Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

When you look at scholarships for minorities, I think what happens is that the general blurs with the specific and what makes sense in general can lead to results that seem counterintuitive.

Let's say you have a decent amount of money. Say, a million dollars, which is roughly enough that invested wisely should send one kind to a state university per year on the interest alone. As a kind hearted and philantrhopic person, you want this money to help those that are neediest, but you're a busy man and don't want to spend a lot of time sifting through applications or hiring people to do the same. One great shortcut to getting money into the hands of people more likely to really need it is to target the scholarship at minorities, who (asians aside) tend to go to college in fewer numbers, and have far less family resources than white kids.

Now, that makes sense. Of course a working class black kid from suburban Connecticut isn't needier than a West Virginia white kid living in a trailer. There will be times when the most deserving candidate slips through the cracks. But on the whole, for the most part, giving scholarships to minorities does more to promote economic and practical equality than giving money to poor white kids.

You also run into a pretty common issue of scholarships that are color blind, but almost always won by white kids. Not due to racism, but due to circumstances.

http://www.google.com/search?q=scholarships+west+virginia+appalachian&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

The first result is a great scholarship, aimed at young leaders that want to stay in West Virginia. A state that is 94% white.

How many local chapters of the Rotary, country clubs, alumni associations, etc. give out scholarships? How many of those tend to run pretty white?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slarg232 wrote:Great.

Now when do we get "White Heritage Month"?

what would you teach in such a month? I'm obviously being smarmy, but it'd be interesting to see what aspects of white heritage you thaink aren't covered by public education.

I'm a little iffy on scholarships for minorities, because the defence of them typically involves the recognition that black folk generally come from poorer economic situations, and so should be given assistance. I kind of think that the middleman should just be cut out and we should instead recognise the economic situation by itself.

But there's a greater issue here, there's this idea that people like to create in their heads that they're the ones that are hard done by. They ignore every benefit they got from coming from a middle class, white background, and just look at every possible thing that someone else gets that they didn't.

It's a pissing, moaning spoiled child attitude.

The plain fact is that the average income for a white man in the US in 2004 was $30,513. The average income for a black man in the same year was $22,740. There are two options for explaining this, you can be racist and speculate that it's because the black man is dumber, or lazier or something. Or you can figure that men are equal across the races, and the difference in income is due to the social forces created by history that see white people advantaged over black people.

Accept that, and we can actually start talking about how to achieve real equality.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:Great.

Now when do we get "White Heritage Month"?

I think thats like 11 months out of the year.

Well we should get one in name, gosh darn it anyway.

Everyone else gets one, and all races should be treated equal!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slarg232 wrote:Great.

Now when do we get "White Heritage Month"?

what would you teach in such a month? I'm obviously being smarmy, but it'd be interesting to see what aspects of white heritage you thaink aren't covered by public education.

How to properly cook a hot dog and enjoy a good beer.

But seriously, it's not so much what we would teach, it's the fact that all orkses made equal.

Slarg232 wrote:But seriously, it's not so much what we would teach, it's the fact that all orkses made equal.

See, that's exactly the problem. Ignoring the overwhelming number of white people within normal history classes, then getting all butthurt when an effort is made to balance this with a bit of time specifically dedicated to historical figures in other ethnic groups.

I'm not sure a formal black history month is the solution, but pretending most history isn't all about white folk, and that therefore minorities are somehow getting something you're not is just plain childish.

sebster wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:But seriously, it's not so much what we would teach, it's the fact that all orkses made equal.

See, that's exactly the problem. Ignoring the overwhelming number of white people within normal history classes, then getting all butthurt when an effort is made to balance this with a bit of time specifically dedicated to historical figures in other ethnic groups.

I'm not sure a formal black history month is the solution, but pretending most history isn't all about white folk, and that therefore minorities are somehow getting something you're not is just plain childish.

True, it is Childish, but fortunately, I'm 19, I can still think like a child when needed.

Most history is only about white folk because the books are written with biase. Beleive me, that's how history books are. Don't beleive me? Let me quote to passages from my old World History book I commited to memory (different subject, but you will get what I am saying):

(A single quote from 2 pages about the history of Muhammed) Muhammed traveled the region AS the prophit of Allah.

Now, compare that to:

"Jesus Christ traveled around the region CLAIMING TO BE the son of god. This angered the preists of the Temples, and they had him put to death."

That was all they had in the book about Jesus, but they had two pages dedicated to Muhammed. I'm not religious, and even I have to admit that's pretty..... stupid.

McDougal Little's World History, this was; I found a site that was angry at this, but it seems too Rightest to know if it's a "valid" anger outrage.

Also, another problem with most of our history being based on White Heros and such, but that's because of slavery; they weren't really allowed to be "heroic" in the traditional sense. Before I get flamed for some one reading that wrong; Martin Luther King Jr. was a great man, one of the best, in my opinion.

mauler78 wrote:IMHO they should do away with any and all scholarships that include race, religion, or creed. In addition, I think that scholarships for athletic ability should be bases of the students abilities in academics, as should all scholarships.

Race has zero influence on a persons abilities to become educated, and thereby should not be a factor.

Athletic prowess has zero influence on educational ability either.

It is time that we bring school of higher learning back to what they should be, institutions for higher learning. Not social clubs that want to make sure they are being PC by have the right percentage of blacks/whites/hispanic/asian so on so forth.

If only people would realize this, the world would be a better place.

Slarg232 wrote:

(A single quote from 2 pages about the history of Muhammed) Muhammed traveled the region AS the prophit of Allah.

Now, compare that to:

"Jesus Christ traveled around the region CLAIMING TO BE the son of god. This angered the preists of the Temples, and they had him put to death."

That was all they had in the book about Jesus, but they had two pages dedicated to Muhammed. I'm not religious, and even I have to admit that's pretty..... stupid.

This would have a lot to do with the Prophet Mohammed being a much more historically documented character.

I also don't understand why you bolded AS and CLAIMING TO BE. A prophet and the divine son of god are two very different things.

Slarg232 wrote:True, it is Childish, but fortunately, I'm 19, I can still think like a child when needed.

Most history is only about white folk because the books are written with biase. Beleive me, that's how history books are. Don't beleive me? Let me quote to passages from my old World History book I commited to memory (different subject, but you will get what I am saying):

Yeah, that stuff happens. My experience is more the other way, because this is a predominantly Christian country you'll see events about Jesus reported as fact 'celebrating the day Jesus was born', but with Islam you'll see it described in terms of their faith, 'celebrating the day Muslims believed...'.

Being aware of that stuff that favours the majority, and looking to make allowances just strikes me as being good spirited, you know?

Also, another problem with most of our history being based on White Heros and such, but that's because of slavery; they weren't really allowed to be "heroic" in the traditional sense. Before I get flamed for some one reading that wrong; Martin Luther King Jr. was a great man, one of the best, in my opinion.

Ah, but there were still heroes. Slavery is a classic issue, as the way its taught generally leaves people with the idea that white people debated and fought with white people over the issue, while the slaves stood passively by. Except there were people like Nat Turner, Olaudah Equiano and Harriet Tubman who fought for their own freedom, and proved to white people that it was something they deserved.

biccat wrote:Racist?

Seems like if the rationale for affirmative action is based on diversity, then there's no problem with this scholarship. If whites are under-represented at some schools, then it would be rationale to include a scholarship for whites. Alternatively, if the proportion of whites at a school isn't proportionate to the population in a given area (e.g. UC Berkeley is only 32% white, while California is 59.5% white), shouldn't there be an outreach towards white students?

Just for fun, substitute "black" or "hispanic" for "white" above.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for there to be any stigma towards one race getting a race-based scholarship over another, but there is. Why do we immediately think "RACIST" when we see a whites-only scholarship, but "totally OK" when there's a blacks-only scholarship.

* yes, I realize that Huffington Post is generally biased and one article was, to quote a Slate.com editor, "the greatest example of SEO whoring of all time." But hey, they were first on google (wait...)

Background information:
http://www.blacknews.com/directory/black_african_american_scholarships.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/19/us/judge-upholds-blacks-only-scholarship-at-university-of-maryland.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tompkins_v_Alabama_State_University

UC Berkley
Total number of Undergraduates: 25,151

African American/Black: 4%
American Indian/Alaskan Native 1%
Asian/Pacific Islander: 43%
Hispanic: 12%
White: 32%
International: 3%

If Asian is the new black then you have a point, otherwise you are completely wrong as Blacks make up 6.7% of the population of California and 4% of UC Berkley.

Scholarships should not be able to discriminate based on race, but if that were to be passed into laws then the ethnic scholarships would just change into low income scholarships and guess who would be receiving most of those scholarships?

schadenfreude wrote:UC Berkley
Total number of Undergraduates: 25,151

African American/Black: 4%
American Indian/Alaskan Native 1%
Asian/Pacific Islander: 43%
Hispanic: 12%
White: 32%
International: 3%

Huh, for a university with a really well known name internationally just 3% international is really low. Probably the focus on humanities...

youbedead wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Melissia wrote:I don't see what's wrong with celebrating your lineage, just because your lineage doesn't include a skin color which is a different color from normal. And one can't have equality between races if a race is penalized for the same reason.

I'm pretty sure you didn't mean it this way and that this is just an example of poor wording. That said, I just wanted to point out that quite a few people could take serious issue with the implication that white skin is "normal" and that other skin colors are all somehow "a different color from normal." Just something you might want to be careful of, if you engage in a lot of this type of discussion and would prefer to keep things civil.

I assume that she meant the norm as in the most common

I snickered at this. Numerically, tan is definetlly the most common skin color, and race wise I would say asians outnumber any other race. Now ayways, personally nothing should be based on skin color. It should be based on abiility, skill, capability. And experiance

Comrade wrote:I snickered at this. Numerically, tan is definetlly the most common skin color, and race wise I would say asians outnumber any other race. Now ayways, personally nothing should be based on skin color. It should be based on abiility, skill, capability. And experiance

How do you explain that black folk earn, on average, 75% of what white folk do in the US?

sebster wrote:

Comrade wrote:I snickered at this. Numerically, tan is definetlly the most common skin color, and race wise I would say asians outnumber any other race. Now ayways, personally nothing should be based on skin color. It should be based on abiility, skill, capability. And experiance

How do you explain that black folk earn, on average, 75% of what white folk do in the US?

High rate of high school drop outs
Low rate of college grads
Too many single mothers
Too many men in prison

Root causes are a poverty cycle and the negative effects of the aa culture on their community.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Ahtman wrote:The idea that we live live in a merit based world is more of a fantasy than the people who believe the Na'vi are real. Connections are almost always more important than ability. Goegre w. Bush didn't get into Yale with a C average becuase it was a really solid C average. These institutional connections were long denied or repressed for minorities and that is what these programs are trying to address. There is also the issue of unearned white privilege being dealt with. It is an incredibly complex issue, but the one thing it really isn't isn't doing is promoting the superiority of one race over another.

Bush had a C average?

Yup. It was well documented that he never excelled at anything he didn't put his mind to. He was good at extracurricular activites though. This isn't a comparison of candidates transcripts as a measure of holding public office though, but an example of how merit doesn't always have anything to do attaining something. Bush isn't the only person to get into an Ivy League school based on family connections but he is thoroughly documented example.

Ahtman wrote:The idea that we live live in a merit based world is more of a fantasy than the people who believe the Na'vi are real. Connections are almost always more important than ability. Goegre w. Bush didn't get into Yale with a C average becuase it was a really solid C average. These institutional connections were long denied or repressed for minorities and that is what these programs are trying to address. There is also the issue of unearned white privilege being dealt with. It is an incredibly complex issue, but the one thing it really isn't isn't doing is promoting the superiority of one race over another.

Hordini wrote:While I agree that not being normal doesn't mean it's bad, I think people take issue with the idea that if white skin is normal, than any skin color other than white is abnormal, which is of course, a pretty abhorrent viewpoint.

What, you mean something that isn't conforming to the norm is... abnormal?

How is that abhorrent? Is it some irrational overly PC context added to the term abnormal to make it suddenly become negative instead of completely without subjective value?

The terms "normal" and "norms" are generally used with a postiive connotation, and abnormal is considered negative.

Even in the most value neutral sense, normality is based on average, not mode.

White skin may be the mode, but the average would be substantially darker.

White skin is the majority, and the most common, which is why you tend to use the term "minority" rather than "abnormal."

Polonius wrote:The terms "normal" and "norms" are generally used with a postiive connotation, and abnormal is considered negative.

I know, and I quite obviously consider that irrational and just don't care.

Getting a raise is abnormal, but you don't consider that bad. Suddenly getting a date from someone you haad a crush on is abnormal, but that's certainly fortuitous. Being talented is abnormal, but sure as hell better than the alternative.

sebster wrote:
Huh, for a university with a really well known name internationally just 3% international is really low. Probably the focus on humanities...

It depends on what "international" means in that context. Some US schools use it as a "miscellaneous" response when reporting racial heritage. If that's the case, then there's a good chance that the Asian/Pacific Islanders category is composed of many actual international students. There's also a large contingent of naturalized students at any given coastal state school. People that aren't considered international because they aren't on student visas.

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:The terms "normal" and "norms" are generally used with a postiive connotation, and abnormal is considered negative.

I know, and I quite obviously consider that irrational and just don't care.

Getting a raise is abnormal, but you don't consider that bad. Suddenly getting a date from someone you haad a crush on is abnormal, but that's certainly fortuitous. Being talented is abnormal, but sure as hell better than the alternative.

I think you're confusing abnormal with "less common." The term actually has technical meanings within behavioral science, as well as statistics, so it's not like we as a culture are just assigning normative values haphazardly.

Of course, using terms that you know will be misinterpreted, and then admitting to not caring, shows little interest in productive discussion. Not that I expected that, but sometimes people surprise me.

Polonius wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:The terms "normal" and "norms" are generally used with a postiive connotation, and abnormal is considered negative.

I know, and I quite obviously consider that irrational and just don't care.

Getting a raise is abnormal, but you don't consider that bad. Suddenly getting a date from someone you haad a crush on is abnormal, but that's certainly fortuitous. Being talented is abnormal, but sure as hell better than the alternative.

I think you're confusing abnormal with "less common."

*looks up definition on several dictionaries*

No.

No, I am not.

Princeton Dictionary wrote:abnormal: not normal; not typical or usual or regular or conforming to a norm; "abnormal powers of concentration"; "abnormal amounts of rain"; "abnormal circumstances"; "an abnormal interest in food"

Abnormal = deviating from the norm.

Ahtman wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Ahtman wrote:The idea that we live live in a merit based world is more of a fantasy than the people who believe the Na'vi are real. Connections are almost always more important than ability. Goegre w. Bush didn't get into Yale with a C average becuase it was a really solid C average. These institutional connections were long denied or repressed for minorities and that is what these programs are trying to address. There is also the issue of unearned white privilege being dealt with. It is an incredibly complex issue, but the one thing it really isn't isn't doing is promoting the superiority of one race over another.

Bush had a C average?

Yup. It was well documented that he never excelled at anything he didn't put his mind to. He was good at extracurricular activites though. This isn't a comparison of candidates transcripts as a measure of holding public office though, but an example of how merit doesn't always have anything to do attaining something. Bush isn't the only person to get into an Ivy League school based on family connections but he is thoroughly documented example.

But you suggested that his admission to Yale was based on white privilege, when the fact is that it had nothing to do with his race and everything to do with his family connections.

Contrast that with Barack Obama who more than likely did get into an Ivy League school based on his race, and we should be able to say something about race and privilege (Justice Thomas' experience and comments regarding Affirmative Action is also relevant). He may have gotten into Harvard Law by his excellent grades, but unfortunately hasn't chosen to release them.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

(A single quote from 2 pages about the history of Muhammed) Muhammed traveled the region AS the prophit of Allah.

Now, compare that to:

"Jesus Christ traveled around the region CLAIMING TO BE the son of god. This angered the preists of the Temples, and they had him put to death."

That was all they had in the book about Jesus, but they had two pages dedicated to Muhammed. I'm not religious, and even I have to admit that's pretty..... stupid.

This would have a lot to do with the Prophet Mohammed being a much more historically documented character.

I also don't understand why you bolded AS and CLAIMING TO BE. A prophet and the divine son of god are two very different things.

So your telling me you would beleive the guy who claimed to be a prophet because he heard voices over the guy who claimed to be the son of god because he heard voices?

To me personally, neither sounds right, and teaching one of them as being so while the other isn't is just wrong, in my humble opinion.

Take another example from the same book:

Islamic Jihads brought the light of Islamic learning to much of the European Countries. Islam had vastly superior Medicine, Learning, and Navigational Skills than the current systems being used by the European Countries.

vs

Christian Crusades were violent, ugly affairs. Crusaders butchered man, woman, and child in order to claim what they declared as theirs, the Holy Land.

Major difference in tone, there. I think, but I won't quote this because I'm not as sure as I would like, that the book even stated that Jihads were relatively peaceful. Now, can anyone here look anyone in the eye and say that any "War" has been peaceful?

sebster wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:True, it is Childish, but fortunately, I'm 19, I can still think like a child when needed.

Most history is only about white folk because the books are written with biase. Beleive me, that's how history books are. Don't beleive me? Let me quote to passages from my old World History book I commited to memory (different subject, but you will get what I am saying):

Yeah, that stuff happens. My experience is more the other way, because this is a predominantly Christian country you'll see events about Jesus reported as fact 'celebrating the day Jesus was born', but with Islam you'll see it described in terms of their faith, 'celebrating the day Muslims believed...'.

Being aware of that stuff that favours the majority, and looking to make allowances just strikes me as being good spirited, you know?

Also, another problem with most of our history being based on White Heros and such, but that's because of slavery; they weren't really allowed to be "heroic" in the traditional sense. Before I get flamed for some one reading that wrong; Martin Luther King Jr. was a great man, one of the best, in my opinion.

Ah, but there were still heroes. Slavery is a classic issue, as the way its taught generally leaves people with the idea that white people debated and fought with white people over the issue, while the slaves stood passively by. Except there were people like Nat Turner, Olaudah Equiano and Harriet Tubman who fought for their own freedom, and proved to white people that it was something they deserved.

I disagree about the allowances thing; they should both be covered the same, no matter the biase of the majority or the culture; otherwise it simply isn't truely teaching us what we need to know.

Also they really need to start teaching more about those people then, because of those, I only ever heard about Harriet Tubman before now.

Going to have to google the rest of them, can't right now, baking cookies for work.

Melissia wrote:

There are a lot of poor white kids out there in poverty unable to move up, and they have fewer opportunities than poor black kids because they themselves aren't black or they aren't hispanic or they aren't asian or whatever other minority.

I'll just point out that white students get scholarships to attend traditionally Black schools from said schools annually. Seen it, know people, it happens.

I know this thread won't be as fun if we don't yell "reverse racism" every five seconds and splash gasoline everywhere, but still...

Melissia wrote:Abnormal = deviating from the norm.

right, except for the fact that norm means:

Definition of NORM
1: an authoritative standard : model
2: a principle of right action binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable behavior
3: average: as
a : a set standard of development or achievement usually derived from the average or median achievement of a large group
b : a pattern or trait taken to be typical in the behavior of a social group
c : a widespread or usual practice, procedure, or custom <standing ovations became the norm>
4a : a real-valued nonnegative function defined on a vector space with value analogous to length and satisfying the conditions that the function is zero if and only if the vector is zero, the function of the product of a scalar and a vector is equal to the product of the absolute value of the scalar and the function of the vector, and the function of the sum of two vectors is less than or equal to the sum of the functions of the two vectors; specifically : the square root of the sum of the squares of the absolute values of the elements of a matrix or of the components of a vector b : the greatest distance between two successive points of a set of points that partition an interval into smaller intervals

Definition three comes close, but applies to set standards (of which race isn't one), patterns or traits of behavior (of which race isn't one) or practices (of which race.... still isn't one).

So, you could say that a car engine is more or less powerful than the norm, but you couldn't say that a green car is abnormal because grey is the most common color.

CT GAMER wrote:I know this thread won't be as fun if we don't yell "reverse racism" every five seconds and splash gasoline everywhere, but still...

What is this "reverse racism" you speak of? I wasn't aware that there could be such a thing as "reverse racism," since racism is belief in the superiority of one race over another, or I suppose more generally the idea that races are somehow unequal (intrinsic differences aside).

CT GAMER wrote:

Melissia wrote:

There are a lot of poor white kids out there in poverty unable to move up, and they have fewer opportunities than poor black kids because they themselves aren't black or they aren't hispanic or they aren't asian or whatever other minority.

I'll just point out that white students get scholarships to attend traditionally Black schools from said schools annually. Seen it, know people, it happens.

I know this thread won't be as fun if we don't yell "reverse racism" every five seconds and splash gasoline everywhere, but still...

... which both races can apply for. But whites can't apply for blacks-only scholarships.

Polonius wrote:So, you could say that a car engine is more or less powerful than the norm, but you couldn't say that a green car is abnormal because grey is the most common color.

Yes I could, and I would. 3b: a pattern or trait taken to be typical. In the US. that would be white skin, when most foreigners think of the US, they probably don't think of, say, the hispanic immigrants in Texas and California. They think of some fat unkempt white dude living in Iowa. Statistically speaking, this is accurate, as "white alone" in the U.S. Census gives 74.8% of the population, and 65% if you disclude hispanic groups from the "white" category.

Slarg232 wrote:
So your telling me you would beleive the guy who claimed to be a prophet because he heard voices over the guy who claimed to be the son of god because he heard voices?

In the case of the prophet there is no way of verifying anything he actually says, but he will behave as a prophet regardless of whether or not what he says is true so it is sensible to simply call him a prophet. In the case of the son of God its less sensible, as we're talking about an explicit, physical relationship, and not just the manner in which the person is acting.

Slarg232 wrote:

Islamic Jihads brought the light of Islamic learning to much of the European Countries. Islam had vastly superior Medicine, Learning, and Navigational Skills than the current systems being used by the European Countries.

vs

Christian Crusades were violent, ugly affairs. Crusaders butchered man, woman, and child in order to claim what they declared as theirs, the Holy Land.

Major difference in tone, there.

That's not necessarily an inaccurate statement. At the time of Islamic expansion science, technology, and many other disciplines were far more advanced in that part of the world. Similar arguments have been made regarding the Mongol conquests relative to political institutions.

Slarg232 wrote:
I disagree about the allowances thing; they should both be covered the same, no matter the biase of the majority or the culture; otherwise it simply isn't truely teaching us what we need to know.

They can't all be covered in the same sense, or at least that's the nominal argument. There's a reasonable point there as well, because the pivotal figures in Western history have almost all been white, meaning they'll naturally take up more time,but that doesn't mean we can't dedicate some time to learning about what other ethnic groups were doing.

Also, there's an argument to be made from relative knowledge. Basically, we don't spend much time on Jesus because the general facts of his life are pretty well known; certainly more so than those of Mohammad.

biccat wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:I know this thread won't be as fun if we don't yell "reverse racism" every five seconds and splash gasoline everywhere, but still...

What is this "reverse racism" you speak of? I wasn't aware that there could be such a thing as "reverse racism," since racism is belief in the superiority of one race over another, or I suppose more generally the idea that races are somehow unequal (intrinsic differences aside).

I'm aware, and I wouldn't use or suggest it, but this thread is based upon the assumption...

Slarg232 wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I also don't understand why you bolded AS and CLAIMING TO BE. A prophet and the divine son of god are two very different things.

So your telling me you would beleive the guy who claimed to be a prophet because he heard voices over the guy who claimed to be the son of god because he heard voices?

To me personally, neither sounds right, and teaching one of them as being so while the other isn't is just wrong, in my humble opinion.

You can become a prophet by spreading the word, and getting people to follow you. I'd agree that some of the wording could be done better, but the point is that we know for a reasonablly certain fact that Mohammed evangelized and shared his vision. He acted like a prophet, if nothing else.

The historical record for christ is thin, and the heavy lifting of spreading christianity was done by the Apostles and others like Paul. In terms of history, Paul is a far more important figure than Christ.

Take another example from the same book:

Islamic Jihads brought the light of Islamic learning to much of the European Countries. Islam had vastly superior Medicine, Learning, and Navigational Skills than the current systems being used by the European Countries.

vs

Christian Crusades were violent, ugly affairs. Crusaders butchered man, woman, and child in order to claim what they declared as theirs, the Holy Land.

Major difference in tone, there. I think, but I won't quote this because I'm not as sure as I would like, that the book even stated that Jihads were relatively peaceful. Now, can anyone here look anyone in the eye and say that any "War" has been peaceful?

Taken out of context, those quotes do differ in tone. Historians can argue that the Jihads were a net positive for the conqured lands, but it's hard to argue that for the Crusades. If the context of the paragraph doesn't justify it, I'd agree that hte line about the Crusades seems more sensationalist than it needed to be.

As for the term Jihad, it's actually being used very sloppily. It's hard to tell if they mean the initial Muslim conquest of the the 7th and 8th centuries, which while certainly armed invasions, were generally neither religiously motivated or targetted at civilian populations. Meaing, if I had to choose between living through the Muslim conquest of Jeruselem or the Crusader's conquest as a local resident, I'd pick the Muslims.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:So, you could say that a car engine is more or less powerful than the norm, but you couldn't say that a green car is abnormal because grey is the most common color.

Yes I could, and I would. 3b: a pattern or trait taken to be typical. In the US. that would be white skin, when most foreigners think of the US, they probably don't think of, say, the hispanic immigrants in Texas and California. They think of some fat unkempt white dude living in Iowa. Statistically speaking, this is accurate, as "white alone" in the U.S. Census gives 74.8% of the population, and 65% if you disclude hispanic groups from the "white" category.

Then again, you would be wrong. 3b states "a pattern or trait taken to be typical in the behavior of a social group"

It's hard to argue that race is a pattern or trait of behavior. I have never seen the term norm used to describe qualities that were qualitative but not value based.