Also a two party system with the one they consider being centrist having an ethnic supremacy wing.
That’s mostly result of being occupied by a militant fascist nation who tried to do several decades of cultural genocide.
The people’s power party’s version also has an ethnic supremacy wing, but for the Japanese. The new right movement somehow has some weird Koreans that want to restore imperial Japanese power in Korea.
The US supported the Mujahedeen against Soviet invasion, including radical religious extremists. Years later, after the Soviets left the country and Afghanistan had spent half a decade quarreling amongst themselves, the Taliban, a radical extremist organization formed in the mid-90s, would draw on religious extremism in the country to leverage into success over the fragmented Mujahedeen warlords in the Afghan government. This apparently means that the US supported the Taliban."
Lol, yes.
Again, you don’t seem to actually be grasping how the Afghan civil wars in the 90s played out.
Sure… Even though you’ve had to back track and largely agree with me.
Did I say that? I explicitly noted the strengthening of religious radicalism in the country, but reading comprehension is apparently not your strong point, considering the wiki excerpt you posted.
Yeah, you are largely agreeing with me that the radicalism suddenly increased, my claim with supporting sources was that the religious indoctrination was imported.
They literally recruited from religious schools,
Religious school created by radical sunnis with support from the US, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.
largely not mujahedeen veterans, most of whom that were still interested in fighting were already serving under various warlords. Fuck’s sake, does “Mujahedeen” just mean “Religious Afghan” to you or something?
Lol, all the leaders of the Taliban were higher up mujahedeen. What are you talking about about?
Mujahedeen" just mean “Religious Afghan” to you or something?
Lol, my dude… in pashtun it literally translates to -strugglers or strivers, doers of jihād’
Bruh, are you just continually quoting snippets of wikipedia here without actually reading them?
Bruh, can you not remember my original claims?
Literally none of that supports your point, other than the outsiders poured in arms and money into Afghanistan, which was never contested. Jesus fucking Christ.
What are you contesting? Seems like the only thing you have a problem with is a pedantic dispute…
Asserted the Taliban were Saudi, not Pakistani in origin
The religious extremism is Saudi, the Saudi also imported this extremism into Pakistan before Afghanistan…
Thinks the Taliban existed in the 80s and fought the Soviets
Again… Another pedantic dispute.
Thinks that religious radicalism was new to Afghanistan in the 80s rather than something that had been long-established in the country since at least the 19th century
Lol, making a lot of assertion with no evidence.
“By the 20th century, Islam made up as much as 99 percent of the population. The country’s religious minorities such as Hindus and Jews did, however, enjoy “complete religious freedom” as of the early 1970s.[25] Men praying at the Blue Mosque (or Shrine of Ali) in the northern Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif The 1979 Soviet invasion in support of a communist government triggered a major intervention of religion into Afghan political conflict. The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (1980–1987) was a secular state; Islam united the multi-ethnic political opposition.”
We’re done here.
Gladly. You are clearly a person incapable of admitting they were wrong.
by pointing out that the org you claim the US supported didn’t even exist at the time you assert it was being supported.
Lol, would you really rather I be as pedantic and change it to “the US supported radical extremist within the mujahideen that would become known as the taliban?”
The Mujahedeen ‘split’ between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance once the Taliban destroyed every Mujahedeen faction other than the Northern Alliance during the civil war in the 90s.
Yes, the mujahedeen had an internal crisis and split into mainly two different factions, as I said.
Not existing’ is a lot bigger than a ‘name change’.
Lol, what do you think they just suddenly appeared from nowhere? Mullah Omar was a general for the mujahedeen, same with Mohammad Yunus Khalis. They and other important leaders around Kandahar formed the Taliban from the mujahedeen fighters loyal to them.
The rest? That Sunni extremism isn’t ‘native’ to ‘Afghan culture’? That the Mujahedeen were just the future Taliban? Fuck’s sake.
It literally isn’t… And yes the mujahedeen outside the northern alliance were just the future Taliban.
"The Soviet invasion and the Iranian Revolution not only led national uprisings but also the importation of foreign radical Muslims to Afghanistan. The mujahideen leaders were charismatic figures with dyadic ties to followers. In many cases military and political leaders replaced the tribal leadership; at times the religious leadership was strengthened; often the religious combined with the political leadership. Followers selected their local leaders on the basis of personal choice and precedence among regions, sects, ethnic groups or tribes, but the major leaders rose to prominence through their ties to outsiders who controlled the resources of money and arms.
With the support of foreign aid, the mujahideen were ultimately successful in their jihad to drive out the Soviet forces, but not in their attempts to construct a political alternative to govern Afghanistan after their victory. Throughout the war, the mujahideen were never fully able to replace traditional structures with a modern political system based on Islam. Most mujahideen commanders either used traditional patterns of power, becoming the new khans, or sought to adapt modern political structures to the traditional society. In time the prominent leaders accumulated wealth and power and, in contrast to the past, wealth became a determining factor in the delineation of power at all levels."
Jesus fucking Christ. Tell me you know nothing about the 19th and 20th centuries in Afghanistan without telling me you know nothing about the 19th and 20th centuries in Afghanistan.
Lol, dude. Did you learn Afghan history from watching Rambo or something? All of this is fairly well known.
Want to tell me when the Soviets left Afghanistan? Go on. Give me a year.
Lol, you are being pedantic. The mujahideen basically split between the Taliban and and the northern alliance.
Just because they had a name change doesn’t mean that the US Pakistan and the sauds aren’t responsible for importing sunni extremism and then training, funding, and arming the future Taliban.
My whole point is that sunni extremism and sharia law isn’t native to the Afghan culture. It was imported as a ploy to fight of the Soviet invasion.
Even the fucking CIA isn’t in as much denialism as you.
I believe you are talking about Al-Qaeda
The Taliban’s roots lie in the religious schools of Kandahar and were influenced significantly by foreign support, particularly from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, during the Soviet–Afghan War.
Additionally, both Saudi Arabia and the United States shared common geo-political goals such as countering the influence of the Soviet Union during the Cold War.[31] The Saudis’ increase in oil production to stabilize the oil price and its support of anti-communism contributed to closer relations with the U.S.[27] In January 1979, the U.S. sent F-15 fighters to Saudi Arabia as part of its anti-communist campaign.[27] Furthermore, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia were both supporting anti-communist groups in Afghanistan and various countries.[33]
After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979, relations between Saudi Arabia and the United States further strengthened as both governments began jointly co-ordinating to assist Afghan resistance militias, which waged guerilla warfare against Soviet occupation forces across Afghanistan.[31]
President Reagan’s new priorities and the unlikely and remarkably effective effort by Congressman Charles Wilson (D-TX), aided by Joanne Herring, and CIA Afghan Desk Chief Gust Avrakotos to increase the funding for Operation Cyclone. Aid to the Afghan resistance, and to Pakistan, increased substantially, finally reaching $1 billion. The United States, faced with a rival superpower looking as if it were to create another Communist bloc, now engaged Zia in fighting a US-supported war by proxy in Afghanistan against the Soviets.
- The US never supported the Taliban.
Yeah, they were pretty much funding any anti-soviet forces in the region.
After the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the United States in coordination with regional partners such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan launched a covert campaign, Operation Cyclone, to support the Afghan mujahideen resistance to the Soviet occupation. While American funding for weapons and military equipment for the mujahideen is well known, many are unaware of the significant expenditures by the American government through USAID to provide educational materials and textbooks to mujahideen parties and Afghan children.4 Published and distributed by the University of Nebraska-Omaha (UNO), this program attempted to encourage a violent resistance to Soviet forces in Afghanistan by shaping the educational program of Afghan youth. However, the content of these textbooks blatantly promoted jihad, militancy, and violence through graphic language and imagery. The textbooks included clear messages aimed at evoking hostility towards Russian invaders and promoting violent retribution against occupiers of Afghanistan. Textbooks designed to teach children to read and basic mathematics simultaneously emphasize weapons, killings, jihad, and Islamism. Although American officials claimed that they did not want to impose American values on Afghan educators, their failure to question the radical content presented in the textbooks reveals how countering Soviet communist influence transcended the potential destabilizing consequences of this program on the Afghan political situation. This intervention in Afghan education is emblematic of a broader pattern in how American policymakers fail to consider the long-term ramifications of their actions on the everyday lives of the Afghan people.
Kicking out savages to replace them with your own savagery isn’t the win you think it is.
It’s not their “own savagery” the Taliban aren’t originally from Afghanistan. They were originally from Saudi Arabia and were part of the US effort to subvert the Soviet invasion.
My dude, nothing in that blog supports your claim.
First of all, it’s talking about the metallurgy of the 16th century and after, which is after Japan had imported blast furnaces. Secondly, it ignores the amount of labour needed to actually produce refined steel from iron sands, which ultimately dictates the quality of the finished product.
This isnt a debatable topic, any steel made from iron sands before modern electromagnetic sorting contains a large amount of impurities when compared to steel made from rock ore.
Even during WW2 the Japanese had a hard time producing high quality steel even with the use of blast furnaces, because the iron sands contains a large amount of titanium.
This blog which falls over itself trying to engage in revisionist history, can only claim that the quality was “perfectly fine”…not good.
That’s not true, no matter how many times you make that unsupported claim.
You are conflating the elemental molecule of iron with the finished product of an alloy of carbonized iron aka as steel.
Yes, there isn’t a molecular difference between the iron found in sand vs the iron found in rock ore. However, the medium in which you harvest your iron and how you’re able to heat that iron, dictates the quality not your final product.
Lol, my dude. No one is claiming that modern japanese steel is of poor quality.
Im speaking of the time period contemporary with the accusation. You know, how arguments typically work…
Do you think the guns Japanese Samurai used were made from steel refined from sand?
Just pointing out this one because it’s funny. Yes, a lot of the early firearms made in Japan were still made from iron sand (Satetsu). Which was the main source of iron in Japan until the 16th century.
According to whom?
The reason why Japanese iron is inferior is because of the source of the iron itself, they utilized iron sand instead of rock ore. Rock ore can be made up to 90% ferrous material while the iron sand contains as little as 2%.
This means when you smelt your source material into blooms of iron and slag, the blooms made from sand iron were much smaller. Instead of utilizing a single bloom to make a sword, the Japanese had to work several blooms together. Which is much more labour intensive, and can lead to a lot of imperfections in the final product.
This is why katanas were made out of so little material, and had to be handled with care. They were much more fragile pieces than similar swords made in Korea and China at the time.
Plus, the Japanese developed their iron working much later than their mainland contemporaries, as they never independently invented furnace technology. The technology for furnaces was imported, most likely from the Korean peninsula.
white supremacists who came up with the verbiage you don’t like in the room right now?
Nah, just their legacy…
no real reason to split hairs
Not ignoring one of the largest crimes against humanity = splitting hairs… Interesting.
don’t want to be associated with white people, I guess. I would call that racism honestly. Would you call that Asian supremacy?
You do realize you are the only person separating people based on skin color? My wife is German, I don’t hold her country’s past against her. But, if she was a Holocaust denier, or attempted to become a Nazi apologist, things would be different.
“OUR SLAVERY ISN’T AS BAD, AS THOSE YUCKY WHITES!”
The internalized guilt is strong with you…
I don’t know that Muslims are white tho… So that’s not very careful about language.
Islam is a religion you idiot, it’s not a race, or an ethnicity…Also, you are the only person legitimately utilizing skin color to categorize people. I don’t care what your pigmentation is, that’s not the thing that makes you a racist moron.
don’t generally split hairs on enslaving people to make a racist argument that my people are better in some way
We’re not talking about modern people, nor are we blaming modern people for their ancestors behaviour. We are examining the crimes historic people did to other historic people, which do vary in different degrees in scale and violence.
The racism you are accused of isn’t because of your people’s past, it’s because you are still utilizing the same racist classification system and justifications that led to their crimes in the first place.
would I prefer being an Asian woman being group raped by Asian men until death, would I rather be castrated and worked to death in persia, would I rather he worked to death an whipped on a plantation, would I rather be a house slave for the Ting (which by the way they said they were very nice to their slaves and I bet they was never a bad experience!), would I rather be a Chinese space to the Khan?
Lol, a lot of writing to admit you just don’t care about the suffering caused by chattel slavery in America. I didn’t claim that there weren’t horrific versions of slavery in east Asia, though you are exaggerating certain aspects. What I claimed is that there is a difference in scope and cruelty, compared between the two, which is just a fact.
none of them sound like a race is better than the other,
Lol, still about race for you huh.
you are making a racial argument based on the nuances of slavery and it’s kinda silly!
Lol, ethnicity does not = race you fucking idiot.
The whole point of this is that race is construct that can’t be used to actually examine the ethnic prejudices that happened in a specific area at a specific time.
Racist
Says the person defending an argument developed by white supremacists…
Do I put a value difference between the Atlantic slave trade/chattel slavery and the sexual slavery of the Vietnamese women, or Korean women? No I guess I don’t! Every version of slavery is both abhorrent and devalues human life, and a well kept slave is functionally still a slave.
Lol, so the amount of people, the amount of violence, the amount of time it’s practiced, and for what reasons are all meaningless to you?
So if you had a choice of being from Africa and taken from their homeland and forced into perpetual slavery in the US, where your children could be whipped to death in front of you, or sold down the river for no reason. Or you could be in indebted servitude to a rich family in the tang dynasty who used you as a doorman, but you still got to go home to your family who weren’t enslaved at the end of the day.
Both choices would be equal for you? That’s just a false equivocation that is willfully ignorant to the actual human suffering that’s occurred.
This is just as bad as people claiming that the Irish had it just as bad in America as people in chattel slavery in the South because they were both technically “enslaved”.
you desperately want Western slavery to somehow be worse than Eastern slavery.
Because it’s not even close… The chattel slavery that occurred in the Americas is widely regarded by historians as some of the worst forms of slavery in recorded history. By what ever criteria you are ranking it, whether it be by volume, lack of rights, deaths, or in human suffering.
This is not a controversial or even drastic claim. The technology and social hierarchy that allowed them to transport and organize that many people into chattel slavery was even possible prior to the transatlantic slave trade.
feel like you just ignored any examples that do meet your criteria
I’ve responded with a clear explanation to all of your ridiculously racist claims this whole time. Even providing sources that explain exactly how you came up with your assumptions. You on the other hand have ignored every question and have failed to explain how your claims are pertinent to the conversation.
Honestly just sounds like exceptionalism to me. Again, sounds like you are a racist.
Ahh yes, a rebuttal that disproves a highly inaccurate claim… Exceptionalism.
Again, how do I seem racist? I already said east asians can be racist, I’ve already said they’ve had slaves. The only thing I am denying is your inaccurate use of the word racism under specific context, and denying your clearly inaccurate claims African slave trade happening in East Asia during a specific dynasty.
You on the other hand have made generalized claims about race this whole time, in an effort to conflate all slavery as being equally bad.
You don’t seem like a racist, based on your claims you are a racist. Go kick rocks.
So you think the idea of humans as personal property was a Western invention that specifically the East Asians didn’t engage in?
Slavery has occurred in nearly every society throughout human history, the abnormality which is unique to chattel slavery is the legal system that evolved to protect the owners right in totality. Even in ancient examples that most closely resemble the chattel slavery practiced in the Americas, there were still social contracts that prevented the enslaved from the levels of dire abuse African slaves experienced in the Americas.
Are you arguing that Asian slavery is better because slaves occasionally had rights?
Are you claiming that all slavery is equally bad? That being an indentured servant is the same as chattel slavery? Seems like a pretty convenient attitude for someone who is trying to distance themselves from the largest example of chattel slavery in recorded history.
think the slaves of the Khmer might disagree with you most recently.
Lol, once again equating two totally separate societies and cultures as the same because racist from hundreds of years ago labeled anyone east of turkey as Asian. Cambodia is in South East Asia…
It’s crazy how you don’t see that trying to justify your position with race science is in fact racist. What exactly do you believe validates your examples of Arab slave trade and the Khmer being pertinent to a conversation about East Asia?
well known the Tang dynasty in China kept Western slaves.
Lol, no it really isn’t. You are utilizing your preconceptions about skin color and projecting it to a misinterpretation of a mystical story from the 9th century.
When someone from the tang dynasty is speaking about “westerns” they aren’t talking about Europeans, the Arab world, or Africa. They are usually referring to places immediately west of China or West China. In the case of the Kunlun, they are more than likely talking about modern day Malaysia and Cambodia.
Here is a good breakdown of the Kunlun in China, with sources.
Again, you are applying your preconceptions of racial science to a people that predated it, and have a vastly different understanding of things like skin color. The Kunlun weren’t all slaves, and the type of slavery that did happen was no where close to chattel slavery.
This is a great example of racism in action. You are generalizing an entire continent, the one with a majority of the world’s population, and conflating them to be the same peoples based on criteria that was developed by racial science. The reason this debate has gotten so misconstrued is because the system you utilize to categorize ethnic groups isn’t based on any legitimate or logical basis.
Racism is prejudice applied through the lens of racial science. There’s a similar prejudice that occurs in ethnic prejudice, that can lead to similarly devastating results as racism, but usually on a much smaller scale.
Racial prejudice isn’t based on any real criteria that can be consistently measured or predicted. Which can lead to people classifying an entire Continent of people as the same and lesser than. Instead of a conflict between two rival ethnic groups, it can lead to things like the Scramble for Africa.
I don’t know how you can’t see that as being relevant, and I honestly don’t know why you have a problem with me utilizing a more correct terminology. Utilizing ethnic prejudice is correct when race isnt a factor. Is this the first time you’ve heard of the terminology, or do you think it’s never appropriate? Why do you think both terms are used in academia if you don’t think there’s a delineation between the two?
(a period lasting from the 16th to the 19th century you silly man)
The time I used was for chattel slavery, not for the transatlantic slave trade.
African slave trade has been active through the Arab Muslim world since antiquity
And you think the Arab Muslim world is relevant to a conversation about East Asia because your race science categorizes them all as Asians? Despite that most European countries have more culturally shared history than any East Asian country…
Where do you think the Chinese were getting these magical Kunlun slaves.
Lol, that’s from a mythical tale from the fucking tang dynasty… . If there actually were real Kunlun slaves, most historians agree that they were most likely from South East Asia.
the definition of chattel slavery isn’t the transatlantic slave trade, it’s using humans as a commodity, which again is and was worldwide.
Never claimed it was? Chattel slavery isn’t just that they were treated as commodities, it that they were treated as personal property. Even in places where slaves were historically traded as a commodity they usually still had some rights. Whether that be you couldn’t break apart their family, enslave their children, or even enslave them in perpetuity.
Chattel slavery requires a system of laws protecting the rights of the owner, ensuring that he could treat slaves any way they see fit.
Asians engaged in the chattel slavery you mention in the 18th century, they also engaged in just plain old slavery.
First of all, the 18th century would be the 1700s not the 1800s as I originally stated. Secondly, the slavery that was akin to chattel slavery was introduced to India by the British when they invaded in the latter half of the 18th century.
Lastly, it’s kinda hilarious the only way you could state “Asians engaged in chattel slavery” is by utilizing terminology originating from racial science. We were talking about east Asia, not the Indian subcontinent.
Chattel slavery was not a Western only concept, you may ask yourselves why the Asian continent is not filled with the children of black slaves.
I mean that’s incorrect in so many ways… Chattel slavery was a Western concept, and African slaves never made their way to anywhere close to East Asia.
That’s because slaves that were imported to Asia were generally castrated. Used them up, let them die, get new ones, no breeding programs.
Lol, source?
Whenever someone spends this much time trying to convince me that their feelings about other ethnic groups are not racist, because racism was invented by the West, I figure they are just trying to desperately hide their racism.
Lol, whatever you have to tell yourself to make believe Europe didn’t create one of the largest crimes against humanity ever with the transatlantic slave trade.
Do you not think Asians engaged in chattle slavery?
Well, there’s the whole problem with specifying race again. What do you mean when you say Asian? Are we talking about east Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or even south east Asia?
There was something akin to chattel slavery in India in the 1800s, but nothing as widespread or cruel as chattel slavery in the Americas. As far as east Asia, no there’s not a documented history of chattel slavery.
Chattel slavery is a very specific type of slavery that wasn’t prevalent until the 18th century.
Prejudice isn’t separate from racism, it fits in like a puzzle piece
Lol, I didn’t say it was separate. All racist are prejudice, but not all prejudice is based on racism.
you just don’t like the word.
The word is fine, it’s your understanding of the word that is flawed.
Bro I think you might be racist.
Lol, against whom?
I think you might be trying to enact a revisionist view of history that lessens the actual meaning of racism. I think you are trying to equate all ethnic conflict to the systemic chattel slavery that race science enabled in the first place, making it seem less harmful than what it was.
you have a super secret definition of racism that doesn’t include people of similar ethnic groups not liking eachother because of past circumstances. Right?
Nope, just the scientifically correct version. Redefining the colloquial understanding of racism to exclude the history of racial discrimination and it’s foundation in slavery is immoral and incorrect.
It equivocates ethnic conflict such as your example of Japanese and Koreans as the same as the European racial science theory that vindicated chattle slavery based on skin tone.
A Korean or Chinese person who dislikes a Japanese person partially because of a cultural memory of occupation is still a racist.
So any conflict between two ethnic groups is automatically the same as the European slave trade…? That totally makes sense
You are conflating ethnic conflict, which can happen for a multitude of reasons with racism, which is a prejudice specific to race.
you don’t want to define yourself as racist so you created a new category that doesn’t include you.
Lol, or…you are actively preserving racial science and projecting your cultures dark history unto people whom never partook in chattel slavery because not something as idiotic as melanin content.
There are specific terminologies for everything we talked about, you just refuse to part ways with race science because it’s so inherent to your upbringing.
If you have a cultural dislike of a neighboring country, or different ethnic group, that’s still racism.
The word you’re looking for is called prejudice. Prejudice is part of racism, but so is the belief in race itself. Ethnic prejudice can be just as violent, or as damaging to social cohesion, but it’s inherently different than racism.
Lol, have you been to East Asia? Getting told to fuck off isn’t exactly a hard thing to provoke in Asia, it’s not something that only happens in America.
Almost as common as white people explaining Asian culture to Asians on this social media platform. I’ve been lectured to about my own culture by European and Americans who have never left their own countries.
My dude… Your ethnicity doesn’t change just because your parents migrated to another location. The fact that you can’t recognize stripping someone’s ethnicity away from someone because they weren’t born in there families homeland is just another form of forced assimilation, and is incredibly racist.
Again, utilizing an acronym to other delineate someone from their ethnic heritage is disgusting. Especially considering that I doubt you’ve ever had to deal with navigating the social stratification of being an immigrant.
Accosting a Chinese person for not being Chinese enough is just about the most 4d chess move of racism a white dude can pull off. Congrats.