Editor's note: I think it important to tell you all that I have immense respect for Hans Jansen as a pioneering and visionary scholar of Islam. As such, I published this piece as it was sent to me. However, I do not agree with or endorse his statements about Hinduism and Buddhism. -- Robert Spencer
UPDATE: Hans Jansen has sent me this statement: "As far as I understand the English translation of my Dutch text, the offensive lines are a description of how Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus, at least in the Third World, feel about the rich. They are not about the religious contents of Islam, Buddhism of Hinduism. The English text, if I understand it correctly, wants to describe how people in the Third World, of whatever religion, view richness and the rich. Simply put, they assume that the rich are not OK. My words in no way describe the theology or the commands of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or any other religion. Moreover, I argue in the same article that many in the West hold identical views."
Jealousy's Final Solution
by Hans Jansen
Why is it that large parts of the so-called Third World appear to be lost beyond rescue? It is because most people over there cling to a familiar theory about the way of the world. It concerns the quite natural conviction that riches can be gathered by taking from your fellow men; and right they are. Taking from others can make you rich without too much trouble. The only thing in demand is a little touch, or threat, of violence.
In developing countries, it is commonly believed that besides taking, there are no other means towards a state of ownership. For those aspiring to get rich in the Third World, that is a basic fact of life. Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are Third World religions. Those who are born and raised in these cultural spheres know what becoming rich entails. It means successfully taking the other’s share.
Some Westerners, on their part, also occasionally suffer from the feeling that the main road to prosperity is through taking. At the kindergarten playground, that was clearly the case. Whenever in need of a toy shovel, one had only to take it from a fellow shrimp. Braving the sandbox with your own self-made spade was not an option.
Though the basic attitude seems childish, some in the West have congregated into groups, united in their belief that this kind of taking is the only route to riches. Evidently, this is not the only option open to Westerners, yet many otherwise fair-minded individuals believe that anyone who possesses more than others must have arrived at that point by taking, that is, through some kind of robbery or theft. Consequently, the kindergarten board is heartily invited to redistribute the loot among the weak and oppressed, by force, if need be. This primary wisdom, acquired at kindergarten level, makes it hard to benefit from the time-honored advice of seasoned economists, that wealth is created when each and every one of us is left in the undisturbed possession and enjoyment of the fruits of one's own labor.
Redistribution, however, features high on the priority-lists of policymakers in service of the state. It creates a rising tide of nannyism that sweeps the empowered masses from one bureaucratic institution to another. Social work, social housing, welfare offices, social justice, youth care, rehab and resettlement are all entangled in a noble competition, to help the "client", for sure, but also to be the first to have redirected him to the institution, most suited to his rightful claim to state-sponsored assistance. The opinion that meddling by or on behalf of the state is not only inefficient but also not entirely proper, has become viewed as being more and more eccentric. The common sense of old, that the bulk of that support owes much, if not all, to denying others the fruits of their labor, has gained the crude freshness of a new insight.
State meddling has taken great leaps forward among all of the free Western nations. Some sectors of private enterprise not withstanding, all branches of society are managed through government, one way or the other. There are practically no areas left where the State does not have the final say. And for sure, there's a lot of meddling to be done, preferably by interchangeable CEOs and politicians, hovering between interlinking branches of society, like birds of a feather. Professional nannies at every level, be they administrators, judges, bank managers, social workers, executives or journalists, are bound by a shared preference for parties and special interest groups that nurse the habit of meddling. Needless to say that the classes who are privileged to "empowerment" follow in their wake. There is little surprise in the dream team merger of ideologies, trumping a Third World Order and Western nanny state interventionism.
That there may be individuals and societies who have only themselves to thank for their wealth, managing to pull it off without taking from anyone for the creation of those riches, is beyond the belief of the professional First- and Third-World nannies. This option must remain far removed from their calculations, because the income generated by professional nannies stems from their noble support for the "disenfranchised", cut off from sources of wealth that they consider to be illegitimate in the first place. Their bread and butter, and even their identity as professional saviours, could be jeopardized if affluence proved to be possible without harming anyone, by allowing, for instance, more freedom and a tad bit more modest yet proper administration.
Split societies like those on the island of Cyprus or between Malaysia and Singapore may provide some illustration. Ever since the split-up, one part does well while the other doesn't. The primary difference is between the ideology and the social order in these newly formed states that where considered to be one before the separation. Nothing could be found in today's Greek/Turkish Cyprus and Singapore/Malaysia that might serve to explain the vast difference in both the standard of living and well-being between these now separated political entities - other than the mentality of their respective inhabitants. In places that prosper, people usually haven't suffered from too much confiscation. On the other hand, in the areas that don't do well, taking has become a daily routine.
The belief that taking is the only source of wealth, is a common error of judgment and perception, reducing the rich and complex sphere of economic reality and human action to a zero-sum game. This misperception generates a long chain of political consequences and policy decisions, starting with all of these fashionable forms of redistribution. The relative difference, however, in standards of living and well-being between places where no other explanation presents itself besides cultural differences, shows one thing rather convincingly: that prosperity depends on the way a society runs itself and that, in turn, is determined by culture, religion and ideology.
And yet, in countries like the Netherlands, political movements based on envy, nannyism and resentment seem to be doing just fine. These political movements are often in collusion with like-minded foreign ideologies and religions. In Western countries, the existence and political power of a steadily growing constituency of voters who hate and despise the ostensibly wicked West cannot be ignored any longer.
But much to their chagrin, the facts of life prove to be uncooperative once again. It is no accident that the West became prosperous by opting for a society that enabled freedom, competition, technology, truly civil service (at least in theory, if not in practice), self-reliance, debate and a high standard of living. Ideologies that carry the most currency in third world countries teach otherwise, to wit: that the prosperity of the West is testimony to their unbecoming behavior towards Third World nations, and that therefore, the West needs to be fought. Reparations! Down with freedom! Away with all things Western! It would be surprising if these sentiments hadn’t received such a warm welcome among like-minded movements and organizations in the West.
The choice for a society based on envy, hate and jealousy, combined with a public ban on freedom and competition will create something like Pakistan, a nation getting poorer by the day. A choice based on a free market, free competition, on freedom of religion and other civil liberties, will create nations akin to Taiwan or South-Korea - nations where prosperity is steadily growing while sixty years ago they where in as much of a miserable state as Pakistan and Ghana are today.
Both in the West and the Third World, the Khmer watermelons, Red and Green, have happily joined hands with Third-Worlders, in an attempt to destroy the vestiges of freedom that still survive today. All of this follows from their desire to usher in a new society for a New Man – their ennobled Modern Savage. The biggest compliment one could pay these attempts at starving off jealousy, is to say that here’s a man who will definitely never be the envy of anyone, anymore.
Hans Jansen is a scholar of Islam and former Professor of Modern Islamic Thought at the University of Utrecht. He writes from the Netherlands.
"Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are Third World religions. Those who are born and raised in these cultural spheres know what becoming rich entails. It means successfully taking the other’s share."
I detest political correctness as much as anyone else but this remark is so ignorant that it is actually funny. I do not know any Hindu or Buddhist country that has become rich by stealing from other countries. Nor do I know any Hindu or Buddhist doctrine that encourages or condones theft, plunder and looting. If anything, I would fault Hinduism and Buddhism for encouraging a passive world-view in which inequities are simply accepted as karmic punishment for past sins.
On the other hand, I do know a group of countries that were utterly irrelevant to world history until 1492, and then suddenly, within roughly 25 years, became the richest countries in the world without inventing or producing anything. Some of those countries became rich by stealing vast quantities of silver and gold from Peru, Bolivia and later Mexico, while other countries became rich by stealing from the galleons of the first set of thieves. Some of those thugs went on establish colonies in which they forced the natives to grow opium, and then forced other natives to open their countries to the sale of opium - basically, an Enlightenment era version of today's Medellin and Cali cartels.
I am referring of course to the Zoroastrian kingdoms of Spain, Portugal, England, France, and Netherlands. Had these countries been Christian, they would undoubtedly have heeded the Biblical admonition of "Thou shalt not steal" and would devoted themselves to industry, prayer and charity.
Islam - well, that's another story.
All -
Just so you know: the original column was written by Hans Jansen in Dutch.
I wrote the translation. Needless to say that I take full responsibility for any shortcomings in this English version.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
Greetings:
One of the analogies I find myself repeating in these troubled days comes from the second "Godfather" movie. Robert DeNiro, playing the young, newly immigrated yet to be godfather, is approached by his neighborhood's white-suited mafioso who tell the burgeoning criminal that he wants to "just wet his beak" like a little bird in the results of DeNiro's criminal enterprises. The godfather-to-be kills the mafioso shortly thereafter. There were plenty of beaks the Godfather would wet, but the white-suited mafioso's was not one of them.
Islam, like all forms of addiction, is a trap. Until Muslims unload that millstone from around their necks, they will remain trapped in the seventh century by one of history's major imperialistic/colonialistic enterprises.
Hans Jansen wrote: "Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are Third World religions."
So much horse manure, so little time.
First, the term Third World is obsolete. It is a Cold War construct, with the USA and its allies comprising the First World, the Soviet Union and its allies comprising the Second World, and the rest of the world comprising the Third World.
News flash: the USSR is gone. And the USA is rapidly approaching the former Third World with respect to the gap between rich and poor. Joe Stiglitz's below article is just one of many that illustrates this.
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105
The GDP of the top 20 countries totals to just under $60 trillion. The amount of outstanding OTC derivatives -- what Warren Buffet famously called "financial weapons of mass destruction" -- totals to $600 trillion. Don't you see the problem with that; a small number of Wall Street bankers taking most of the wealth of the USA?
Buddhists have never invaded other countries or bothered anyone, except China when it violently cracks down on the monks.
Hindus are also pretty much free of violent tendencies.
Islam is violent, to be sure, but it has nothing in common with other religions.
American Christians are the biggest hypocrites this side of Muslims. Ever actually read the New Testament? I have, especially where Jesus said it is more difficult for a rich man to enter Heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. In other words, the self-proclaimed Religious Right, with lots of money, is a classic example of hypocrisy.
And maybe you could do some actual research before writing such pablum in the future. Read the Wikipedia page on George Pullman, a Tea Party hero. He took quite a bit from people, especially when he decided that the workers forced to live in his company town should earn less, yet continue to pay the same rents as before. The violent Pullman Riots were the result.
FedUpIndian wrote: "Nor do I know any Hindu or Buddhist doctrine that encourages or condones theft, plunder and looting."
I'd go much farther than that. If I could force everyone in the world to accept one religion, it would be Buddhism. I am not a follower, but it seems to be the only religion in the world without hypocrisy and war. When Buddhists protest, they kill themselves by dumping gasoline over themselves and lighting a match.
quote:
"If I could force everyone in the world to accept one religion, it would be Buddhism. [..] it seems to be the only religion in the world without hypocrisy and war. When Buddhists protest, they kill themselves [..]"
So consequently we'd all be firmly warmed up to the idea of setting ourselves ablaze in our protests against Islam? Swell idea.
You also seem to have a problem with war itself. Why is that?
Furthermore, you appear to be missing the general point here. This column takes aim at the widespread notion of the economy as a "zero sum" game.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
Jansen has great knowledge about islam, but I'm not taking anything about economy from him.
As for pacifism.. it's wrong. Pacifism allows the aggressor to be victorious. Like the saying goes, for evil to triumph all that is necessary is for good men to do nothing.
Excellent article.
At university, I edited the graphics for a student publication that featured student reviews of classes. I—or one of my staff artists—provided illustrations for each department. For some of these, I had to do a fair amount of research.
For the Economics Department, I rendered what I thought was a pretty standard image—that of a pie stuffed with dollar bills ringed by hands representing a wide swath of society (i.e. different races, one hand with a workman's glove, one with a large diamond ring, etc) armed with cake spatulas grabbing at the slices.
Only some years later did I come to realize what a grotesque—and false—image that is.
Here's a better simile:
"Bake More Pies"
http://dollarsandcrosses.com/2011/06/bake-more-pies/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DollarsCrosses+%28Dollars+%26+Crosses+|+Reason%2C+Rights+and+the+Virtue+of+Selfishness%29
The worst thing is that we now have well-respected Muslims like that Egyptian "Shaykh" openly calling for Jihad raids on the West—including the taking of slaves!—as the solution to the Muslim world's economic problems.
And why not? After all, that how the "Prophet" Muhammed lived—as a caravan raider, a pirate, and a taker of slaves.
Not just morally bankrupt, but a recipe for universal impoverishment.
"This column takes aim at the widespread notion of the economy as a "zero sum" game."
Agreed, but I take exception to his statement that Hinduism and Buddhism encourage their followers to steal from others as the only way to get ahead. I am not aware of any teaching in Hinduism or Buddhism similar to say the Al-Anfal sura of the Koran which specifies how loot from raids is to be apportioned among the believers. In fact, the central tenet of Buddhism is that desire is the cause of all suffering in life, and that to overcome suffering, one must overcome desire. The fact that this professor of religion seems ignorant of his own subject makes me wonder why I should take his opinions on other subjects like economics and politics seriously.
More importantly, sites like Jihad Watch and people like Spencer are routinely attacked (unfairly) as being motivated by racism. I do not know what the good professor's motives are but there is more than a whiff of something unsavory in his sweeping generalizations about the criminal tendencies of "Third World people", and if I were Spencer, I would keep a safe distance from him.
Sagunto wrote:
Just so you know: the original column was written by Hans Jansen in Dutch. I wrote the translation.
....................................
Thanks for the translation, Sag.
Robert has gone out of his way to try and build a coalition of the willing....encompassing all any race, creed, or ideology willing to stand up against Islamic supremacism. And yet here, he publishes an essay that not only ignores the profound social and economic progress of India and East Asian countries, but worse, wrongly associates Buddhism and Hinduism with the pathologies of Islam.
Fearless Leader, this is one of those exceedingly rare occasions when your judgment failed you.
I agree with most of the comments here. The author of that article is a total ignoramus to put Islam in the same category as Hinduism and Buddhism. That'd be like saying Mein Kampf is equivalent to Isaac Newton's Principia or Plato's Republic.
Both Hinduism/Buddhism in my opinion are far more evolved, sophisticated and civilized that any of the three "Abrahamic" religions. This is coming from an atheist who has acquainted himself with all the major world religions. Sure some of the ideas they contain are foolish, woefully outdated and laughable (but that's true of any religion) but overall, I felt enriched and inspired by having read them.
Whenever I've read the Bible it's as if I'm being beaten over the head with an blunt object. I find the ideas it contains to be so childish and mind-numbingly stupid, it astounds me that people find any value in it.
The Quran is even further down the intellectual food chain, only fit for consumption by wildebeest and other lowly braying animals, not humans.
I've never once felt my intelligence was being insulted when I was reading any buddhist or hindu text. For those unfamiliar with these religions, I'd highly recommend reading them.
Mr Jansen displays the outdated arrogance that was once held by European colonialists who felt their culture and religion was automatically superior to the Indian 'pagans' and other lands they invaded, stole from and occupied.
@fitna While I have a great respect for Hindu (advaita) and Buddhist thought , the Hindu caste system is as much a worry as the Abrahamic religions.
I'm somewhat taken aback that Robert Spencer would publish this Christian supremacist rant that has virtually nothing to do with Jihad - the objective of this site.
Socialist redistributors cut across all religions and even atheists. In fact commies were mostly atheists.
Islam is the only major religion that endorses plundering & pillaging of non-adherent's wealth. Tarring Hindusim and Bhuddism with the same horrid brush as Islam is spurious and offensive.
Islam is the only religion that contains instructions to plunder and parasitize people of other faiths. Islam plundered, raped and destroyed the Buddhist civilisations of the medieval world, and in the modern world Islam continues to be especially hostile to Buddhism and Buddhists.
From the article: "Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are Third World religions. Those who are born and raised in these cultural spheres know what becoming rich entails. It means successfully taking the other’s share."
I was upset but not really surprised by this statement. In the west, conservatism and apartheid / racism are like Siamese twins. It appears that western man (or let us be blunt and say white man) is incapable of seeing others as equally capable of noble behavior.
It is no use asking this Jansen to quote anything from Hindu thought and philosophy that would justify this statement. Hindu society had it's share of institutionalized evil but to say that "taking" is the only way to wealth in Hindu mind has not basis whatever.
I had thought, when I first started visiting the jihadwatch website, that this site is run by people who are free from any racist inclinations, indeed are anti - supremacists and would be friends if not allies of those Indians who are also opposed to Islam. I am constrained to say that jihadwatch also, like mainstream white society, is willing to condone if not encourage racist tendencies.
I hope people who find Hansen acceptable realize that they are not much different from Islamists. Islamists believe that their religion makes them superior hence they are entitled to be supreme. The likes of Hansens believe their being westerners or whites entitles them to supremacy. If a white anti-jihadist is honest, he must have the same attitude towards to Hansen that he expects from a common Muslim towards the likes of CAIR.
Sanjay
I think it important to tell you all that I have immense respect for Hans Jansen as a pioneering and visionary scholar of Islam. As such, I published this piece as it was sent to me. However, I do not agree with or endorse his statements about Hinduism and Buddhism.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
"I am constrained to say that jihadwatch also, like mainstream white society, is willing to condone if not encourage racist tendencies."
Sanjay, I agree with you that Jansen's views on Hinduism and Buddhism are surprisingly ignorant, and I share your dismay that his article was posted on Jihad Watch. However, although there are racists in every society (including India), I believe you are painting with overly broad strokes, and such a sweeping condemnation is not warranted by anything I have seen on this site or in my experience of living and traveling all over the west for more than 25 years. As Cornelius says, this is at worst a lapse of judgment on Robert's part.
If you are reading this, Mr. Spenser, I would appreciate it if you can ask Professor Jansen to write an article for your website, backing up his assertions about Hinduism and Buddhism with facts from the holy texts of these religions. I have no interest in being tendentious or belligerent - the days when we in the "Third World" anxiously craved the good opinion of everyone from the West are long gone - but I am genuinely curious to know how someone you say is a distinguished professor of religion in the Netherlands can reach such outlandish conclusions about Hinduism and Buddhism.
FUI,
I disagree that mainstream white society is really as anti-racist as is generally assumed or asserted. I have been reading many of the articles, posts and been watching behaviors of white people, at macro level and also when I interact with individuals.
I have compiled some evidence by now and I am ready to defend my assertion: in general, white people, especially conservatives, are willing to condone racist behaviors, they are willing to accept overtly racist persons without feeling any revulsion and they believe that they deserve a superior status than colored people.
I also agree that this attitude does not reflect in their laws. The laid down laws are equitable and just. But certainly they show this mindset at the social level.
Hindu mainstream society is not like that. Educated mainstream Hindus do not forgive casteist or racist behaviors as easily as whites (and I am talking about median behavior and not exceptional behavior).
I can list many heroes of American and British societies, from modern and supposedly enlightened times, who made overtly racist remarks and showed willing acceptance of apartheid. I would like someone to name one hero of Hindu people from modern times, who made similar racist or casteist remarks or was willing to condone casteism.
What I said in my previous post was the result of many observations and not just a reaction to Jansen's post. While Robert Spencer's clarification is welcome, we Indians should not be blind to racist attitudes of others towards us.
Sanjay
NoFear I agree with you, some parts of Hinduism contain misogynistic teachings as well which should be rejected.
Robert, thank you for that disclaimer, it's good to know that you differ with Jansen on that particular topic. I'd like to apologize to yourself and other Christians if my comment on the Bible might've been crass, I could've used a bit more tact.
As an atheist, I see all religions as mythologies and read them as such so I was commenting on the Bible as a work of literature but I didn't mean to be insensitive to anyone.
I think there will always be some differences between those of us in the anti-Islamic movement because we each have our own beliefs, likes/dislikes and so forth. However I think such issues are minor and there's much more that unites us than divides us.
In fact I have a lot of respect for theists/christians who are leading the fight against Islam, while many atheists, unfortunately have chosen to side with our foes. Hopefully they will wise up eventually.
Best Regards
I had felt that Jansen's insights about Islam's culture of wealth seizure outweighed his other points, but clearly not all readers see it that way.
Certainly, his comments about Hinduism and Buddhism are neither accurate nor useful.
Note that Jansen *does* praise such non-Western polities as Singapore, Taiwan and South-Korea—as well as offering criticism to Western nations with quasi-socialist policies.
Certainly, wealth-seizure in the form of high taxation—as onerous and harmful to an economy as it can be—is *not* the same as razzias, piracy, and slaving.
I do believe Jansen makes a lot of good points in his piece, though.
Sanjay, JW is not the right forum for a discussion of bigotry among our fellow Indians, but here is a brief reply.
"..name one hero of Hindu people from modern times, who made similar racist or casteist remarks"
Mahatma Gandhi. Read Joseph Lelyveld's sympathetic biography or just Google. I suspect you will find his opinions of South African blacks quite dismaying.
"Casteism in contemporary Indian society":
Read this month's Outlook India magazine. http://outlookindia.com/article.aspx?277215
As an Indian, I am proud of how far we have come since 1947, particularly in comparison to our Islamic neighbors. But let's not kid ourselves - we have miles to go before we sleep.
Gravenimage: I actually agree with most of Jansen's points, particularly about the unholy alliance of leftist and Islamic radicals. But the unwarranted attack on Hinduism and Buddhism (Buddhism!) did not pass my smell test, and I am afraid I was unable to take Jansen seriously after that.
So much for current affairs knowledge. Bhuddism is and was a very violent 'religion'. The lastest exploits of this religion of peace #2 in Sri Lanka are there for everyone to see.
"BUDDHIST NATIONALISM AND RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE
IN SRI LANKA
By Nick Gier, Professor Emeritus, University of Idaho"
A Norwegian brokered cease fire in Sri Lanka has collapsed and violence is once again raging on this beautiful island, once described as the pearl earring of India. An estimated 80,000 people have lost their lives in this long 23-year-old conflict. In addition to military battles between the Tamil Tigers and government forces, there have been other ethnic and religious clashes. Contrary to the traditional image of their religion, militant Buddhists have also attacked Muslims and Christians.
One monk has called for a holy war against the Tamils and has written songs for soldiers going into battle. One urges them not to return home until their weapons are "smeared with blood," and it also promises that they will attain Nirvana by defending their Buddhist homeland.
During 2003-04, 165 Sri Lankan Christian churches were attacked, resulting in the complete destruction of some, the stoning of parsonages, the smashing of statues, and the burning the Bibles and hymnals. This year Buddhist nationalists are urging Christians to cancel Christmas celebrations, and militants regularly attempt to close down Christians services. On September 14, a church in the town of Mannar was torched and burned to the ground.
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/slrvcol.htm
Blessed are the weak of mind......for thou shalt live in eternal ignorance
Gravenimage -
Robert Spencer has added an update to the column with Hans Jansen's reply. Did you read it?
I think it is very unfortunate that some commenters took offence so eagerly, erecting strawmen and burning them down in indignation, seeing it fit to denounce prof. Jansen as some kind of post-colonial European supremacist.
The passage in no way refers to the contents of the religions mentioned, as Hans Jansen clearly indicates in his statement. So now let's wait whether those calling him a racist and what not, are fair enough to retract those insults. See if they are willing and able to focus on the main point of the column: the self-defeating cult of jealousy. You were about the only one who did. Thank you.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
You need to know a few things:
1. If a person makes an abusive comment about a group, it ceases to matter if he made rational arguments about some other issue. To associate with such persons is to encourage bigotry.
How would you like it if Muslims asked you to "focus" on Mohammed's egalitarianism and ignore his murderous ways towards non Muslims.
2. Mr Jansen, as you have quoted him, in no way answers the points raised by me. All he says is that Hinduism (or Buddhism) do not contain "taking" of wealth from others as way to riches in the scriptures, but that (by implication), Hindu and Buddhist societies believe that such "taking" is the way to wealth. This is an equally bigoted and unsupportable statement.
Of course Jansen is a racist. And so is mainstream western society. It is not racism that implements racist laws but it is definitely a society that easily condones those who express racist beliefs and those who seek racist supremacism over others.
Sanjay
You just proved his point. Spain did not get rich of the south american gold, they bankrupted themselves. They made exactly the mistake highlighted in this article, thinking gold has value, it doesnt, the value is the work that the gold represents. They were just taking the gold, there was no real work behind it, so the more they brought to Europe, the more they lowered the value of gold, which didnt matter so much to the other European nations whos wealth was built more on hard work, as the products of their labour increased in price as the value of gold dropped, but the spanish had to bring in more and more gold to maintain their status... and the more they bought in... And though they started as the greatest colonial power, they finished last in the great game...
I would like to see an authentic quote of Gandhi that makes adverse remarks about blacks or any other group. Someone's biography of him cannot be a source by itself. I find it very hard to believe that he ever made any disparaging remarks about blacks.
The article in Outlookindia proves nothing. I never denied that a section of Hindu society is bigoted. You cannot pick that section to prove what Hindu society stands for. For that, you have to look at personalities considered heroic by Hindus and I still hold the challenge that there is no hero of Hindus from modern times who condoned casteism, much less support it in any form.
On the other hand, there are many heroes of white societies who easily condoned racism or labeled colored people savages and beasts.
I agree this is not a forum for discussion on this subject. However, if someone makes a post on this site making racist remarks, to not rebut it is to give silent approval. Hence all of my posts here. I am more than willing to close it here but if someone again questions what I said, I would like to rebut.
Sanjay
All,
A lot of you seem to be missing the point. Hes not saying anything about the religions. Hes saying that poor countries tend to be countries where people see the best route to getting rich being to get into a position of power, legal or otherwise, then stealing someone else's money, Wether that idea comes from the religion or elsewhere. This is a view particularly prevalent in sub saharan africa and they are the only region of the world to have got poorer over the last 30yrs.
I have heard stories from aid agencies that give a good illustration. When setting up sustainable food projects in some parts of the world, the neighbours look on with interest and try and copy whats being done. In others they look on with interest and as soon as night falls try to steal all the produce their neighbour has grown...
Grey -
Thank you for your effort to get this thing on topic again. You are one of a few over here. Let me add that the exact same article in Dutch led to discussions about the main point of the column: jealousy as a motive for "redistribution".
You wrote:
"Hes saying that poor countries tend to be countries where people see the best route to getting rich being to get into a position of power, legal or otherwise, then stealing someone else's money [..]"
Bingo!
And may I point to the fact that prof. Jansen then proceeded to focus on the main point of the column, i.e. the very same "zero sum" mentality among Western supporters of the bureaucratic welfare state.
"Vestri autem beati oculi quia vident; et aures vestrae, quia audiunt"
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
FedUpIndian,
We have Hindu Indians where I work. They are honest, hardworking, devoted to their families, and very supportive of the laws of their adopted country. I have no complaint. One of my friends mentioned that his children will have choices they never had in India, including who to marry. Of course, we know that Indian society is rapidly changing itself, adapting to its new status as a rapidly-developing, free, technological society.
I think, though, your examples are a bit one-dimensional. For instance, you asked if there was a Buddhist country that became rich through looting. The answer is no, except that Japan, as a Shinto Buddhist country, sure tried hard. They invaded Korea, China, the Philippines, and the United States. They just didn't succeed.
It is true that a lot of European countries, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Belgium to name a few, engaged in colonialism, often brutal colonialism. The question is, was colonialism the root of their prosperity, or were they prosperous in spite of their colonialism?
Recall that England up to the 20th century adopted the values of industrialism and individualism, although England always had a reformist element that, truthfully, moderated some of the abuses of pure industrialism. The United States Revolution was motivated, not by England's repression of the colonist's freedoms, but by Britain's heavy-handed attempts at taxation to recoup some of the expenses of defending the American colonies.
Britain, in the 1940's had a clear choice: Churchill represented the values of individualism (although a colonialist), and the Labor party stood for bureaucracy and the welfare state. The Labor party won, and Britain sank rapidly into obscurity.
Calling Hans Jansen a racist based on this article is ridiculous.
Read carefully what he actually says. The populations of these religions mainly comprise of third world countries. Thats just a fact. What does it have this have to do with racism? Nothing.
My thanks to Professor Jansen for his clarification and to Robert for following up with him. We are all familiar with the gap between what we write and what we meant to say. Translation between languages, no matter how excellent the translator, can compound the problem.
Professor Jansen's friend Geert Wilders, a man I admire greatly, makes a useful distinction between Islam and Muslims. I have no problem in agreeing that there are many Muslims who lead lives far more exemplary than many Hindus or Christians do. Nevertheless, there is a distinction to be drawn between Islam and other major religions like Christianity and Buddhism when it comes to looting and plunder of the other. Muhammed looted the caravans of the Quraish for example, and there is even a sura in the Koran, Al-Anfal, that describes the protocols for distributing loot and plunder. Muhammed is a model for Muslims for all time, which is why some contemporary Muslims have argued that Muslim prosperity needs to be restored by restarting "razziyas" and "jihad" of kaffir lands. I am not aware of any similar teaching in Christianity, Hinduism, or any other major world religion that encourages or condones theft even from the "other". Professor Jansen seem unwilling to make this distinction in religious doctrine (as opposed to the behavior of individuals), and I respectfully disagree with him on this point.
Turning now to the feeling that the "rich are not OK", I agree that attachment to worldly goods is looked down upon in both Hinduism and Buddhism (the behavior of individuals such as the Indian middle class is once again another story!). However, one can find such beliefs in the New Testament. In addition to the famous saying of Jesus about rich men and camels passing through the eye of a needle, we have this from Matthew:
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can not serve both God and Mammon."
—Matthew 6:19-21,24
These disagreements notwithstanding, Professor Jansen's main point - that ideas matter, and that the idea of redistribution of wealth, no matter how high-minded it sounds, is disastrous for prosperity - is a very important one, and the experience of India and China in the past 25-30 years proves more than adequate empirical evidence to make his point.
Once again, my thanks to Robert and to Professor Jansen.
quote:
"Translation between languages, no matter how excellent the translator, can compound the problem."
Thank you for your courtesy.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
Sagunto wrote:
Robert Spencer has added an update to the column with Hans Jansen's reply. Did you read it?
..................................
Yes, I did, Sagunto. I agree with him.
I think perhaps the most important thing to focus on is that in just the past couple of weeks no less than three respected Muslims—including that Egyptian "Shaykh" and a candidate for parliament in Kuwait—have endorsed Jihad and *actual slavery* as a "solution" for problems in the Muslim world—including economic problems.
Islam—through Jihad, Jihad piracy, ransom, "tribute", and the imposition of Jizya—loots Infidel populations-and historically always has.
Violent street crime in by Muslim thugs against native Infidels Europe is regarded as a form of Jihad. Even collecting welfare benefits in the West is often conceived as at best an entitlement—and at worst an active form of "economic Jihad".
Blasphemy laws are used by Muslims in places like Pakistan to seize land, businesses, and property from Infidels.
Muslims in Iraq and Pakistan have openly attempted to extort Jizya from threatened religious minorities—including Christians *and Hindus*.
This is only going to get worse, as Muslims become further emboldened if Infidels continue to exhibit dhimmi behavior.
This is another issue—like so many we confront with Islam—where we are *all* at risk—Buddhists in Thailand; Hindus and Christians in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Pakistan; Jews in Israel; and Christians in Egypt, Nigeria, and—increasingly—in the countries of the West. Agnostics and atheists are equally at risk.
I still believe this is an important article. I would have felt the same way if Jansen had more specifically singled out Westerners, as well.
This indeed is an important column, including the remarks about the dominant zero-sum view on getting rich in predominantly Hindu and Buddhist cultures. I would even have considered it an important article, had prof. Jansen mentioned some inconvenient facts like these, if only in passing. But in light of the rather hysterical moral outcry over some innocent remarks, that would surely have distracted from his main point, so I'm glad he didn't.
All in all, I must say that I am truly amazed and somewhat ashamed that on this forum a few easily offended religious loud mouths succeeded in side-tracking this topic with their zealous knocking down straw men arguments of their own design, pushing for a "disclaimer" on some of Jansen's observations which i.m.h.o. was totally unwarranted, and what's more, getting away with slanderous ad hominems about European racism.
A tempest in a tea pot, really. But also very enlightening in many respects.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
Dear Sagunto,
If you are reading the Sunday paper and you come across an assertion that "Christianity condones cannibalism", I believe you can be forgiven for (i) reading the sentence a few times, (ii) scratching your head, and (iii) wondering what on earth the author was thinking when he wrote that.
Is he making an unwarranted extrapolation from the Donner party and Jeffrey Dahmer to Christendom at large?
Does he think that the Last Supper was a curry made from some unfortunate Roman maiden? Something in the agonies of St. Augustine perhaps? Is he taking trans-substantiation a bit too seriously?
Inquiring minds would want to know, and not necessarily because one is already mounting a charger ready to begin the next jihad.
In this particular case, the good professor tells us we have misunderstood what he wrote. As far as I am concerned, that settles the matter.
The moral of the story is that if you want to make a serious point, make it seriously. If you believe that Christianity condones cannibalism, don't be surprised or offended if people ask for the empirical foundation of your belief. And if you don't believe that Christianity condones cannibalism, avoid giving that impression in what you write. As our good host Mr. Spencer tells us frequently, there is a whole lot of misunderstanding out there - why add to the confusion?
Cordially.
Jan Douwe -
You wrote:
"Calling Hans Jansen a racist based on this article is ridiculous."
Second that. In fact, it's outrageous.
I'd like to leave this topic by bringing the focus back to Jansen's main point, with a suggestion for further reading.
Here's a useful link to an article by the eminent Ludwig von Mises that provides a thorough analysis of the self-defeating cult of jealousy.
Take care,
Sag.
Or, if burning oneself to death doesn't work, the Buddhists call out the troops and beat up on Hindu Tamils in Sri Lanka; Christian Karen, Chin, and Karen in Myanmar as well as Muslim Rohingya; or Christians in the China of the Boxer rebellion; or, their own sons and daughters who convert out. The "peace-loving Buddhists of Tibet", like mountaineers the world over, were pretty good at carrying on blood feuds before the Communist Chinese cracked a few skulls together and made them realize that they're all in the same boat together. Back in the 1600's, Buddhist warriors on elephant back made sure the Muslim Malays of the upper part of the Peninsula understand just who's boss (the Siamese king at Ayutthaya).
Granted, Buddhist texts don't condone or encourage violence the way the Qur'an and Hadith do. But let's not let little Lisa Simpson fool us into think that Buddhists are all goody-goody, or that Christians and Jews are the only ones who produce hypocrites.