Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wild guess - are disliked minority in Thailand (Buddhist majority) and are Majority in the other two countries you mention.
Buddhism, being more of a philosophy and centered on the individual and peace/enlightenment, may tend to look on "cult" (heavily organized hierarchal and less peaceful) religions as hard to get along with.
In my view, you're pretty much on target. The Muslims in Thailand feel very abused by a population that is about 95% Buddhist...and they have legit reasons for feeling abused. While in Malaysia, Muslims are the clear majority...although they have had their problems in the opposite direction with the bumipatra (I may have misspelled that) heavy handedness.
As a Buddhist...I'll have to think more about your second paragraph.
The reason I started was because, in many parts of the world, it's assumed that the U.S. is one of the few countries that practices the one drop rule.
It's not uncommon for people from Britain, France, Brazil, Colombia, etc. to claim that they don't have the one drop rule in their countries and that the U.S. is the "black sheep."(No pun intended).
I agree that there's no true one drop rule. It's more like a visible black ancestry rule, and even then that's not really true. Most Puerto Ricans have enough black ancestry to make them not look white (by US/European standards), yet usually do not have enough black ancestry to be considered black based off looks (except by Afro-centric types). Michelle Rodriguez is half Puerto Rican, half Dominican, is 25% African (based off DNA test) and I highly doubt many people would consider her a black woman in real life. People on the internet have gotten upset with me before for sharing my opinion that I don't consider the average NYC Dominican black, and I don't know why. Before I really knew anything about race and the history of Latin America, I would mentally assign most of them the Hispanic label and not the black label.
Ironically it's actually the super Afro-centric types who are most likely to follow the one drop rule, and do things such as claim ALL Latinos as black. I'm not sure if this is them strictly interpreting the one drop rule, or taking a Paul Mooney Joke about Puerto Ricans too far.
Also, most people do not consider Arabs white in the US or Europe. Even the lighter skinned Arabs like Bashar-Al Assad don't really fit the "white" phenotype.
Black for some reason seems to be assigned only to African Americans. You can be Black or Afro racially but Hispanic culturally. Hispanic is not a race and a Hispanic person can be of any race. Many Dominicans can be classified as multiracial/mulatto or mostly Afro (and yes, I know that there are White Dominicans as well, but most of the ones I've seen are clearly multiracial or Afro-Latino/a).
Black for some reason seems to be assigned only to African Americans.
We deliberately appropriated it. I was there at the time.
We took "black" as an explicit political statement in direct rehetorical opposition to "white," discarding all weaker euphemisms such as "colored" and "negro."
My husband and I both did 23andme DNA testing. He looks like Hitler's poster boy for Aryan looks - straight blonde hair, blue eyes, chiseled features - he's a Viking. He figured that he is mostly Irish, and he is. But his family is from Louisiana - and he is also 2 percent Western African, and also has some Native American and Jewish ancestry. Also, southern European.
You can't trust 23andme with those tiny ancestral attributions.
In my view, you're pretty much on target. The Muslims in Thailand feel very abused by a population that is about 95% Buddhist...and they have legit reasons for feeling abused. While in Malaysia, Muslims are the clear majority...although they have had their problems in the opposite direction with the bumipatra (I may have misspelled that) heavy handedness.
As a Buddhist...I'll have to think more about your second paragraph.
Well, as a fellow seeker I could change those words to "they judge people on a more individual level by their actions"....that is, I like to think a Buddhist doesn't care what "club" either they or others believe in, rather that each individual seeks enlightenment and peace (peace being the natural result)....Then again, I'm a dreamer.
Of course, put a bunch of people together - even Buddhists - and you have what we call politics...and the associated troubles.
In the bigger picture, Islam requires "submission" and you can covert or die (or sometimes just be enslaved or pay extra in taxes). The Inquisition was of similar bent.
I never read anything of Buddha requiring conversion....or even strict adherence to the accepted path(s).
Hey, that's a new pitch for Buddhism "The Libertarianism of Religion".....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
