Danish far-right party calling for Muslim deportation to stand in election

Alright, @Farm Boy is my private theologian maybe he can helps me with this

Cain does kill Abel. It's the biblical introduction of homicide as evil into the human equation, but I think that story is shared and virtually identical.
 
Cain does kill Abel. It's the biblical introduction of homicide as evil into the human equation, but I think that story is shared and virtually identical.

I never knew that Cain was pictured to adopted agricultural culture while Abel is relates to Nomad and herder in the Bible. Because in Quran both are ask to offer scarifies which one offered better and much more sincerer than the other. It is interesting to investigate more if there is any Theologian who interpret further that the Herder/Nomad culture were more sincere and pure in comparison to the agricultural culture.

And it is interesting to learn that they divided the Bantu tribe based on this passage of bible, which Peuri mentioned it as Bilbical Hamite theory, something that really interesting to read further, because I don't get it how they can relate that. Anyway thanks Farm Boy.
 
It happened in Rwanda between Hutu and Tutsi, German and Belgian divided the Bantu tribe, categorized them then BAM racism happened follow with genocide.

They were divided before Europeans showed up and could be identified by appearance. Thats all it takes when stress is applied in the form of Europeans playing favorites.

Interestingly enough the divide was introduced by Johan Hanning Speke, who based it on the Biblical hamite theory. Speke thought the Tutsis were the "higher race", because they were not, according to Speke, descended from Ham, Noah's son, whom Noah dooms to be slave to his other children, because Ham had the audacity to see drunked Noah passed out in his tent.

But still. I don't understand how you don't see that people can be racists, even if race has no useful basis in biology. People act out of false beliefs all the time. You can believe in the existance of unicorns, and apparently even receive "unicorn therapy", what ever that might be, all the while unicorns being non-existant.

I didn't know that. Now I'm wondering what form of discrimination the biblical story of Ham produced in ancient times. Were Egyptians or Nubians or both hamitic and did they ever care cuz, well, the Bible was not their genesis. I think race is generally a larger subset of humanity than tribes. There's just a lot of flexibility in the word, it can refer to the African race that includes many tribes and ethnicities or it can refer to the racial differences between Hutu and Tutsi and pygmies.
 
I never knew that Cain was pictured to adopted agricultural culture while Abel is relates to Nomad and herder in the Bible. Because in Quran both are ask to offer scarifies which one offered better and much more sincerer than the other. It is interesting to investigate more if the is any Theologian who interpret further that the Herder/Nomad culture were more sincere and pure in comparison to the agricultural culture.

And it is interesting to learn that they divided the Bantu tribe based on this passage of bible, which Peuri mentioned it as Bilbical Hamite theory, something that really interesting to read further, because I don't get it how can they relate that. Anyway thanks Farm Boy.

You might be interested in the novel Ishmael. As I recall it had quite a long discussion of the significance of Cain and Abel, and also mapped the "herder/farmer" thing onto them (from an anarchist Agriculture Was All A Mistake perspective).
 
I really like how Lexicus pick the word "racialized" here, because it is what happened and this is what actually matter, because the reality is like how @Narz and @metatron said that Muslim are consisting of people from diverse race (haplogroup, skin color?),
@Lexicus @Cloud_Strife @yung.carl.jung @haroon

No i didn't say that.
Get glasses or something.

I am telling you now that i deem the universal application of the Anglospherian concept of "race" to Muslims in all countries to be errant.
I suppose that's the implication you picked up on... only to grossly missrepresent it in the cringest of fashions.

What they mean by "race" you have negotiate with them not me.
They have given plenty of input here already, anyway.
 
I never knew that Cain was pictured to adopted agricultural culture while Abel is relates to Nomad and herder in the Bible. Because in Quran both are ask to offer scarifies which one offered better and much more sincerer than the other. It is interesting to investigate more if there is any Theologian who interpret further that the Herder/Nomad culture were more sincere and pure in comparison to the agricultural culture.

And it is interesting to learn that they divided the Bantu tribe based on this passage of bible, which Peuri mentioned it as Bilbical Hamite theory, something that really interesting to read further, because I don't get it how they can relate that. Anyway thanks Farm Boy.

Cant really blame the farmers, them damn animals kept destroying their crops

might be related to those mysterious circular stone walls littering the near east, the moment someone started growing a crop the herders became a threat and 'fences' were born. Maybe herders built them, keep your damn sheep out of my garden!
 
Last edited:
@Lexicus @Cloud_Strife @yung.carl.jung @haroon

No i didn't say that.
Get glasses or something.

What I'm saying is that you stated that Muslim is not solely consist of the people of color; Anatolian Turkish, Caucasus, East European Muslims are predominantly white skin, and I agree with that. I think that comment is me being agree with you, I think you misunderstand my point.
 
I never knew that Cain was pictured to adopted agricultural culture while Abel is relates to Nomad and herder in the Bible. Because in Quran both are ask to offer scarifies which one offered better and much more sincerer than the other. It is interesting to investigate more if there is any Theologian who interpret further that the Herder/Nomad culture were more sincere and pure in comparison to the agricultural culture.

And it is interesting to learn that they divided the Bantu tribe based on this passage of bible, which Peuri mentioned it as Bilbical Hamite theory, something that really interesting to read further, because I don't get it how they can relate that. Anyway thanks Farm Boy.

Eh, it mentions that Abel was a shepherd and Cain was a farmer. I haven't seen too many men of professional faith go super sociologic on the nature of organized violence, sedentary vs nomadic culture, the differences between raids, conquest, how they play into slavery and what tools are enabled to be developed/used/discovered.

Personally, I would doubt very much that nomadic lifestyles are inherently pacifistic or that this is the actual crux of the message.
 
What I'm saying is that you stated that Muslim is not solely consist of the people of color; Anatolian Turkish, Caucasus, East European Muslims are predominantly white skin, and I agree with that. I think that comment is me being agree with you, I think you misunderstand my point.
I don't feel very agreed with on that point. But fair enough. Maybe i misread you. :blush: :)
 
I didn't know that. Now I'm wondering what form of discrimination the biblical story of Ham produced in ancient times. Were Egyptians or Nubians or both hamitic and did they ever care cuz, well, the Bible was not their genesis. I think race is generally a larger subset of humanity than tribes. There's just a lot of flexibility in the word, it can refer to the African race that includes many tribes and ethnicities or it can refer to the racial differences between Hutu and Tutsi and pygmies.
I'm not sure how that passage was used in the antiquity, but the hamitic theory wasn't really employed much by Europeans before the Atlantic slave trade. Europeans deployed the theory to defend the slavery of Africans, because Africans were identified as the descendants of Ham, and because Noah had doomed Ham and his descendants to slavery to Noah's other sons and their descendant, and all people were in the end descendants of Noah, it was ok for Europeans to enslave Africans.
 
I don't feel very agreed with on that point. But fair enough. Maybe i misread you. :blush: :)

Alright from which part this statement is false or not represent your thought? Maybe I the one you misread you, because what I sense you are in disagreement with Cloud Strife that trying to put emphasis that most Muslim are the people of color, which in your perspective that is not fit with the reality
 
I am telling you now that i deem the universal application of the Anglospherian concept of "race" to Muslims in all countries to be errant.

And I deem the universal application of dumbass Twitter "SJW" concepts to my posts by you to be errant, but who's counting?
 
Alright from which part this statement is false or not represent your thought? Maybe I the one you misread you, because what I sense you are in disagreement with Cloud Strife that trying to put emphasis that most Muslim are the people of color, which in your perspective that is not fit with the reality
I'm not arguing that any class of Muslims are "white". (They may be, that's not the point).
That's why this haplogroup business annoyed me.
I am arguing that Cloud and Lexi are trying very hard to overapply an Anglospherian frame of "race", racism and anti-racism.
 
I am arguing that Cloud and Lexi are trying very hard to overapply an Anglospherian frame of "race", racism and anti-racism.

What does this actually mean? What am I actually, substantively, getting wrong here in this discussion?
 
This is also what I don't understand. I think the Anglospherian narrative here the classification of the European Muslims as the people of color, the conclusion that made by Cloud_strife, which he doesn't agree, and I understand that. However the thing that he doesn't agree with you is your rejection with the term of race itself? Actually I try to ponder it myself.
 
I'm not sure how that passage was used in the antiquity, but the hamitic theory wasn't really employed much by Europeans before the Atlantic slave trade. Europeans deployed the theory to defend the slavery of Africans, because Africans were identified as the descendants of Ham, and because Noah had doomed Ham and his descendants to slavery to Noah's other sons and their descendant, and all people were in the end descendants of Noah, it was ok for Europeans to enslave Africans.

I wiki'd it, the original story may have been a justification for Israelite domination of Canaan since the curse was placed on Ham's son. Race or skin color isn't mentioned. On the other hand if the world was repopulated after the Flood by Noah's sons then the hamitic people should be very numerous. Any volunteers? I sure dont want people enslaving me much less because a hungover Noah woke up in a foul mood.

I'll go on a mini-rant here while on that subject, its possible Ham is the 'father' of African peoples and associated with slavery because Africa is our birthplace and eastward is the Garden where God took the man he made to work in paradise. Was Adam working for God in Africa too? Is that where mankind learned about slavery and how to justify it? We're slaves to God may have been literal. Worship = workship. At least those slaves working for God had time off, now we gotta be on the ball with 24/7 devotion
 
Instead of whining about how horrific the opposition are I hope the Danish left has learned from the US's mistakes and created a solid platform of their own.

Just wanted to "???" at this. The Danish social liberal left is the foundation of the country's economic structure. The Danish left shouldn't "learn" to have a platform from the US, the parties have had each of their specific electory platforms for decades (well, those that existed for so long at least). I'm actually really confused what you mean. I know that you aren't saying that the non-American world is just passively staring at the US to learn their policies, but it reads like that. So I wanted to exclaim my confusion and/or answer what you might have meant:

If this is about having a platform about race/immigration. There are intricacies in regards to the treatment of it, but the left generally wants to provide language schools, nurture job programs and otherwise grant immigrants basic economic and social rights. All the basic social democratic stuff, but basically implementing professionals in regards to what best serves as a path from immigrant to productive citizen. The right has recently ridden a platform of intentionally providing less subsidies to those projects, less subsidies to individuals (ending up with immigrants in literal poverty), intentionally closing or cutting the budget of language schools, increasing penalization and deportation, create very expensive and unnecessary increased border patrol, all that stuff. The left has a platform and presents it every election, and unlike in the US, the parties are smaller and as such have a much clearer idea of what they want to do.

The platform is there. Now I'll give you, it may not show that well. And that's a problem when trying to sell politics, since it's unexciting legwork. The left's "We know that this works and have known it for some time, so we're going to keep donig it" vs the right's "We're gonna start a border patrol in Jutland and CATCH ENEMIES", even when the media points out repeatedly that the border patrol is ridiculously costly and does basically nothing but stop confused elderly Germans who forgot their passports.

(Yes I vote left.)

***

In regards to the discussion on race, it doesn't really matter to the discussion whether race is a thing or not. Because it's treated as real. Muslims mean brown people in the racists' eyes the vast majority of the time. The usage of race intentionally undercuts itself regardless of race existing; the people that want Muslims out claim that it's because of culture, but their usage of Muslims refers to near universally nonwhites. And even so, discrimination against religion is defined as racism under Danish law. This is one of the reasons the right/racists/identitarians/*******s (whatever your preferred definition is) carefully word their criticisms not to be about race, nationality, ethnicity or religion, but about culture. As that clause isn't included in the judicary framework. (And if culture were added, they'd switch to another definition.) This thread's whole discussion of what exactly constitutes race is fuel to the fire for these people, as they just want the browns+Somali out of Denmark, or to be similarly limited. Arbitrations and abstractions about what race constitutes allow them leverage in their rhetoric which is based on them wanting to practice discrimination. It's not really that complicated.

Like the infamous burqa ban. It wasn't possible under our law on racism, so it was rephrased by the major right parties, not just Danish People's Party, but the Conservatives and Right, to be about a "mask ban" instead. This disallowed usage of masking in public. Naturally, this is a dogwhistle and the police basically only enforces it against the intended Muslim clothing.

(I don't like burqas, no, but banning clothing doesn't solve anything and is a major break with traditional Western values. There have been instances since where burqa-clad women were attacked or abused in public, such as a convenience store, an assault supported by the store workers.)
 
Last edited:
I wiki'd it, the original story may have been a justification for Israelite domination of Canaan since the curse was placed on Ham's son. Race or skin color isn't mentioned. On the other hand if the world was repopulated after the Flood by Noah's sons then the hamitic people should be very numerous. Any volunteers? I sure dont want people enslaving me much less because a hungover Noah woke up in a foul mood.
Obviously I don't believe that Noah even existed, or that his sons repopulated the Earth. What does it matter that skin colour is not mentioned, or that Israelites used the story in some other way? The interpretation and usage of stories change as societies change and develop different needs. Not to mention that when Europeans were discovering the rest of the world, they had a very limited or non-existant understanding of pre- and ancient history. All the way up to the 19th century many educated people believed that the Bible was an accurate description of the early history of humans and the division of languages and peoples. The Swedes for example believed that they were the descendants of Noah's son Japhet's son Magog.

"Race" is a concept with a complex history. It had been used to mean anything from family lineage to around 5 subcategories of human beings. If the modern concept of "race", that is closely tied to skin colour, was be mentioned in the Bible, it would be an anachronism.

I don't think the Europeans or Arabs asked the Africans very nicely to be their slaves. The hamitic theory was more an excuse for the European audience than an argument to win the Africans over.
 
no doubt racists will latch onto the 'us & them' inherent to the clash of civilizations but then why do people of the same 'race' as Muslims dislike Islam?

that was for angst
 
Last edited:
I am telling you now that i deem the universal application of the Anglospherian concept of "race" to Muslims in all countries to be errant.

I understand now, you are disagree with me because even though I'm in agreement with you that Muslim is not a race, however later on I seemed to switch my conclusion to agree with Lexicus and Cloud_Strife on insisting that Islamophobia is a form of racism.

But here what I'm saying to you, I agree Muslim is a practitioner of Islam, it is definitely not a race, Muslim definitely not a racial group. I agree.

However the Islamophobs rhetorics and actions mostly acts as racism. They used the term like refugee, immigrant, middle east, sand ******, towel head toward the Muslim. Hence the term Muslim here has been racialized, which positioned the abuser to be a racist.

I share the same sentiment with Lexicus and I believe Cloud_Strife also the same from the discussion about race with "hehehe" in the past thread, we believe the concept of race itself is arbitrary, there is no such thing as race. It is an obsolete concept that essentially that not only inapplicable to the Muslim, but to everyone in general. But that doesn't mean racism do not exist, it is exist through action, not depend with the existence of race itself as a variable. Peuri has demonstrate a good analogy about this using the example of unicorn.
 
Top Bottom