No, it's a good example of a false equivalency, which speaks to my point. Yes, in the U.S. some rapists are given light sentences, and military has a problem with institutional procedures relating to rape (by the way, the stats on male rape in the military are likewise depressing; this problem is by no means confined to the treatment of women.) And in some Muslim-majority countries, the female victim is persecuted for being raped! There is clearly an asymmetry here, despite your rhetorical attempts to conflate them. (I will be charitable in my reading of your post to not take it as saying that I personally have oppressed women in my own country, though your wording was a bit sloppy.) — Arkady

Quite clearly, the US being a Christian majority country, rape in the military is a Christian problem.

The Dutch were the primary European colonial power. Not many seem to be aware of it, but the Dutch were unusually contemptuous of and cruel to the people of the regions they colonized, even by European standards. The Boers were Dutch settlers. — Ciceronianus the White

The Dutch were the primary colonial power for about 50 years and before that it was the Spanish and Portuguese and after that the English (for a lot longer). The British empire was definitely larger and longer lasting in the end. The rest seems pretty accurate.

I've read that the Dutch aren't forthcoming about the history of their treatment of native peoples, and have taken legal action against those who have published accounts related to their rule in Indonesia. There have been articles in the English press about it. Those articles seem to take some pleasure in noting that the Dutch, though quick to condemn the violation of human rights by other nations, try to silence those who refer to their own conduct in that area. Perhaps the English are exaggerating. — Ciceronianus the White

I'm not aware that there was an active effort to cover up the Dutch crimes in Indonesia. But they're certainly not forthcoming about it. It wasn't until the 60's that some investigation was done but not in depth. Since the 90's there was more research. Public awareness is very low though. As is awareness of our slave trading history.

Most history books tend to depict the violence of slave revolts; where white people were victims of violence. The violence of slavery is rarely shown in Dutch culture though; the torn families, the whippings, the deaths at sea are all invisible.

No, the Dutch don't feel responsibility for the acts of their forefathers because they think in terms of guilt - but people can take responsibility also for things they are not guilty of. I can take responsibility and not perpetuate the inequality that has resulted from slavery, oppression and discrimination. We don't let orphans rot in the street either. But our fellow non-white Dutchman? Not so much.

That being said, is this turn of the thread supposed to to invigorate "white saviour complex / white guilt" or something? — Gooseone

The "turn of the thread" came about because I responded to a post in which it was asked whether the French colonized Indonesia. Then, probably because I recalled a Dutch woman of my acquaintance and her astonishment in learning the Boers were of Dutch extraction, it grew from there. Black Pete may have popped into my mind as well. Sorry.

The Dutch were the primary colonial power for about 50 years and before that it was the Spanish and Portuguese and after that the English (for a lot longer). The British empire was definitely larger and longer lasting in the end. The rest seems pretty accurate. — Benkei

Well, the Dutch through their East India Company held various parts of what we call Indonesia for quite some time. It may be that they dominated Indonesia for a shorter time, however.

My comment about stories in the press of Perfidious Albion refer to this sort of thing from the Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/colonial-atrocities-explode-myth-of-dutch-tolerance-1439153.html

I probably misinterpreted things a bit, things appeared to move toward some form of self flagellation to me, apologies.

Public awareness is very low though. As is awareness of our slave trading history. — Benkei

I would not agree with this, probably the only thing where my environment is somewhat representative is in public opinion (I work in construction and meet a lot of different average Joe's) The slave trading is actually something some people boast about in combination with the "VOC mentality" (seems more of an ego thing to state something like that in a boasting manner for most though, I don't think they actually mean it). The awareness considering Indonesia seems a bit less but when it's present people don't get it in their heads to make any detracting statements on it, far from it. They're not topics which get discussed daily though.

None.

The slave trading is actually something some people boast about in combination with the "VOC mentality" (seems more of an ego thing to state something like that in a boasting manner for most though, I don't think they actually mean it). — Gooseone

Boasting about it is a clear indication there is no awareness.

Well, the Dutch through their East India Company held various parts of what we call Indonesia for quite some time. It may be that they dominated Indonesia for a shorter time, however. — Ciceronianus the White

Maybe I misunderstood "primary". I understood it as the largest colonial power. There was a time we were the largest but not all the time for the period we were active in slave trading and colonisation. Our colonisation of Indonesia lasted until 1949.

As for polite discourse, perhaps you should tell that to, for instance, the Bangladeshis who have been hacked to death by Muslims for daring to blog (yes, blog) about topics which they find disagreeable. I am sure the machete-wielding mobs will be highly receptive to your pleas for a civil discussion. — Arkady

For me this is a prime example of why one needs to distinguish Islam from Islamism. You make it sound as if 'Muslims' are violent extremists and 'Bangladeshis' are the victims. But most Bangladeshis are Muslims - Muslims who oppose machete-wiedling violence; most Bangladeshi Muslims support, albeit precariously, the separation of religion and State in their country even though it's 94% Muslim; the vast majority of Bangladeshi Muslim clerics have by way of a fatwa categorically and publicly opposed the killing of secular bloggers. It's a mistake to single out the 'Muslim'-ness of the extremists as if this were what sets them apart from their fellow-countrymen/women.

That's my persistent disagreement with this 'war' metaphor. The overwhelming majority of Muslims in my country, neighbourhood, accept the secular state. You cannot categorise 'Islam' because of the behaviour of some 'Islamists'. If you do that, you begin to Other a large number of innocent people.

So what does it mean to declare war on Islam?

Is like a war on christmas?

If so why is controversial to declare war on christmas but not when there is a war declared on Islam?

So what does it mean to declare war on Islam? — m-theory

You combat its ideas and legal encroachment.

Who has declared war on Christmas?

Who declared war on Islam?

Hirsi Ali, obviously. Lol.

My point was if some said they declared war on christmas, it is regarded as controversial.

I am asking why that does not also hold true for the religion of Islam.

Which is what you seemed to imply, that declaring a war on Islam is not controversial?

My point was if some said they declared war on christmas — m-theory

Key word: If.

In reality there is no if.

It is often in the news the controversial of an alleged war declared on christmas and on christianity.

So back to my question.

What makes you think it is controversial to declare war on the christian religion, but not islam?

It is often in the news the controversial of an alleged war declared on christmas and on christianity. — m-theory

What a red herring. I'm aware that some people accuse others of doing this. But I asked you to find me someone who explicitly says they are waging or want to wage a war on Christmas.

What makes you think it is controversial to declare war on the christian religion, but not islam? — m-theory

Way to put words in my mouth. I never said whether it was or was not controversial to declare war on Christianity. To now disabuse you of your ignorance, I will say that I don't think such a statement would be controversial.

Just because you say so?

No.

Who, besides yourself, claims it is not controversial to declare war on a religion, never mind if that religion is islam or christianity?

Its non-controversial status is not determined either by my saying so or by people I know saying so. It's determined by the reasons given in support of the claim. It also depends on the definition of the word "controversy" one is using.

The common definition of this term applies.

If some group declares war on a religion it will likely be seen as a controversial thing, unless that declaration is trivial and meaningless such that it will come of no consequence.

unless that declaration is trivial and meaningless such that it will come of no consequence. — m-theory

Well, see, this is what I think is the case. The claim is not threatening any physical violence against people. It's a declaration against a set of ideas. That's not controversial.

Well I agree, if your declaration of war has no real consequence, then there can be no controversy.

It does raise an interesting question though.

If your war on islam has no consequence, what is the point of declaring it?

It could have consequences, just not violent ones. One consequence would be that Muslims are persuaded to abandon their faith. Another would be that Shariah courts, for example, are disallowed.

The same is true of a war on christianity though.

People of that religion could be persuaded to abandon their faith and we could prevent their religious beliefs from becoming law.

Nothing controversial there?

Nothing controversial there? — m-theory

No.

Quite clearly, the US being a Christian majority country, rape in the military is a Christian problem. — Benkei

Please don't strawman me: I never said that every untoward act committed by a Muslim and/or which occurs in a Muslim-majority country is related to Islam.

For me this is a prime example of why one needs to distinguish Islam from Islamism. You make it sound as if 'Muslims' are violent extremists and 'Bangladeshis' are the victims. But most Bangladeshis are Muslims - Muslims who oppose machete-wiedling violence; most Bangladeshi Muslims support, albeit precariously, the separation of religion and State in their country even though it's 94% Muslim; the vast majority of Bangladeshi Muslim clerics have by way of a fatwa categorically and publicly opposed the killing of secular bloggers. It's a mistake to single out the 'Muslim'-ness of the extremists as if this were what sets them apart from their fellow-countrymen/women. — mcdoodle

No, it's the fact that they're Muslim which sets them apart from other religions in their behavior, which is the point of contention here. Christianity has dealt with bloody wars of religion: the fact that they pitted Christian vs. Christian doesn't negate the fact that religion was at least one causative factor. Ditto for Muslim-on-Muslim violence (though I would question how many of the murdered bloggers were actually Muslim, as opposed to being atheist/agnostic).

That's my persistent disagreement with this 'war' metaphor. The overwhelming majority of Muslims in my country, neighbourhood, accept the secular state. You cannot categorise 'Islam' because of the behaviour of some 'Islamists'. If you do that, you begin to Other a large number of innocent people.

I said that, in the modern world, of the major religions Islam inspires more doctrinally-driven violence and produces a greater proportion of violent radicals than any other, and that people rationally fear Muslims as a collective group more than they fear, for instance, Quakers or Unitarians.

This in no way impugns all Muslims any more than it impugns all men to say that the male gender produces a greater number of murderers than does the female gender. As a consequence, people likewise are more rational in fearing men more than they do women.

Please don't strawman me: I never said that every untoward act committed by a Muslim and/or which occurs in a Muslim-majority country is related to Islam. — Arkady

Then why mention the fact that they are "Muslim-majority" in the first place if not to make a point about the religion? If that wasn't your point, please rewrite the paragraph I quoted in such a manner it doesn't refer to a religion any more (and still makes a point).

If I was straw-manning than you're a sloppy writer.