http://shaheenvision.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/anti-semitism/

It might also have something to do with:

1. the degree to which the oppressed peoples congregate together. In both the Tibetan/Aboriginal examples, we are talking about a small group of people (both in absolute and relative terms) disbursed amidst very large areas of land. Villages/settlements are not relatively close to one another compared with, say, Cambodia or Phillipines. Hard to bring discrete bits of anger into a localised critical mass (which can then spread), I suspect.

2. The places that have turned to terrorism have either had a dominant “golden eras” in the past which have now faded away (such as various Middle Eastern groups or even the Tamils in Sri Lanka when one considers the Tamils as a wider group including Southern Tamil Indians), or have seen peoples near them with similar histories achieve “successes” in their self-determination objectives (Kurds, Northern Ireland).

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20192233-5007132,00.html

So does this mean you can create terrorists by the way in which you treat people? I have heard of a study which draws a link between occupation and terrorism - ie, that places such as Northern Ireland, parts of Sri Lanka, Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq are occupied by another nation and this produces terrorism.

It seems to me that this is a little too glib - Australia itself is formed by occupation but there are no Aboriginal terrorists. Partially, I think this is because terrorism is not sanctioned by Aboriginal culture (thank God!). What about Tibet? I never heard of a Tibetan terrorist, and I presume that the Dalai Lama would never sanction one.

So, I think you also need a culture or a mind-set which validates violent action in pursuit of a cause, even if innocent people are harmed. One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. As we’ve discussed in other contexts, I am very loath to accept that the ends justify the means.

Further, it can hardly be said that the London Tube bombers were in occupied territory - they were born and bred in the UK - it was more that they were reacting against perceived injustices occurring elsewhere.

As I have said in another blog forum, it is a bit like taking a tiger off the leash - once you validate the use of terrorism for your cause, it’s loose and ready to be appropriated by all sorts of people - and it’s impossible to get back on the leash again!

On this point, and in relation to the Lebanon-Israel conflict, I have noted that the other Arab states have not been vocal in their praise of Hezbollah - presumably they don’t want unrest of this kind in their own nation! - but the tiger has already been let off the leash…

Most of the time, generalisations are not true at all (eg Muslims being inclined towards terrorism, Jews wanting to control the world, Americans being ignorant and uncultured, Australians having kangaroos as pets). There are times, however, when generalisations about a particular group of people may well carry a grain of truth, but the characterisation of that generalisation is completely wrong. These “generalised” characteristics tend to be the results of certain underlying factors rather than the inherent qualities of that particular group (which in turn leads to racism/sexism/religious bigotry etc). However it is almost always easier to generalise by way of outward identities (eg race/religion) than by underlying characteristics.

Let’s tackle three of these myths as examples:

A. Hong Kongers’ generalisations about Mainland Chinese people

In Hong Kong it is popularly believed (indeed sometimes I fall into this trap) that mainland Chinese people are in some way less “civilised”. This is because Hong Kongers tend to see mainland tourists being ill-behaved (eg throwing rubbish everywhere, urinating in open areas of shopping centres, spitting, pushing and shoving rather than queuing, generally being rude etc). In addition when one visits China there are constant issues with hygiene, whether products are real or fake (sometimes with fatal consequences, as with cases involving fake milk powder), all too pervasive tales of corruption etc. It is easy to generalise about mainlanders in that way. But one must not forget that:

(a) the mainland tourists one sees in Hong Kong tend to be of the nouveau riche variety - their speaking loudly, boastfulness and general tackiness stem from that and not from the fact that they are from Mainlanders per se. One may recall that Hong Kongers used to be considered in such light by Canadians when they bought up many parts of Vancouver. Similar, British tourists to Bonn during the 19th century were notorious for their desecration of Beethoven by stealing items from his memorial and buying tacky souvenirs. That’s just part of being nouveau riche because one hasn’t learnt as yet how to deal with new-found wealth apart from showing it ostentatiously (which is an innate human instinct as it may connote power and influence).

2. As for other supposed bad manners, ruthlessness (eg corruption, fake products etc): again it’s got nothing to do with them being mainland Chinese. It’s got everything to do with the fact that those with some affluence in China now grew up during or have endured the cultural revolution. I have no doubt that anyone who lived through that sort of thing (no matter what race/culture they’re from) would have their personalities scarred in a similar way.

B. Jews being miserly

Funnily enough, people used to say the same thing about the Chinese in Malaysia/Indonesia. Again it’s got nothing to do with race. Consider this: you are an unwanted minority in a place. You are shut out of political power and public rights. The only way you can make a living is by commerce. If you are lucky, you become relatively well-to-do due to your industriousness. But then the majority becomes jealous. At all times there is real fear that pogroms against you could happen at any time. Wouldn’t you not spend too much money on a place lest 1. you become too attached such that it becomes hard for you to leave if you need to; and 2. related to 1., need money to start a new life somewhere else if necessary?

C. Old conceptions about women not being as smart as men

At least in the western world that is (relatively speaking) fading away (hopefully). But whether in its old form in the west or in current form in developing countries, that generalisation may be superficially attractive given the lack of women in power/high places/higher educational institutions etc. Again, it was (and is) always the underlying historical and institutional forces at work that reinforces this stereotype (the obvious ones being educational opportunities, job promotion prospects, etc).

take care & nice day