No, I don't think that it's ok to repress or oppress anyone. I apologize for not making myself clear about that. My main gripe is that people rarely look at both sides of the issue and focus on the woman part.
Let me summarize my views about the government. They are oppresive to almost everyone, regardless of race or gender. But the higher class families are less exposed to this.
Yes I am aware of denying immigration to certain religious affiliations. But that's still not on the personal level of disallowing someone the use of a water fountain.
"If you are a muslim who converted to another religion you will be killed." Once again another government enforced act since it falls under religious law. It also requires the person to formally and officially denounce their religion before it can be carried out.
"I suppose it's just coincedence that the compounds composed of darker races were inferior to those of Indians, Philipino and US workers." A coincidence? Yes, I do believe it is. These "darker races" as you term them are the Sudanese, Somalis, and Ethiopian. They are immigrants coming from exceedingly poor countries. Hence, since they are poorer than other immigrants they in turn live in more deplorable situations. We can also look at the Indonesians who have a similar pallor of the Philipinos. The Philipinos who come generally are working in more skilled areas, such as medical assistants, fashion industry, etc. etc. The Indonesians usually come as unskilled labor, maids, and drivers. Almost same color, yet there is still a division in living conditions.
"Rich blacks in the US during the 40's and 50's didn't face many of the conditions that poor blacks did either." Yet they still weren't allowed to attend the same educational institutions, frequent the same restrooms, or ride in the front of the bus....
As far as that argument about the Mutaween preventing the girls from leaving the school and allowing them to die, let me paste the remainder of the paragraph you "inadvertently" forgot to include in your quote. "On March 11, 2002 the Mutaween prevented schoolgirls from escaping from their burning school in Mecca because the girls were not wearing headscarves and abayas (black robes). Fifteen girls died and 50 were injured as a result. There was widespread public criticism, and the Saudi government and religious leaders condemned the Mutaween for their actions." (From the same source at Wikipedia) Although you and I probably know that government condemnation is probably publicity act.
"It's called segregation." I'll agree with that. Now are we both agreed that segregation is bad? Even when perpetuated by Westerners living in Saudi Arabia.
I readily concede that Saudi Arabia suffers from many serious cultural issues, but I still affirm that their basis is class division, rather than ethnic, religion, or gender.
Dude, I lived in Saudi Arabia for 16 years. I find it hard to believe that you are likening the current state of Saudi Arabia to the Jim Crow laws of the past. How could you point out that "The issues weren't really class issues as you suggest, the separation was race, sex and religion based."
Considering the majority of immigrants are Muslim, I fail to see how religion could be a basis for an infrastructure of discrimination. I have never seen anyone refused entry into a store or any public place because they were Christian. The government certainly doesn't support other religions, hence churches are banned, but not on the level of personal discrimination that you allude to.
I agree that there are sex divisions in the country, but you fail to take into account that it's a two way street. There are several activities that men are banned from because it's considered woman or family oriented. In fact most restaurants have "singles" (AKA men only) and "family" sections. The family sections are nearly always better equipped, larger, and cleaner than the men only areas.
Discrimination based on race? Yeah, there was but not in the way you think. In fact I would say that Westerners living in Saudi Arabia, until recently were more privileged then even the average Saudi. There were many exclusive clubs, compounds, and even stores that catered only to Westerners allowing them access to products that were banned in the rest of the country. I remember being forced to show my US passport to go play baseball at one place.
I think the other people are more correct when they said money and class is the larger issue. No race has ever been refused service as long as they had the financial oomph to back it up. In fact there are a good deal of immigrants, Pakistanis, Indians, Egyptians, and Sudanese who lead very comfortable lives on par with the Saudis.
The only way you could try and tie race discrimination is the fact that the majorities of immigrants are poor and work in the service sector. But I believe that's because they're poor, not to do with their country of origin.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I don't think that it's ok to repress or oppress anyone. I apologize for not making myself clear about that. My main gripe is that people rarely look at both sides of the issue and focus on the woman part.
Let me summarize my views about the government. They are oppresive to almost everyone, regardless of race or gender. But the higher class families are less exposed to this.
But they would conduct terrorist acts if they believed their actions would bring a better life to their families and friends...
Yes I am aware of denying immigration to certain religious affiliations. But that's still not on the personal level of disallowing someone the use of a water fountain.
"If you are a muslim who converted to another religion you will be killed."
Once again another government enforced act since it falls under religious law. It also requires the person to formally and officially denounce their religion before it can be carried out.
"I suppose it's just coincedence that the compounds composed of darker races were inferior to those of Indians, Philipino and US workers."
A coincidence? Yes, I do believe it is. These "darker races" as you term them are the Sudanese, Somalis, and Ethiopian. They are immigrants coming from exceedingly poor countries. Hence, since they are poorer than other immigrants they in turn live in more deplorable situations. We can also look at the Indonesians who have a similar pallor of the Philipinos. The Philipinos who come generally are working in more skilled areas, such as medical assistants, fashion industry, etc. etc. The Indonesians usually come as unskilled labor, maids, and drivers. Almost same color, yet there is still a division in living conditions.
"Rich blacks in the US during the 40's and 50's didn't face many of the conditions that poor blacks did either."
Yet they still weren't allowed to attend the same educational institutions, frequent the same restrooms, or ride in the front of the bus....
As far as that argument about the Mutaween preventing the girls from leaving the school and allowing them to die, let me paste the remainder of the paragraph you "inadvertently" forgot to include in your quote.
"On March 11, 2002 the Mutaween prevented schoolgirls from escaping from their burning school in Mecca because the girls were not wearing headscarves and abayas (black robes). Fifteen girls died and 50 were injured as a result. There was widespread public criticism, and the Saudi government and religious leaders condemned the Mutaween for their actions." (From the same source at Wikipedia)
Although you and I probably know that government condemnation is probably publicity act.
"It's called segregation."
I'll agree with that. Now are we both agreed that segregation is bad? Even when perpetuated by Westerners living in Saudi Arabia.
I readily concede that Saudi Arabia suffers from many serious cultural issues, but I still affirm that their basis is class division, rather than ethnic, religion, or gender.
Dude, I lived in Saudi Arabia for 16 years. I find it hard to believe that you are likening the current state of Saudi Arabia to the Jim Crow laws of the past. How could you point out that "The issues weren't really class issues as you suggest, the separation was race, sex and religion based."
Considering the majority of immigrants are Muslim, I fail to see how religion could be a basis for an infrastructure of discrimination. I have never seen anyone refused entry into a store or any public place because they were Christian. The government certainly doesn't support other religions, hence churches are banned, but not on the level of personal discrimination that you allude to.
I agree that there are sex divisions in the country, but you fail to take into account that it's a two way street. There are several activities that men are banned from because it's considered woman or family oriented. In fact most restaurants have "singles" (AKA men only) and "family" sections. The family sections are nearly always better equipped, larger, and cleaner than the men only areas.
Discrimination based on race? Yeah, there was but not in the way you think. In fact I would say that Westerners living in Saudi Arabia, until recently were more privileged then even the average Saudi. There were many exclusive clubs, compounds, and even stores that catered only to Westerners allowing them access to products that were banned in the rest of the country. I remember being forced to show my US passport to go play baseball at one place.
I think the other people are more correct when they said money and class is the larger issue. No race has ever been refused service as long as they had the financial oomph to back it up. In fact there are a good deal of immigrants, Pakistanis, Indians, Egyptians, and Sudanese who lead very comfortable lives on par with the Saudis.
The only way you could try and tie race discrimination is the fact that the majorities of immigrants are poor and work in the service sector. But I believe that's because they're poor, not to do with their country of origin.