Politics & Stuff

[Fulham Broadway 16,894]

Good article on how the indigenous Australians are airbrushed out of olympic sport

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/08/john-pilger-how-chosen-ones-ended-australia%E2%80%99s-sporting-prowess-and-reveale

[LDN Blue 7,903]

Good article on how the indigenous Australians are airbrushed out of olympic sport

http://www.newstates...ess-and-reveale

Gotta love a John Pilger article.

[capriccioso 2,545]

Gotta love a John Pilger article.

Good article on how the indigenous Australians are airbrushed out of olympic sport

http://www.newstates...ess-and-reveale

It's a poor article which featured more on Kumantjayi Perkins and his Freedom Rides than the real issue, which is that unless they play Aussie Rules/Rugby League or Union, Aboriginal athletes were marginalised. The statistic of 1% having the same access to training equipment etc. is utter bollocks. Unless he surveyed 1200 unemployed, countryside living, Olympic sport practising (rather than a team sport) Aboriginal athletes, there's absolutely no way that can be true, especially as Aboriginal sportsmen tend to do extremely well in the two codes of rugby and AFL.

[Fulham Broadway 16,894]

It's a poor article which featured more on Kumantjayi Perkins and his Freedom Rides than the real issue, which is that unless they play Aussie Rules/Rugby League or Union, Aboriginal athletes were marginalised. The statistic of 1% having the same access to training equipment etc. is utter bollocks. Unless he surveyed 1200 unemployed, countryside living, Olympic sport practising (rather than a team sport) Aboriginal athletes, there's absolutely no way that can be true, especially as Aboriginal sportsmen tend to do extremely well in the two codes of rugby and AFL.

I rate Pilger -an Australian who has been writing for 50 years -pretty sure he doesnt make shit up or he would be hung out to dry.

In other news Today shocking statistic;

40% of the USA's population (around 100 million people) has less than one third of 1% of the wealth, and the top 20% of Americans owns 84%.

[Blue-in-me-Veins 4,067]

In other news Today shocking statistic;

40% of the USA's population (around 100 million people) has less than one third of 1% of the wealth, and the top 20% of Americans owns 84%.

that isnt shocking, its just sickkening. thats why Occupy Wall Street was happening. the wealthy want to keep that wealth and further exclude themselves from problems of the common-citizen and if Romney is elected thats exactly what'll happen.

[capriccioso 2,545]

I rate Pilger -an Australian who has been writing for 50 years -pretty sure he doesnt make shit up or he would be hung out to dry.

Even the best can sometimes have bad days. The article itself would have been great, but the title promised something else.

In other news Today shocking statistic;

40% of the USA's population (around 100 million people) has less than one third of 1% of the wealth, and the top 20% of Americans owns 84%.

Gandhi had it right back in 1908 with the idea that we're still slaves, except instead of enslaving ourselves for subsistence, we're enslaving ourselves for consumer goods.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

I rate Pilger -an Australian who has been writing for 50 years -pretty sure he doesnt make shit up or he would be hung out to dry.

I don't rate Pilger at all as a journalist and he has been hung out to dry many times. In fact, people still use the verb "to pilger" to mean "to conduct journalism in a manner supposedly characteristic of Pilger, esp. by presenting information sensationally in support of a particular conclusion.'" (From the Independent) He is obviously incredibly slanted towards a particular worldview. Everyone has their opinions but his viewpoints are just so biased, it's hard to take what he says seriously even if what he says is accurate. I am a big critic of the US, many of its policies are short-sited, some of its actions in the "war on terror" are indefensible, and its income inequality is atrocious, but when people want to pretend that A) The US is always at fault for everything no matter what and That the US is no better than say Saudi Arabia or China, it's impossible to give what they say credence.The world is not just oppressors versus oppressed, it's a lot more complicated. Too many people need to see the world in good versus bad and it's rarely that simple.

[Fulham Broadway 16,894]

I don't rate Pilger at all as a journalist and he has been hung out to dry many times. In fact, people still use the verb "to pilger" to mean "to conduct journalism in a manner supposedly characteristic of Pilger, esp. by presenting information sensationally in support of a particular conclusion.'" (From the Independent) He is obviously incredibly slanted towards a particular worldview. Everyone has their opinions but his viewpoints are just so biased, it's hard to take what he says seriously even if what he says is accurate. I am a big critic of the US, many of its policies are short-sited, some of its actions in the "war on terror" are indefensible, and its income inequality is atrocious, but when people want to pretend that A) The US is always at fault for everything no matter what and That the US is no better than say Saudi Arabia or China, it's impossible to give what they say credence.The world is not just oppressors versus oppressed, it's a lot more complicated. Too many people need to see the world in good versus bad and it's rarely that simple.

The term 'to pilger' was invented by the right winger Auberon Waugh, aristocracy and Tory twat-so no surprises there. Basically it was invented because the corporate media could only ridicule incisive and truthful journalism that was almost a lone voice in criticising US and British neo-Colonialism, and the mass slaughter and subjugation of around 50 million people -usually brown people, round the world since WW2

Pilger isnt the messiah, but he is /has been a beacon of light in the constant shit drivel of corporate media propaganda

[Fulham Broadway 16,894]

Gandhi had it right back in 1908 with the idea that we're still slaves, except instead of enslaving ourselves for subsistence, we're enslaving ourselves for consumer goods.

Spot on the acquisition of 'things' has taken precedent over living ones life-such is the aggressive nature of capitalism -basically they want you to 'work, buy, consume, die'.

Gandhi wasnt all that though. Coming down the steps of the plane at London, when asked ''what do you think of Western Civilisation, Mr Gandhi ?'' by one of the dozens of eager reporters he replied ''i think it would be a good idea''.

Sarky cunt. Right then -give us back your degree from University of London, your barristers robes , and your 'western' glasses. lets see how you get on now .

[Kieran. 6,317]

Gandhi was also racist.

[Fulham Broadway 16,894]

Gandhi was also racist.

Really ? Didnt know that

[capriccioso 2,545]

I'm half-Indian and while I like Gandhi and am grateful for everything he did for India, I don't buy into the image that's accepted worldwide, that he was some kind of saintly figure who was flawless. A Mahatma, as it were (pun intended).

Really ? Didnt know that

Yes, his main work in South Africa came from indignation that Indians were treated the same as Africans, who he felt were below Indians.

Spot on the acquisition of 'things' has taken precedent over living ones life-such is the aggressive nature of capitalism -basically they want you to 'work, buy, consume, die'.

Gandhi wasnt all that though. Coming down the steps of the plane at London, when asked ''what do you think of Western Civilisation, Mr Gandhi ?'' by one of the dozens of eager reporters he replied ''i think it would be a good idea''.

Sarky cunt. Right then -give us back your degree from University of London, your barristers robes , and your 'western' glasses. lets see how you get on now .

Really? Most of his work in the newspaper Hind Swaraj seems to be very critical of Western civilisation because of the capitalist turn it had taken. The reason he dressed the way he did in front of everyone, even Winston Churchill and King George V (or VI, forget which one exactly ) was to show that he rejected Western theory on civilisation, which basically meant industrialised, and therefore more or less capitalist. He admired/approved of pre-capitalist Western civilisation, like the Romans and the Greeks. As far as I know he was pretty emphatic in his dislike for modern Western culture; he thought it forced decent people into degenerates because of the economic pressure heaped on everybody who wasn't a blue blood. It was purely an economic and cultural thing though, he quite liked the education system, 'equality' of Western states etc. and for a long time thought India didn't deserve to be independent until it fixed its society up to a less stratified/segregated scheme.

Gandhi was also racist.

While that's true, it doesn't take away from his achievements. It takes incredible balls for a man wearing a nothing but a loincloth to bring down the largest and most powerful empire in the history of the world, without shedding a drop of anybodies blood. It makes a nice contrast to the usual blood crazed warlords that dominated the 20th century like Hitler and Stalin. What it does take away from is the saintly image people have built up of him. He was no Mahatma, he had as many flaws as any other political figure of the early part of the 20th century, but all that gets airbrushed away.

[Kieran. 6,317]

I think it does take away from his acheivements. I respect what Gandhi did greatly, but when you find out he was racist (and quite possibly a pedophile - look up his relationship with his 17 year old grand niece), it's hard to respect him as much.

[capriccioso 2,545]

I think it does take away from his acheivements. I respect what Gandhi did greatly, but when you find out he was racist, (and quite possibly a pedophile - look up his relationship with his 17 year old grand niece) it's hard to respect him as much.

If you look at him from a purely political perspective, it doesn't really. His racism never crept into his politics (he was always very supportive of Muslim-Hindu unification, tribal peoples and the Untouchable's in India), aside from a regrettable early couple of years in South Africa.

Didn't he spend a night with that niece, with both of them sleeping naked- publicly- to dispel those rumours? Anyway his sex life didn't impact on his politics. As I said, all it does is remove the Mahatma image, which I don't think anybody aside from perhaps Mother Teresa types should be granted.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

The term 'to pilger' was invented by the right winger Auberon Waugh, aristocracy and Tory twat-so no surprises there. Basically it was invented because the corporate media could only ridicule incisive and truthful journalism that was almost a lone voice in criticising US and British neo-Colonialism, and the mass slaughter and subjugation of around 50 million people -usually brown people, round the world since WW2

Pilger isnt the messiah, but he is /has been a beacon of light in the constant shit drivel of corporate media propaganda

There is where we disagree. Pilger is a voice of the anti-Colonialist movement but to me that's not journalism, it's a political perspective that's narrow-minded and silly. The US has done a lot wrong, but to portray the US as bad guys and their opposition as good guys is ridiculous. One example that is typical. The US invasion of Iraq was based on a lie. There were no weapons of mass destruction. It was morally right to oppose the invasion of Iraq. However, once the US was in Iraq, even those of us who opposed the invasion, hoped for stability that would lead to Democracy. Pilger and his ilk supported what they called "the resistance" who were blowing up civilians and sending the country down the path to civil war (which he would then blame on the US for destabilizing the country.) His interest is solely in attacking the US. It's the enemy of my enemy way of arguing which is ridiculous. Not only that, but his arguments are the racism of the far left whereby "the other" are mindless children with no responsibility over their own actions. (The racism of low expectations). Every single bad behavior by any group is just a reaction to the US. Al-Qaeda? Well, that's because of American troops on Saudi territory. Iranian instability and crazy religious leaders? That's because of the coup of 1953. There is no responsibility of people for their own actions. Everything is the fault of the powerful. It's just nonsense. In 1973, the US helped overthrow the Chilean government which led to the brutal dictatorship of Pinochet. Chile is now one of the strongest democracies in the region with a modern economy and society. The US killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians in the nuclear attacks in the 1945. Japan has a full democracy and a vibrant society. Societies, even greatly wronged societies, can make decisions to improve. It's not simply about reacting to American actions.

[Kieran. 6,317]

That's true - despite a few stupid comments (calling the South Africans "kaffir," equivalent to nigger), he did keep it out of his politics.

I'm not sure about the pedophilla thing, I thought it was worth mentioning though.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

If you look at him from a purely political perspective, it doesn't really. His racism never crept into his politics (he was always very supportive of Muslim-Hindu unification, tribal peoples and the Untouchable's in India), aside from a regrettable early couple of years in South Africa.

Didn't he spend a night with that niece, with both of them sleeping naked- publicly- to dispel those rumours? Anyway his sex life didn't impact on his politics. As I said, all it does is remove the Mahatma image, which I don't think anybody aside from perhaps Mother Teresa types should be granted.

Mother Theresa should be granted them least of all. Gandhi was a man of his time and I think it's difficult to judge people based on current mores. Lincoln was a great man but by today standards would be considered a racist. Churchill was a great man for standing up to the Nazis and leading Britain through the war, but by today's standards, he was a war criminal. Gandhi was still a great man, but, like all men, he was flawed. Mother Teresa was a media creation. Tariq Ali and Christopher Hitchens have a good documentary about this called Hell's Angel (available on youtube) but there are plenty of other very legitimate criticisms of her. She has somehow acquired this image as the default perfect person.

[capriccioso 2,545]

On the subject of India, has Partition really worked? I don't think so. We saw a civil war in Bangladesh in the 70s, eventually they seceded from Pakistan. India still has a Muslim population percentage of around 15%, more or less the same figure it was in 1947. We still see religious riots in India.

Imo, all that's come of it have been several wars. I think South Asia would have been better off if it stayed as one massive India and then Sri Lanka at the bottom, rather than Pakistan-India-Bangladesh-Burma.