Mahathir’s Speech - An Alternative Muslim View

The only things the British did were to import coolie labor into Central Sri Lanka to work on the tea plantations in the highlands there.

WHY? why did they import coolie labor? because the Sinhala refused to work on the same land that was confiscated from them by the British. on the other hand, the tamils imported were landless laborers (btw, no such thing among the sinhalese highlanders) in India, and they were more than happy to be able to work anywhere.

And that is the basis of Colonialism, that subjugates people, and when they resist, it exploits the situation further.....

If the Jaffna Tamils went to the schools run by the British and got themselves jobs with the government, nothing actually prevented the Sinhalese from doing so except their own laziness and/or stupidity.

from all that i have read and heard about this (though my experiences are more with LTTE members) I have heard varying versions of how this education was offered. Some have said that the Tamils were preferred. Some have said that anyone willing to become Christian and Anglicised was preffered, and more Tamils took to this. And a few have said that the Sinhala were more resistant to the British and their impositions...

I honeslty dont know enough to say what the reality was...but post-independence both sides should have taken measures to rectify the situation appropriately. The Sinhalese reactionaries played a bigger role in messing it up.

As to Sinhalese-Tamil rivalry being fostered by the British, you need to tell us how exactly the British did that. After all, they didn`t even attempt to divide the country the way Curzon divided Bengal in 1905.

racialization is the first and most destructive step in creating divisions. They drew a divide, pretty arbitrary at that too, that divided people into distinct categries of Tamil, Sinhala, Moor, Burgher, etc...divides that did not previously exist on that level and were not distinct. Although the history of the island did have some occurences of conflict, by large it was a harmonius situation before colonialism.

then came the mythification of Sinhalese laziness, which was really resistance to oppression and colonialism. the import of tamil labor from india (and how and why it took place)....etc etc

it WASNT a situation of the grasshopper in #43 :)

A timely story sent by a friend.

CLASSIC VERSION...
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he`s a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.

MODERN VERSION...

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he`s a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving. BBC, CNN, NDTV show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. The World is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be that this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Arundhati Roy stages a demonstration in front of the ant`s house.
Amnesty International and Koffi Annan criticizes the Government for not upholding the fundamental rights of the grasshopper. The Internet is flooded with online petitions seeking support to the grasshopper. Opposition MP`s stage a walkout. Left parties call for ``Bharat Bandh`` in West Bengal and Kerala demanding a Judicial Enquiry. Finally, the Judicial Committee drafts the Prevention of Terrorism Against grasshoppers Act [POTAGA]``, with effect from the beginning of the winter. The ant is fined for failing to comply with POTAGA and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government and handed over to the grasshopper in a ceremony covered by BBC, CNN and NDTV.
Arundhati Roy calls it ``a triumph of justice``. Koffi Annan invites the grasshopper to address the UN General Assembly.

Ref malangbaba #40

[while your last statement is true, it is still important to understand the roots and history of conflicts, both pre and post invasions/colonialism/etc

the tamil-sinhalese conflict does have roots in british favoring the tamils during colonial rule... ]

The only things the British did were to import coolie labor into Central Sri Lanka to work on the tea plantations in the highlands there.

The historic millennium-old Tamil settlements in the East and the North did not benefit from the opening up of these tea plantations... if you consider that working 14-hour days in the broiling sun to be a benefit.

If the Jaffna Tamils went to the schools run by the British and got themselves jobs with the government, nothing actually prevented the Sinhalese from doing so except their own laziness and/or stupidity.

As to Sinhalese-Tamil rivalry being fostered by the British, you need to tell us how exactly the British did that. After all, they didn`t even attempt to divide the country the way Curzon divided Bengal in 1905.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

The facts that Tamils have lived in Sri Lanka for over 1000 years and that the Sinhalese themselves claim descent from Bengalis have not prevented strife between ethnic communities in Sri Lanka. Let us not fall into the trap of finding cause and effect where no correlation exists. Let us also not forget that it was AFTER the British transferred power in India that ethnic cleansing began in Pakistan. That cleansing eliminated a population of Hindu Sindhis who were as native to that area as the Muslim residents of that area and certainly have greater claim than the Mujahirs.

That was a long-winded way of saying: look inside before you blame someone else.

while your last statement is true, it is still important to understand the roots and history of conflicts, both pre and post invasions/colonialism/etc

the tamil-sinhalese conflict does have roots in british favoring the tamils during colonial rule...

Ref rozaiba #32

[As far as Malaysia is concerned, the British did encourage the additional Chinese migrants as well as Indians - people with very different religious and cultural ties from the local Malays. They say if the British needed additional labor, they could easily have gotten it from nearby Java- Javanese beiing culturally and physically closer to the Malays.]

Java and Sumatra are indeed closer to Malaya but then they were under Dutch rule. Immigration was not strictly controlled in those days and nothing actually prevented the Javanese or Sumatrans from crossing the seas by boat to reach Malaya -- as they do today to find jobs in the booming labor market of Malaysia. It is just that in the 19th century, the population pressure in Java wasn`t what it is today and people had no reason to venture far to earn a living working hard -- particularly when the living was easy in Java itself.

On the other hand, the periodic failures of monsoon in India made any labor market attractive to Indians and thus Indians signed up to go to Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad, British Guiana, Fiji, South Africa, Seychelles, Mauritius, and much closer to home, Malaya and Sri Lanka. History records that the Dutch recruited Indians (primarily Tamils) for labor in the Dutch East Indies. Many sold themselves as indentured laborers for Re. 1 or were simply caught and shipped off as slaves.

[But colonial powers prefer their subjects to be neatly divided. It makes ruling easier.]

The facts that Tamils have lived in Sri Lanka for over 1000 years and that the Sinhalese themselves claim descent from Bengalis have not prevented strife between ethnic communities in Sri Lanka. Let us not fall into the trap of finding cause and effect where no correlation exists. Let us also not forget that it was AFTER the British transferred power in India that ethnic cleansing began in Pakistan. That cleansing eliminated a population of Hindu Sindhis who were as native to that area as the Muslim residents of that area and certainly have greater claim than the Mujahirs.

That was a long-winded way of saying: look inside before you blame someone else.

The Tutsi/Hutu disparity in Rwanda was not originally caused by colonial sponsorship of one group over another, as the Asians/East African experience is sometimes perceived. Tutsi`s migrated into the plains of Rwanda many hundreds of years ago and held influential positions within that society by dint of their entrepeneurialism and hard work.

The tutsis did come as migrants, but the realtionship between the two tribes was complementary and symbiotic (in many different ways) and no hostilities were known.

the role of Speke and his Hamitic and Shemitic myths (for hutus and tutsis), the priviledge accorded to tutsis by Speke followed by Germany and Belgium, issuing of ethnic cards, etc etc....these differences and seperations created later took on a life of their own...

---

i didnt know that france was involved in the conflict though...i`ll check that book...

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

temporal

Any Jew that believes in the existence if Israel as a Jewish state is a Zionist. That probably constitutes 99% of Jews in the entire world. You need to make a further distinction. Those Zionists who believe in the aggressive and belligerent policies of Sharonism are at fault. But not all Zionists.

rozaiba

~~Such policies also helped in other catastrophies such as in Rawanda and Burundi where the minority Tutsi were given preference over the majority Hutu. Tutsis are only 15% of the population but dominate the economy as well as government~~

The Tutsi/Hutu disparity in Rwanda was not originally caused by colonial sponsorship of one group over another, as the Asians/East African experience is sometimes perceived. Tutsi`s migrated into the plains of Rwanda many hundreds of years ago and held influential positions within that society by dint of their entrepeneurialism and hard work.

If you want to read a good book about Rwanda try ``We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda`` by Philip Gourevitch.

One of the most startling things in this book, and it amazes me that it has not been raised and brought to light more rigorously, is the active complicity of the French state in the genocide against Tutsis in 1994. Mitterand and Chirac both gave military, diplomatic and moral support (behind the scenes, of course) to the Hutu power militias in their genocide of one million Tutsis. All in the name of protecting Francophone influence in central Africa.

Whenever I saw Chirac`s face on the television news during the recent Iraq crisis I could not believe the nerve of him lecturing about decency and the rule of law.

Anyway, it was an interesting discussion you were having about the role of minorities in the creation of wealth in a capitalist society. It is almost as though they act as an enzyme, as an engine and catalyst for the capitalist model in a free market nation state. There are so many cultural reasons; we only need look at the Jews in Europe and the USA, the Parsis in India, the Indians in the UK in the present day, and as you mentioned, the Chinese in South East Asia. Closed groups with strong work ethics, a mercantile sense, and a belief in self-help and mutual support to ensure their status and upliftment within sometimes hostile societies.

I admire this sensibility greatly.

Effectiveness of speech lies in the reaction from its audience.
The western world got the message of anti-semitism and general discontent. The press wrote artilcles analyzing the speech, in private made a mental note about how uppity the tigers get when well-fed.

The muslim word found it good to see someone standing up to the west, and cheered loudly while pretty much ignoring what he said about muslim backwardness.

Ferozek counted the words.

re: saminshah

You wrote that hate speech would be some one saying, ``I want to kill you`` to me.

I have no objections to that statement, because that is speech. I may disagree with it, but I will uphold your right or an other person`s to say utter that statement. I have been threatened with death before in the United States and in Pakistan. It makes no difference to me. I will not consider that statement as symbolizing hate speech, because it only shows the insecurity of person making that statement.

Hate speech is not the issue. The issue, which Dr. Mahathir`s speech raised was the hypocrisy, which exists in the global media and in some nations, Pakistan included. Lt. General Boykin makes a speech from a pulpit, which is just as offensive to Muslims as Mahathir`s speech was to Jews and the reaction to that speech only reinforces a particular perception. Recently, the EU took a poll of its member nations and asked them to rank the nation considerd as the most dangerous to world peace. 7,500 Europeans picked Israel. Does that poll also symbolize hate? There are interactors on this site, who paint the Prophet (PBUH) with a broad brush and no one considers that hate speech.

Where I fault Dr. Mahathir is that he picked his words poorly, and instead should have opted for the distinction suggested by Temporal in his post # 29. If we are all so keen to ban hate speech and rail against hate speech, we should forget about Dr. Mahathir and start the process in Pakistan. How about we ban all the hate speeches made by the jehadis and all the hate speeches made against the Shias, Sunnis by Sunnis and Shias and Christians in Pakistan and against the Ahmedhis? How about we ban honor killings, because when we condone it, it condones violence against women. When we excuse that horrrible practice, are we not justifying a hatred of women and their rights by our words in defence of that barbaric custom?

Tell me, what is hate speech and who has the right to decide that it hate speech. My speech to you might be hate speech and to me, an expression of an opinion and vice versa. Hate speech is against all and cannot be limited to one ethnic group or nationality.

Ciao

Don`t know how China `proper` benefitted much from the Brits (Hong Kong notwithstanding).

As far as Malaysia is concerned, the British did encourage the additional Chinese migrants as well as Indians - people with very different religious and cultural ties from the local Malays. They say if the British needed additional labor, they could easily have gotten it from nearby Java- Javanese beiing culturally and physically closer to the Malays. But colonial powers prefer their subjects to be neatly divided. It makes ruling easier.

Recall how many people of Indian origin were kicked out of Africa (including some of my relatives) due to the economic control they had over the locals (rightly or wrongly). Such policies also helped in other catastrophies such as in Rawanda and Burundi where the minority Tutsi were given preference over the majority Hutu. Tutsis are only 15% of the population but dominate the economy as well as government.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Anne:

...let me add my voice to those who were welcoming you back:)…

…i share your distraught at Mahatir’s speech…but my take is different…for a seasoned person as such him, he should have made a distinction between jews and zionist

…i would agree with ferozk Concerning the speech, it was unfortunate that the speech will be remembered for its anti-semetic remarks. There were about 4,150 odd words in that speech and only 28 were devoted to Jews and it was these 28 words, which caused an international fire storm. The rest of the speech was against the levels of darkness and backwardness in the Muslim world and the speech, generally, was a rebuke to the Muslim nations in particular and to the Muslims in general highlighting their insignificance in the world.…with this caveat…all references to jews should be changed to Zionists…the genuine jews, hindus, christians, muslims and other followers are not the problem…

…the current problem is the unholy alliance of the neoconziX (neo-cons, zionists and fundo-christians) …they are a menace to world peace…

rgds,

t