Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 27 Jul 2006 20:28 Post subject: Muslim Slavery
Hi,
Now that many people who is part of the African Diaspora in the Americas identify with the Muslim world, perhaps is time to remember the history of Black African slaves in the Islamic countries of the past. Moors, Egyptians, Arabs, and other people treated Subsaharian Africans very badly, as this article show. However, is a biassed "Christian" article, it shows a lot of true.
Take a look
Quote:
The Scourge of Slavery
THE REST OF THE STORY
Over 28 Million Africans have been enslaved over the Muslim world over the past 14 centuriesWhile much has been written concerning the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, surprisingly little attention has been given to the Islamic slave trade across the Sahara, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. While the European involvement in the Trans Atlantic slave trade to the Americas lasted for just over three centuries, the Arab involvement in the slave trade has lasted fourteen centuries, and in some parts of the Muslim world is still continuing to this day.
CONTRASTS IN CAPTIVITY
A comparison of the Islamic slave trade to the American slave trade reveals some interesting contrasts. While two out of every three slaves shipped across the Atlantic were men, the proportions were reversed in the Islamic slave trade. Two women for every man were enslaved by the Muslims.
While the mortality rate for slaves being transported across the Atlantic was as high as 10%, the percentage of slaves dying in transit in the Trans Sahara and East African slave trade was between 80 and 90%!
While almost all the slaves shipped across the Atlantic were for agricultural work, most of the slaves destined for the Muslim Middle East were for sexual exploitation as concubines, in harems, and for military service.
While many children were born to slaves in the Americas, and millions of their descendants are citizens in Brazil and the USA to this day, very few descendants of the slaves that ended up in the Middle East survive.
While most slaves who went to the Americas could marry and have families, most of the male slaves destined for the Middle East were castrated, and most of the children born to the women were killed at birth.
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Fri 28 Jul 2006 15:32 Post subject: Re: Muslim Slavery
Yes, its true, I'm guilty of not learning enough about the ravages of the the Arabian Slave Trade. I'd feel this must be even more problematic for black followers of orthodox Islam.
Part of the being blind to the Arabian trade may come down to the lack in black identified populations in Muslim nations. Like in Sudan, black Africans see themselves as Muslims, yet they get slaughtered by their Arab Muslim brothers.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Fri 28 Jul 2006 16:09 Post subject: Re: Muslim Slavery
e harmoni wrote:
..Black Americans ( or others of the "African Diaspora" I'm sure) that convert to Islam could care less about the Trans Saharan Slave Trade that occurred centuries ago.
Islam brings order into Black Americans lives. She address the struggles and social ills facing her. All Christianity does is tell some poor kid under constant threat of violence to go get f-ked over. All Secularism does is tell some poor kid unloved to get more money, get more money, and get more money.
Perhaps Protestantism is not the way to go, anyways. And the consumer society is not a very spiritual source either.
Quote:
Islam brings hearth, fraternity, and warrior values.
I doubt that. As a descendent of Spaniards (and others) I have hardwired in my mind that the only way to stop Islam is to kick them at the back way out of where one lives. And after the killings of 200 Spaniards in the Madrid train bombings, I believe that Islam is not a religion that spread fraterity at all.
Joined: 03 Jun 2005 {Posts: 274 } Location: California
Posted: Fri 28 Jul 2006 20:12 Post subject: Re: Muslim Slavery
e harmoni wrote:
Omar,
Black Americans ( or others of the "African Diaspora" I'm sure) that convert to Islam could care less about the Trans Saharan Slave Trade that occurred centuries ago.
Islam brings order into Black Americans lives. She address the struggles and social ills facing her. All Christianity does is tell some poor kid under constant threat of violence to go get f-ked over. All Secularism does is tell some poor kid unloved to get more money, get more money, and get more money.
Islam brings hearth, fraternity, and warrior values.
I was very interested in Islam in my youth.
I am by no means an expert, but Islam takes much of its' teachings (and prophets) from Judaism and Christianity. But it picks and chooses what to use based on the cultural times of when it was founded by Mohammed. And it was all for Muhammed's personal benefit. (Aisha comes to mind.)
Islam will dictate one's day from sunrise to sunset, which appeals can appeal to a debased and oppressed population who needs order. It can be comforting to be told what to do and how to think. (I do admire the discipline that Islam gives to incarcerated individuals.)
"Hearths" are destroyed though senseless sectarian violence. "Fraternity" occurs along, economic, racial and ethnic lines. And "warrior values" are no way for progress in a modern world (see: terrorism).
Islam (especially Arabism) also destroys other cultures and seeks to turn the whole world Muslim. While Muslims can live peacefully with their non-Muslim neighbors, Islam's goal is to cover the earth (jihad).
Islam does not encourage free thought or dissent (see: fatwa), and it encourages and nurtures class oppression ('getting f-ed over', as you put it, especially by other Muslims). Greed exists, and wealth is not distributed. Alms for the poor is tolken. Where's the progress in Muslim societies?
And don't get me started on sharia law and the oppression of women. Women should not be abused for not covering their hair or wearing a burqa. And women should have equal rights.
Catholicism is not the beginning nor end of all that is Christian.
In fact, many Christians (Protestants) subscribe to the notion that the Catholic church is a christian cult, on par with Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons. Be informed.
When critiquing Christianity, look to the Bible and/or its central fugure- Jesus- and not to religious denominations. Likewise, when critiquing Islam, look to Mohammed.
I would not be suprised to hear that the Pope had kissd the Quran as pope John Paul had met to agree with Hindu, Muslim and Ba'hai leaders promoting unity. But does the Bible promote interfaith dialogue? What did Jesus say about other religions? What did Jesus say will happen to those who are not His Sheep?
P.S. Read up on current Brazilian religious practices. In 20 years, Brazil will not be secular or Catholic.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Mon 31 Jul 2006 14:38 Post subject: Catholics
Melani23 wrote:
Catholicism is not the beginning nor end of all that is Christian.
In fact, many Christians (Protestants) subscribe to the notion that the Catholic church is a christian cult, on par with Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons. Be informed.
Well, Catholics believe the Catholic churches (Roman, Ortodox, Oriental) are the real churches founded by Peter and Paul. And believe Protestants are a bunch of naughty boys that have in common their hate the Virgin Mary
Quote:
When critiquing Christianity, look to the Bible and/or its central fugure- Jesus- and not to religious denominations. Likewise, when critiquing Islam, look to Mohammed.
I Agree. But which part of the Bible? The old or the New testament. Things are totally different depending on which part of the Bible you embrace the most.
Quote:
I would not be suprised to hear that the Pope had kissd the Quran as pope John Paul had met to agree with Hindu, Muslim and Ba'hai leaders promoting unity. But does the Bible promote interfaith dialogue? What did Jesus say about other religions? What did Jesus say will happen to those who are not His Sheep?
Yes. Christian fundamentalist also exist. Remember what Paul said, instead.
Quote:
P.S. Read up on current Brazilian religious practices. In 20 years, Brazil will not be secular or Catholic.
Sure. If you believe on that probably you believe in Santa Clauss as well.
Perhaps you don't understand how deep are the roots of Catholicism in Latin America. No way new age religions -protestant included- will replace the Catholic church so easy. Believing that is just not knowing the region.
You are correct you are not an expert on Islam. John Paul II is said to have kissed the Quran.
And this means what exactly? Was this symbolic gesture of ecumenism on the part of the Pope seen the same way by many Muslims as it was meant to be by the Pope? Would an Islamic scholar who is not a Sufi mystic kiss the New and Old Testament?
Quote:
The Vatican has an entire institute devoted to Islam. I believe it is refered to as the Pontifical Academy for Arabic and Islamic Studies (something like that). Islamic mystics also helped shape Christian mystics.
I would contest this. Didn’t Christian mysticism predate Islamic mysticism? Also, Islamic mystics-Sufis, were heavily influenced by Gnostic Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and (in the case of sub-Saharan Africa) animism or polytheism. These were the religious currents the Arab Muslims and the converted peoples came in contact with when they conquered other lands.
Quote:
As for strife and war. Both the Islamic and Christian worlds have known this - so have the worlds of ideology (e.g. Democracy vs Communism). Such is life. The great Ottoman Empire, in her redoubtable strength and silk flags, did not have the turmoil and infighting that Christian Europe once had centuries ago.
That’s because the Ottoman Empire at its peak was able to subjugate its conquered people, including her subjects in Europe (Greece and the Balkans), into a single empire. Christian Europe was divided into several competing monarchies.
Quote:
"Terrorism" is a tactic. It's employed not just by NGO's but by nations states. Currently Israel has inflicted no less terror on the cities of Lebanon and no less damage to her infastructure than Al Qaida did to New York City. The United States Government by the way supports this terrorism. The United States her self conducted a terrorizing tactic when it fire bombed Tokyo. The emotionalism in the phrase "terrorism" is of political construct. The Brits called the Americans and George Washignton a terrorist at one time. And there was a time when Nelson Mandela of South Africa was called a "terrorist." The status quo uses the term "terrorist" to demonize any NGO that would challenge its authority with it's own classic 21st century warfare principles (e.g. attack the civilian sectors to force the opposing government to cede to your demands)
This is obfuscation and negationism….If everyone is a terrorist then noone is. I suppose the Shiites in Southern Lebanon shouldn’t get upset when people call Hezbollah a terrorist group and they and others should refrain from calling Israel’s reaction to being bombed by Hezbollah terrorist because one man’s terrorist is another man’s [fill in the blank].
Quote:
There are however things I don't care for about Islam. And I'm not certain my conviction in Mohammed. I'm still very a young brother of Jesus and give great honors onto Santa Maria. But Islam address my world and Islam through everything, through all the media hype over "Islamic terrorism," still has a Muslim women population that gives fidelity to Islamic men in the darkest of Islamic hours.
There is truth in loyalty and I love loyalty. And Islam has loyalty. At least in her women. To me, their must be something holy and golden in that, Islamic women bear some Divine truth I do not know or see in Christianity.
Loyalty isn’t a good thing necessarily. If I’m loyal to a significant other who emotionally abuses me or physically abuses me is this a good thing? And what is the “Divine truth” that Muslim women bear that you do not see in Christianity?
Quote:
I've tired of much of the empty rethoric I've heard from Christians. I've tired of the hatred and rethoric from secular people. I don't fear Islam.
But not tired of the rhetoric, intolerance, and violence coming from many in Islamic quarters? I mean I was pretty fearful when a learned, respected religious leader took a contract out on a writer for writing a book he thought was blasphemous. And this was in the latter 20th Century. Many countries: Israel, India, South Africa (?), much of the Arab world, banned the book out of fear of what would happen if some of their Muslim population got riled up about the book being available for purchase. Or maybe the book was banned out of respect for that religion.
I was fearful of the rioting in Nigeria (hundreds killed) when Northern Nigerian Islamic leaders worked themselves into a frenzy when they found out that the Miss Universe Pageant would be held in their country.
Quote:
I prefer most though, Brazilian secularism. It's tolerance and easy going ways. I would fight for Brazil against Islam if any Islamic forces ever attempted to place her under sharia. Other than that I pro-Islam, minus some of the mean and hateful people in Islam.
This last sentence is puzzling. You would fight for a country you’ve never visited and whose language you don’t speak if Muslims attempted to impose sharia on that society. Yet it is okay if Muslims attempt to do it elsewhere, even when many of their co-religionists would rather not live under sharia? Islam, unlike Christianity, is more rigidly monotheistic. Hence, in a place like Brazil, even without imposing sharia, Muslims on average would be much more intolerant of some Brazilians’ religious practices-Orisha worship, spirtism, etc.- than many evangelical Christians are in Brazil today. Catholicism has made its peace with African-based religions in Brazil. But the rigid monotheism of Islam makes it much less tolerant and easygoing towards some of the things that exist in Brazilian society.
Also, if you are willing to disassociate the mean and hateful people in Islam from the religion itself, why do you seem unable to do this with Christians and “secular” people (with the exception of the “secularism” of Brazil)?
Finally, to be pro-Islam should mean to accept the universal truth of Islam and submit yourself (Islam means submission) to the will of god. It also means accepting, according to Islam, that Christianity and Judaism are both distortions of god’s true message, which Muslims have received from Muhammad. If one is pro Islam, in my opinion, one should be a Muslim.
As far as I’m concerned, Muhammad was probably a Nestorian Christian who made Islam up. But then I operate from the premise that all religions are man made anyway.
As far as I’m concerned, Muhammad was probably a Nestorian Christian who made Islam up. ...
Interesting. I never heard that before. The timing is right. Nestorianism was at its most widespread during Muhammad's lifetime -- all the way to China, IIRC.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Mon 31 Jul 2006 20:57 Post subject: Christ
fwsweet wrote:
G-Man wrote:
As far as I’m concerned, Muhammad was probably a Nestorian Christian who made Islam up. ...
Interesting. I never heard that before. The timing is right. Nestorianism was at its most widespread during Muhammad's lifetime -- all the way to China, IIRC.
Curiously enough, some say that Christ was part of the Essenes and that he also had Budist influences.
As far as I’m concerned, Muhammad was probably a Nestorian Christian who made Islam up. ...
Interesting. I never heard that before. The timing is right. Nestorianism was at its most widespread during Muhammad's lifetime -- all the way to China, IIRC.
Yes..This is a theory propagated in some quarters and I believe is the main theme of a book by a German writer who, understandably, writes under a pseudonym. In the mid or late 70s some German (?) archaeologists came across the ruins of a very old mosque. In it was the oldest extant copy of the Quran, or what was left of it. If memory serves, the pieces were taken back to Germany and pieced together. The translations differ significantly from today’s Quran. Naturally, this challenges Islamic teaching that the Quran was the unchanged word of god given to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel.
Some of the information contained in this document, has led some scholars to conclude that Muhammad may have been an actual Nestorian Christian and much of the information in the Quran is pilfered from the New and Old Testaments but mistranslated by Muhammad and others. There are variations of this theory as well, some of which posit that Muhammad was a mythical character created by the early kalifs of Islam.
There is a scholar somewhere in Germany using the alias Christoph Luxenberg. He has published a book called Die syro-aramaeische Lesart des Koran; Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Quränsprache. He uses a pseudonym because he thinks many Moslems will want to kill him when they find out about it. In this he is undoubtedly correct.
What Luxenberg has done is applied the same methods of philology and linguistics to the Qur’an that were applied to the Christian Bible beginning in the mid-19th century. I have not read the book itself as I have no German, but when I read several summaries of its conclusions I was struck by the sense they made of some odd facts I had picked up over the years. Such as the datum that there is a Christian monastery in the Sinai which received a special immunity, apparently from Mohammed himself, under terms its abbots have kept mum about for 1400 years. And the curious resemblance (you have to have read both the Qur’an and some odd Christian sources to notice, but I have) between the rhetoric of the Qur’an and that of a now-forgotten group of Christian ‘heretics’ called Monophysites who were particularly strong in the Syria and Arabia of Mohammed’s time. And the fact that early Muslims knelt to pray towards Jerusalem, not Mecca.
Mohammed was probably a Christian of a Nestorian or Monophysite stripe, and the Qur’an originally intended as a commentary or gloss on the Syriac recension of the Christian Bible. The surah or section of the Qur’an that Moslems believe is the oldest contains an exhortation to take the Christian Eucharist.
In fact, it is almost certain that the concept of an Islamic identity separate from Syriac Christianity did not develop in Mohammed’s lifetime; there are hints that it was a political creation of the Caliphate, constructed soon after Mohammed’s death by the Caliph ‘Othman. Notably, he had burned all recensions of the sayings of Mohammed other than the one prepared under his control.
Many textual difficulties in the Qur’an vanish once it is realized that a lot of the words in it are fossilized Aramaic. Luxenberg wanders deep into technical philology here and you have to know a lot of details about early Semitic writing systems, including the fact that they didn’t record vowels. (I know enough to smell that Luxenberg has a hell of a strong case.) But the upshot is that you can go to Syrio-Aramaic vocabularies and extract clear readings from many passages that are maddeningly obscure if you’re running under the assumption that they are written in the vocabulary of later Arabic.
Remember the brief rash of news stories about “72 virgins” actually meaning “72 white grapes”? That was Luxenberg reading the Qur’an in its original Syrio-Aramaic-derived vocabulary.
Islamic scholars of the Qur’an lost the knowledge of the Qur’an’s Aramaic origins shortly after ‘Othman’s book-burning. There are hints of it in the oldest hadith (traditional saying of Mohammed) but the hints don’t make any sense until you do the philology, at which point they snap into focus and startle the crap out of you. The traditional Islamic accounts of the Qur’an’s origins are are best confused, and at worst pure inventions of the Umaiyyad propaganda machine that was busily turning Mohammed’s reform of Syriac Christianity into a new religion as the basis for empire
And more information from American Atheists (yes I know they are atheists, but there is quite a bit of good information here about the possible origins of Islam and the Quran): An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
But it picks and chooses what to use based on the cultural times of when it was founded by Mohammed. And it was all for Muhammed's personal benefit. (Aisha comes to mind.)
I don't think I argued everyone is a terrorist. I don't think everyone that has stolen something in their life can be reduced to a "theif" for the rest of their life. I simply stated a simple tactical fact: that what we refer to as "terrorism" is a tactic and one practiced by nation states. I Also stated that the term "terrorist" is used as political propaganda to demonize NGO's. That's not to say all NGO's are on par with one another, but is to acknowledge that any NGO that challenges the status quo risks being labeled a "terrorist" group by the status quo and officials put in place to protect the interests of the status quo.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are both NGOs that challenge the status quo, but they are not seen as terrorist organizations, so it is not axiomatic that an NGO that challenges the status quo is seen as a terrorist organization. An NGO is simply a non-governmental organization. Some NGOs, like Hamas and Hezbollah (I assume you are referring to them since the statement above lacks context), are multi-faceted: they are social welfare organizations, political parties, militias, and entities that carry out attacks on other countries or leaders within their own nation. It is the last thing that gets them labeled terrorist organizations. If terrorism is a tactic practiced by nation states, then terrorism can easily be a tactic practiced by NGOs as well. If we accept this possibility, then an “NGO” that engages in this tactic, regardless of whether or not it challenges the “status quo” can indeed be seen as engaging in terrorist activity.
Quote:
You are mistaken if you believe Western Military is one of benevolent tradition. What has made her so effect for centuries is her willingness to put huge sums of money into military arms and related tech as well her great ferocity. So military historian Geoffry Parker (sp?) believes. Where oh where are the Amerindians today?
On the contrary I do not believe this. What I reject is the assumption on the part of others that actions like colonialism, militarism, etc. are unique to the West. We can just as easily ask where are the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Copts, and Zoroastrians today.
Quote:
Protected by Western militaries why did Zionist set up statehood in Palestine and not Texas? "Democracies" have proven more colonial than Hezbollah or Hamas.
Actually, Zionist settlers started filtering into Palestine during the time when Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were not part of the Western powers. Settlement continued after the fall of the Ottomans and the ceding of that territory to the British after WWI. It was the Balfour Declaration that officially indicated Britain’s support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, but it wouldn’t be until 1948 that what we know as Israel would be established.
Incidentally, NGOs like the Stern Gang and the Irgun employed the tactic of terrorism to force Britain out of Palestine. Their behavior suggests that Western militaries-in this case the British-may have been less than enthusiastic about the establishment of a Jewish homeland and not particularly willing to protect Jews as they went about the business of setting up their own state in British-mandated Palestine.
Great Mexicans can filter in an establish the West and Southwest of the United States as Mexican territory. If "filtering into" gives just cause.
This is a strained analogy. Settlers buying land and making homes in what was an empire, with full knowledge of authorities in that empire and their compliance, cannot be compared to Mexicans today slipping across the border illegally and then demanding that they and other Latinos who do the same thing be given citizenship over people who immigrate to this country legally from other parts of the world.
Quote:
By stating that "terrorism" is a tactic is simply a statement of it's truth. The fallacy is to conclude Hezbollah is a "terrorist" orginization and that the nation state of Israel and the United States are not. That's my problem, and it that reason you will military historeians that dismiss the emotional and political term "terrorists." The United States has without doubt terrorized more peope around the earth than Hezbollah has. So if Hezbollah is a terrorist NGO than the United States can only logically be concluded to be a terrorist nation state.
From you remarks above it’s safe to conclude the following:
“Terrorism” is a tactic and “terrorism” is an emotional term. Affixing “terrorism” to the behavior of groups should cease because, in part, nations like the U.S. and Israel have committed more terrorism (or is it “terrorism”) than other groups. But since everyone engages in “terrorism” no one is a “terrorist”. But the U.S. and Israel have terrorized (no quotation marks) more people than Hezbollah; Hezbollah is simply a “terrorist” organization (quotation marks meant to signify that they really aren’t terrorists), but the U.S. and Israel are both terrorist nations (no quotation marks meant to signify that they really are terrorists). Plus they terrorized more people, which means we shouldn’t denounce the other group’s “terrorism” or “terrorism” itself, just terrorism that emanates from the U.S. and Israel.
I don't much buy that answer... but hey that just me!
I don't buy it either and thankfully that's the opinion of most people.
Quote:
Anyways... I see no reason to see Mohammed as a demon. I have always thought him and Martin Luther have an interesting story to tell as to how people can have talents and virtues yet great personal failings or fragile weaknesses. We tend to like to make out people as soley good or soley bad. Usually this is not how life is though - in my opinion.
In my opinion any grown man (or woman for that matter) - "Prophet" or not - who has sexual contact with children (even as young as seven in some cases) is committing a demonic act. An atrocity. It's true that people are seldom soley good or soley bad, but sometimes ones wrongs - depending on what they are - can overshadow ones good. In many people's minds anyway.
More information about the horrible and devastating consequences related to the practice of child brides...
Life was really horrible for me... the odour of the urine is horrible... that is why even my husband wouldn't allow me to stay in his house
Aminata Kanda
"We just can't imagine the misery of these women, but it's going to be an ongoing misery for the next, perhaps 100 years, perhaps more. I can't see an ending to it," she says.
A few weeks ago the last of the women whose fistulas were repaired by Mercy Ships returned home to a remote eastern province.
They included 15-year-old Sia Foday who was married off by her family at the age of nine and was quickly pregnant.
Sia - small for her age - was only 10 when she tried to give birth and ended up incontinent.
Another of the women, Aminata Kanda, said she only survived because her children collected firewood to sell and helped her tend a small garden.
"Life was really horrible for me. When I was in this sickness the urine was coming non-stop... the odour of the urine is horrible... that is why even my husband wouldn't allow me to stay in his house," she says.
Were it not for Mercy Ships both women would probably have had to live with the condition forever.
United Nations agencies have sounded what they call a "global alarm" about this medical disaster.
In the West - on the rare occasions it occurs - fistula is curable.
But in the developing world it has condemned uncounted millions of women to lives of solitude, poverty and despair.
Egypt, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Pakistan, India, and the Middle East: In the rural villages of these countries many young girls are rarely allowed out of their homes unless it is to work in the fields or to get married.
These uneducated girls are often married off at the young age of 11.
Some families allow girls who are only 7 years old to marry. It is very unusual for a girl to reach the age of 16 and not be married.
Know the Facts
research shows child marriage is…
Common
More than 51 million girls younger than 18 are already married. (ICRW, 2003) It’s estimated that in the next decade, 100 million more girls—or roughly 25,000 girls a day—will marry before they turn 18. (Population Council, 2003)
Widespread
Child marriage exists everywhere. But in some countries, the majority of girls marry before 18. These include: 82% in Niger | 75% in Bangladesh | 63% in Mali | 63% in Nepal | 57% in Ethiopia | 57% in India | 50% in Uganda. (DHS, 1996-2001)
In Nepal, 7% of females are married before the age of 10 and 40% by age 15. (UNICEF, 2001)
In Amhara, Ethiopia, 50% of girls are married before age 15. (Judith Bruce, 2003)
A Major Health Concern
More girls in developing countries die from hemorrhage, obstructed labor, obstetric fistula,* and other pregnancy- and childbirth-related problems than from any other single cause of death.
Girls 10-14 are five times more likely to die of these causes than women 20 to 24.
Girls 15 to 19 are twice as likely to die. (United Nations, 1991)
In sub-Saharan Africa, infants born to mothers younger than 20 are 1.5 times more likely to die than babies born to mothers 20-29. (United Nations, 1998)
*Obstetric fistula—rupturing of the vagina and rectum causing persistent leakage of feces and urine—is a health risk
commonly associated with child marriage because of the mother's physical immaturity at the time of childbirth.
Often Abusive
Child brides are frequently pulled from school and married to older men.
Child brides typically are little more than servants in their in-laws’ homes. They are under tremendous pressure to prove their fertility in the first year of marriage.
And because child brides have no control over resources or the ability to make decisions on their own behalf, others typically decide if or when they get:
a new dress | a chance to visit with friends | an education |
a job | pregnant | pre-natal care
A Factor in the Spread of HIV & AIDS
Marriage does not guarantee protection against HIV transmission, particularly for girls and young women, who often marry older, sexually experienced partners.
Research in Kenya and Zambia indicates that married girls are more likely to be HIV-positive than their sexually active unmarried counterparts. (University of Chicago, 2003)
A Barrier to Education
Married girls are seldom found in school, limiting their economic and social opportunities. Sometimes, parents cut a girl’s education short to marry her off to protect her from the possibility of sexual activity outside of wedlock. When a girl who is in school becomes betrothed, she almost certainly drops out once she weds. And once married, there is virtually no support for her to continue her schooling. (ICRW, 2001)
Linked to Domestic Violence
Child brides are often more susceptible to domestic violence. (USAID Gender Assessment, 2003-2005)
In Egypt, data indicates that 29% of married adolescents were beaten by their spouses—or their spouses and others. Of these, 41% were beaten when they were pregnant. (Population Council, 2000)
A wonderful organization dedicated to helping girls and women suffering from fistulas in Ethiopia...
The Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital is dedicated to treating and preventing obstetric fistula in Ethiopia, restoring the health and dignity of these women. We invite you to join us in helping the hospital with their mission.
One, I never mentioned illegal Mexicans, G-Man, that's your own assertion about the brown brother's crossing the boarder.
Two, my summed up contention has been and is this, that what we refer to as terrorism is simply a tactic of warfare (ethical/moral issues aside), as such I'm not sure I would refer to an NGO or nation state as "terrorists." The use of the term itself by politicians is simply for emotional persuasion. Nation states as well as NGO's have utilized terror tactics. Some nation states and NGO's are more criminal than others. However a military tactic has a begining and an end... it is not on running continuous through space and time. Currently the IRA is still an NGO and still very much political (according to Clausewitz 'war is the continuation of politics by other means') but right today they are not setting bombs off in London nor engaged in small arms fire with British troops or Protestant militias, in contrast the United States is running militant covert operations (read special forces i.e. guerrilla warfare) around the world and outsourcing torture as well as terror. Israel is also currently conducting "terror" tactics on Lebanon. I don't consider the United States or Israel "terrorists" for reasons I have already given numerous times. The whole thing boils down to, be it Hezbollah, the IRA, the United States, Israel, or any other nation state or NGO, to the principles of tactics, space and time.
I think this is well put. Terrorism is one example of an emotionally charged word that is used in political discourse. A "terrorist" uses the tactical maneuvers of bombing, kidnapping, etc. meant to inspire fear and cause confusion in a targeted population - it is not an indication of political ideology. If Hamas or Hezbollah followed the path of the IRA then it would be inappropriate to call them terrorist organizations if they no longer use this tactic. No one refers to the Vietnamese as "guerrillists" afterall.
I guess the USA and allied forces in WWII were 'violating' Germany's, Itay's and Japan's 'civil rights' too. Wait, we can fix that, let's give them all reparations.....
________________________________________________________
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
At first, glance, I am not sure that a debate over the definition (denotation, connotation, emotional content, ideological-political usefulness) of the word "terrorism" is germane to this web site. Still, since you guys seem to be enjoying yourselves discussing it, I shall leave you to it. If it continues, however, I may split the thread off to its own topic.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 03 Aug 2006 14:41 Post subject:
G-Man wrote:
...
This is a strained analogy. Settlers buying land and making homes in what was an empire, with full knowledge of authorities in that empire and their compliance, cannot be compared to Mexicans today slipping across the border illegally and then demanding that they and other Latinos who do the same thing be given citizenship over people who immigrate to this country legally from other parts of the world.
That happens when a country "moves" the border. In this case the U.S. take for itself HALF of Mexico, so no wonder Mexicans are comming. Today there are 40 millions of Hispanics in the U.S. and 25 millions are Mexicans.
Mexico only has 100 million people. So, I guess immigration will stop when there is about the same number of mexicans living in theirs former territory than in Mexico. Perhaps when they reach 75 millions. And perhaps it will be sooner than you think. After all it is predicted that by 2050 25% of the population of the U.S. will be "hispanic"
No much to worry about.
And, after all, you "Americans" did't ask the Indians permission to settle "legally" in the U.S. did you? No. You don't.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
