|
Edited on Sat Jan-01-11 05:46 PM by Igel
The Copts have a rather big problem in Egypt.
1. Muslim men can marry Copt women. Sometimes by force. If a Copt man marries a Muslim woman, all hell breaks out. Not among one or two Muslims, not among all 1.x billion Muslims in the world. But among a hefty percentage of the local population--and the government, another chunk of the population, says little about it unless forced to. Somewhere between 1 man and 100% of a large population is the truth, and it's that % of the population that matters.
2. Copts can't build churches. They have trouble getting jobs. They have trouble getting into good schools. They have trouble getting into colleges. What percentage of the world's Muslim population is responsible for this? Stupid question: What percentage of the world's Muslim population determines Egytpian public opinion? Not a huge percentage. What, 70 million out over 1.5 billion (using your number)? The problem is that the Copts aren't in India or Indonesia (although there the same kind of interethnic hatred occurs, as well, with many of the same religious texts and reasoning cited). Do you think this kind of thinking helps the killers, or they came up with it entirely on their own, just walking along and though, "Gee! I hate Copts. They offend me. They humiliate me. How dare they pollute the land with their barbarism and false religion! I will kill some."
Think Jim Crow, to protect the "pure". Think of miscegenation laws (in which, similarly, the honor of the female of the "tribe" was most at issue). Think lynchings, to "restore" the majority's honor and put the lesser folk in their place.
Now, ask yourself, In all the lynchings, what percentage of white Americans physically put the nooses on the black men's necks? Not a big number. A couple hundred probably. Those in attendance were in the thousands, but then again criminal hangings also attracted large audiences--death makes for good spectacle, even if it's whites watching a "privileged" white man die. We have to think that in a population of millions, a scattered few of the tolerant, completely non-racist members of the majority population, having heard nothing but peace and tolerance all of their lives, suddenly determined that it was wrong for blacks to be prosperous, to interact with whites (much less even think of having sex with them), to be treated as equals, they concluded blacks were inferior. There was nothing in society to promote this kind of deviant thinking, to say otherwise is to individually smear every single white person with such calumny as to be unforgiveable and promote the crime and moral deviancy of anti-Weissheit. So, we have to conclude, anti-black racism was really a trivial problem confined to a few deviant whites.
Isn't that the exact same kind of thinking trotted out whenever anybody asks if maybe, just maybe, there's some sort of societal problem behind this kind of incidents? It sounds the height of idiocy if applied to American or South African racism, to ethnic hatred by Hindus in India or to Rwanda or SE Europe, doesn't it? More than idiocy, it sounds downright evil.
Of course, it's bad to assume all whites are race-extremists because some are; so it's bad to assume all Muslims are religion-extremists because some are.
|