Not complaining. Life ain't fair, you know and no need to get bent out of shape, I tell myself.
Anyway, what bothers me about this thread is that I really don't think oversensitive searching for shades of intolerance and racism is productive in the long run. for anyone. Members of dominant ethnogenders tend to weary and turn defensive, others get worked up, and energy spent on chasing ghost racism could be used dealing w/ the real deal, where found.
Faces do change over time. I see it everyday, even down here in the deep south. I teach at a school next to a military installation and see the true melting pot every day. Fact is, in the US, most "black" people are not really black at all, descended from europeans as well as native americans in addition to africans. Many people who we in the states look at and say "He/she's black" would not be seen as such in many parts of the world, since this idea of someone who looks even remotely African being "black" is a legacy of deep racism itself. As far as that goes, more white people here than might want to admit it (still) have african blood in them. In the old days, when being white was a definate preference socially speaking, if a very light skinned mulato could pass for white, what stopped hm/her from moving 200 miles away and assuming a new ethnic ID? Nothing. Then, throw in all the non "black" and "white" people who live and always have lived here, and racial distinctions become even more meaningless.
Take a walk from Scandinavia to the Congo, taking ferries, of course where needed. Is there a point where, on one side of a national border people are white, and on the other they are black? Try the same thing from England to China. Is there somewhere where all of a sudden race changes, poof!? Of course not. Take, for that matter a very light skinned american black, put him/her in between a blond fair skinned person and a very dark african, and ask skippy the alpha centaurian alien which "race" the light skinned american black belongs to. What would the alien say, lacking the culturally preconcieved notions many of us have?
So, to answer your question, yup, I'm a white boy, pone, redneck, southern cracker, wtas (white trash all star) from south carolina.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Andrew Cory


The question is: Do you belive him?

Well, it may not be as true today as it was in 1916.

Whatever the faults of capitalism, the reverse didn't stop Lenin from committing many worse crimes. Slaughtering political advisaries for political differences. Could you immagine someone with "borgoius sensablities" doing the same thing? I mean, has Al Gore sent a hit man out for Ralph Nadar?

No, but Russia was in state of war until 1922. That tends to make people a little edgy Besides the US hasn´t excactly been to friendly towards political adversaries either. Joe Hill, Sacco & Vanzetti, etc. Not to mention all those people that got their life destroyed during the great communist purge of the 50´s. Granted that this is on a smaller scale than in Russia, but still...

Beyond that, Imperialism is fairly well dead, and capitalism has never been stronger. There are small nations being exploited right now, but the main contention is that they would like to be exploited _more_. Hell, Cuba's main beef with the US is that they would like to be trade parternes with us.

I´d say that imperialism still exists today, but now it´s masked as "free trade" and the imperialist state is substituted with WTO.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Captain


As properly evidenced by my last 10? 20? posts?

Yes.

I was aiming towards the tenacity with which you approach the subject at hand

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
No, but Russia was in state of war until 1922.

Heh, I have family who were white Russians. To me, that war was bad only because it cost my family a hell of a lot. Of course, we have more now than we ever could have even had the Reds failed. But still...

Originally posted by Kamrat X
Besides the US hasn´t excactly been to friendly towards political adversaries either. Joe Hill, Sacco & Vanzetti, etc. Not to mention all those people that got their life destroyed during the great communist purge of the 50´s. Granted that this is on a smaller scale than in Russia, but still...

To even compare the two shows a massive lack perspective. Show me the millions of Americans rounded into camps and worked to death or killed due to their political views, and I might agree with you. As it is, those accused of being comunists were _not_ systematicaly hunted down and killed. America is not and has never been a facist police state. To compare Cold War America to Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia etc. is about like comparing a cherry bomb with an H-Bomb.

Originally posted by Kamrat X
I´d say that imperialism still exists today, but now it´s masked as "free trade" and the imperialist state is substituted with WTO.

The protesters of the WTO tend to come in two stripes: those from rich countries complaining that we should leave those poor countries alone, and those from poor nations complaining that they aren't cut in on enough of the action...

Globalization is the best, and possibly only, way to end many of the problems that we have in the world today. We aren't ready for it quite yet, but soon, say another 100 years, and we will be. Bet on it...

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Andrew Cory

Heh, I have family who were white Russians. To me, that war was bad only because it cost my family a hell of a lot. Of course, we have more now than we ever could have even had the Reds failed. But still...

So, one could argue that the bolsheviks actually did you a favor?

To even compare the two shows a massive lack perspective. Show me the millions of Americans rounded into camps and worked to death or killed due to their political views, and I might agree with you. As it is, those accused of being comunists were _not_ systematicaly hunted down and killed. America is not and has never been a facist police state. To compare Cold War America to Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia etc. is about like comparing a cherry bomb with an H-Bomb.

The real madness didn´t start until Stalin had seized power in the USSR. Lenin was no angel, but at least he wasn´t a homocidal maniac like Stalin. And I didn´t compare USA to USSR directly. There is a difference in scale and intentions.

The protesters of the WTO tend to come in two stripes: those from rich countries complaining that we should leave those poor countries alone, and those from poor nations complaining that they aren't cut in on enough of the action...

Globalization is the best, and possibly only, way to end many of the problems that we have in the world today. We aren't ready for it quite yet, but soon, say another 100 years, and we will be. Bet on it...

I´m not opposed of world trade or globalization, but it has to be fair. It isn´t that today IMO.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Andrew Cory
Globalization is the best, and possibly only, way to end many of the problems that we have in the world today. We aren't ready for it quite yet, but soon, say another 100 years, and we will be. Bet on it...

The problem is not globalization, the problem is the lack of regulation in it.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


The problem is not globalization, the problem is the lack of regulation in it.

Yep. I once got into somthing of a shouting match with Nadar over this very issue. When he and those of his ilk speak of "globalization", they mean "globalization of industry". By handing over the term, he lets industry set the agenda. Globalization of democracy isn't even on the table, and yet that would be an incredable boon, and also the only thing likley to solve a hell of a lof of injustice. Ralph didn't see it that way, or rather didn't see that he was actualy harming the cause of justice, and *sigh*

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
So, one could argue that the bolsheviks actually did you a favor?

Well, it was actualy the Nazis who pushed them into leaving the continent, first to Russia, then Canada (I still have a lot of family in Ontario), and finally (illegaly) to the US...

But yes, one could argue.

Originally posted by Kamrat X
The real madness didn´t start until Stalin had seized power in the USSR. Lenin was no angel, but at least he wasn´t a homocidal maniac like Stalin.

The difference between "no angel" and "homocidal maniac" is fairly large. But then there is an even larger difference between some of our worst presidents (Nixon; Reagan), and Lenin. Spying on your political advisaries and calling them unpatriotic is one thing. Hunting them down and killing them is somthing else entirely.

Originally posted by Kamrat X
And I didn´t compare USA to USSR directly. There is a difference in scale and intentions.

And let us not forget methods. And outcomes.

Originally posted by Kamrat X
I´m not opposed of world trade or globalization, but it has to be fair. It isn´t that today IMO.

I won't dissagree that fair is good. The question is: how do we achive fair? The further question is: would fair make us better off? If the west had the same standard of living as the sub-saharan-african-nation-of-your-choice, small pox would more than likely still be around today, cases of malaria would jump dramaticaly, and AIDS would be *shudder* bad.

How do we let the vast majority have all the opertunity that they can grab without lowering the return on their struggle? Indeed, it is this very question that pushed me into politics...

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Andrew Cory

Well, it was actualy the Nazis who pushed them into leaving the continent, first to Russia, then Canada (I still have a lot of family in Ontario), and finally (illegaly) to the US...

But yes, one could argue.

But "Cory" doesn´t sound very russian. I assume your grandparents changed their names?

The difference between "no angel" and "homocidal maniac" is fairly large. But then there is an even larger difference between some of our worst presidents (Nixon; Reagan), and Lenin. Spying on your political advisaries and calling them unpatriotic is one thing. Hunting them down and killing them is somthing else entirely.

Yes, I admit that the comparison not hold good...

I won't dissagree that fair is good. The question is: how do we achive fair? The further question is: would fair make us better off? If the west had the same standard of living as the sub-saharan-african-nation-of-your-choice, small pox would more than likely still be around today, cases of malaria would jump dramaticaly, and AIDS would be *shudder* bad.

How do we let the vast majority have all the opertunity that they can grab without lowering the return on their struggle? Indeed, it is this very question that pushed me into politics...

The goal is of course that no one shall have a living standard like that of sub-saharan Africa. And equal distribution of the worlds rescources will achieve that. I´ve read that according to UN it would only require approx. 10 billion dollars to end world hunger, that is approx. the amount of money europeans spend on ice-cream in a year. Makes you think doesn´t it?

I´m off to bed now, it´s 1.30 AM here and I gotta get up to spred the word of socialism on the streets of Gothenburg tomorrow.

[Whoha]

"that title's meant to be provocative just so someone besides myself will read this.

consider:
after a certain amount of turns, people of foreign nationality in your cities become assimilated. they don't become integrated, they become assimilated. they lose their identity. their little face icons change. they've been bred out. their skin colour changes.

I don't like this. please firaxis, change it. don't assimilate them. leave them their ethnicity. I like the idea of having Greeks, Egyptians, Zulus, Germans, Chinese, Iroquois, etc... all living together in one city. let us encourage diversity, not a monoculture. perhaps this would make it easier to win the UN if you had large populations of foreigners under your benevolent rule.


yes, I understand that assimilation represents the transfer of loyalties, but why is this accompanied by the obliteration of their former identity? couldn't we just leave their faces the same? Or produce a new "mixed" nationality? Consider, former black slaves in America aren't lily white now, are they? and sure racial tension is a problem, but most blacks consider themselves american. they overwhelmingly support america, even though they are their own culture. integration doesn't happen because blacks become white, it's because they're accepted by the majority and given rights. the chinese flood of immigrants in vancouver doesn't culture flip to china. but they're not lily-white either. I want my New York to have people of all ethnicities, not one big white-faced crowd. (I use "white" here only because that is the dominant ethnocultural group of north america).

Unity is not equal to uniformity!!!


Admittedly this is not a major gameplay issue, just a question of offending my sensibilities. I cannot abide such overt racism, even if unintentional. I don't expect Firaxis to change any of this, they've got bigger issues at mind and I'm not sure they care, but I had to say it. Silence is compliance.



---
*even cooler would be that if you have a city with another ethnicity being dominant, if they were well-integrated into the empire, you could build their UU. example: cossacks aren't russian. russia wouldn't have that UU if the cossacks hadn't signed on with them. (IIRC the Germans swung cossack loyalty to their side in some war, military historians please correct me)"

You see, this isn't an issue, and theres a reason: the game straight jackets you into a game of raze the city. I myself havent seen a city assimilate foreigners because I burn them to the ground, and enslave the survivors. THAT is the fairly poorly hidden racist agenda, though I expect it will have changed, havent played since 1.17f.

The uu concern is non issue, impis and mws are awesome hands down, and in multiplayer they will really shine. What better resource denier is there then the impi? or say, a stack of 10 of them. Also notice how england,france, and America get shafted into having crappy uus.

However, this, like the top one may just be poor game balance issues that will be resolved.

[Thrawn05]

Why did you play the race card Captain?

[Tuberski]

I can't believe this thread is still alive.

[Zoid]

The mods must be sleeping But I guess as long as it don´t turn into a flame war Ming keeps his finger off the lock-button.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Originally posted by Trevman
Captain,
Gosh- Is anything not "rascist" anymore
...
Also, although this post isn't an attack, it still reminds me of how almost everythin is labeled "rascist" these days.

Yes, like certain nations are now always referring to

TERRORISTS.

I'll excuse for the 'rude' language in advance , but :

in certain countries (like US and Israel) you couldn't even fart anymore before being accused of another 'terrorist biochemical attack'.

Talking about mass hysteria and political brainwashing.

AJ

PS: My statement is slightly exagerated, but you get the point.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by AJ Corp. The FAIR PS: My statement is slightly exagerated, but you get the point.

No, I don't. What exactly is your point as it applies to this topic?

[zulu9812]

Okay -

In Civ3 we get to slaughter, enslave, burn and pillage. Isn't that nice. Maybe I'm a cruel sadistic warlord, but I quite like slaughtering, enslaving, burning and pillaging. At least in Civ .
I also quite like having a visual clue as to when my citizens will stop culture flipping due to that "Stop the war against our mother country!" nonsense. Does that mean I have a 'hidden racist agenda'? I think not.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by AJ Corp. The FAIR


Yes, like certain nations are now always referring to

TERRORISTS.

I'll excuse for the 'rude' language in advance , but :

in certain countries (like US and Israel) you couldn't even fart anymore before being accused of another 'terrorist biochemical attack'.

Talking about mass hysteria and political brainwashing.

AJ

PS: My statement is slightly exagerated, but you get the point.

It is NOT exagerrated; it is 100% accurate.

To the Zionists, EVERY Palestinian is a "terrorist".

The Zionists (some Jews; some not Jews) control the American media and spew out their propaganda. They never tell us of the bloody terrorist history of Zionism or of Ariel Sharon.

Here's a couple of links to get you started:

http://www.jerusalemites.org/kfar.html
http://www.deiryassin.org/

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by Coracle


It is NOT exagerrated; it is 100% accurate.

To the Zionists, EVERY Palestinian is a "terrorist".

The Zionists (some Jews; some not Jews) control the American media and spew out their propaganda. They never tell us of the bloody terrorist history of Zionism or of Ariel Sharon.

Here's a couple of links to get you started:

http://www.jerusalemites.org/kfar.html
http://www.deiryassin.org/

Ok, Coracle, you are now in my kill file.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
But "Cory" doesn´t sound very russian. I assume your grandparents changed their names?

Well, actualy, they didn't, and "Andrew Cory" isn't as much my real name as "Kamrat X" is yours. *grin* Ain't the Web great?

Originally posted by Kamrat X
The goal is of course that no one shall have a living standard like that of sub-saharan Africa. And equal distribution of the worlds rescources will achieve that. I´ve read that according to UN it would only require approx. 10 billion dollars to end world hunger, that is approx. the amount of money europeans spend on ice-cream in a year. Makes you think doesn´t it?

The problem is that if you give a man a fish every day for a year, he becomes dependant upon you. Simply giving money away doesn't do much (ask the sweeds about how much better off the Kenyens are with all the aid the swiss have sent them.) That isn't to say that they don't work hard-- they do. But hard work doesn't nessicarily equal wealth. the only thing that will allow under-developed nations to develop is bringing them into the world market. That won't happen just by tossing money at them. No one seems to have come to a better conclusion as to how to fix the problem, however...

[Zylka]

I agree...

[bigvic]

Originally posted by Zylka
I agree...

Wow, Zylka. Where you been since your 95 theses? Living your life?

[August Borms]

Originally posted by Coracle


It is NOT exagerrated; it is 100% accurate.

To the Zionists, EVERY Palestinian is a "terrorist".

The Zionists (some Jews; some not Jews) control the American media and spew out their propaganda. They never tell us of the bloody terrorist history of Zionism or of Ariel Sharon.

The Pals can go to hell for cheering and celebrating when thousands of people were dying in the WTC towers (and for blowing up teenagers and grandma's too)