What or who are Tukkers? Hmm,Ok,found it. So what's the etymology behind that word?Can someone from Rotterdam call you a Tukker and get away with it?
The official explanation is that Tukker comes from Tuk - tuk in regional dialect means pocket. So people assume that the term Tukkers came into existence as a derogatory term (unsophisticated farmers walking around with their hands in their trouser pockets). In Twente we're quite literally proud to be a Tukker. It's what you'll read on banners in the stadium. I assume that in some other parts of the country they still consider it derogatory. We ain't bothered either way really.
In the rest of Holland, a "tukker" stands for one taking a nap which coincides with what watching FC Twente does to you. Excuse me for the joke, I couldn't let this one slide, I'm not lying about the translation though.
That's nice, except that no one has called Judaism a race. I'm pretty uncomfortable with your claim that Ghadafi is awesome, too. What johan said doesn't make her racist, and I never claimed it did. What it does is make her stupid for not clarifying a point after people have asked her to. Wilders isn't really "Zionist-backed" - he's someone that has a few Zionist contacts. That's a huge difference. Since johan brought up the completely useless (no surprise there!) tukker analogy, saying that Gert Wilders is "Zionist-backed" is like saying that Manchester United are "London backed" because they have fans in London. As for the actual claim, here's an article from a pretty wacky Zionist organization that I'd consider far right: http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000731.html. Guess what - it disavows most of what Wilders says. Whereas many right wing crazy sights call him a Zionist Jew - figures!
Sigh. He doesn't just have a couple of Zionist contacts, that's the point. He is actually backed by Zionist organisations, as in part-financed by them, as well as by a number of neo-con organisations in the US, organisations who make their financial affairs public. So if you need links, just let me know. The Pavlov reactions on the political board to whenever the word zionist or Israel is even mentioned is just getting silly now. This discussion wasn't about Israel or Zionism or racism. It was about Geert Wilders and his political agenda. I know you're BigSoccer's resident pompous snob and know it all, but I should bloody well hope that even you realise Dutch people generally know more about Wilders and the Dutch political situation than you do.
As several posters have said - why do I even bother? They're right, of course. I really hope for Holland's sake that the rest of its citizens are a lot smarter than you are.
Instead of talking about me and my alleged stupidity, why don't you for bloody once comment on the subject at hand, which is that Wilders is being supported and financed by foreign organisations, and the fact that he has structured his political party, which isn't in effect a party but a one man movement, in such a way that he can get away with this legally in a country where political parties are not even allowed to have their campaigns financed by third parties?
Nicephoras if you don't provide a link to where I said anything complimentary about Khadafi I will report you to the supermods as that's outright slander.
You know, can someone give me a good reason why you should be allowed to get away with a statement like this? You're effectively calling all Europeans antisemitic. A statement like that says a lot more about you than it does about Europe. I also didn't realize we were required to choose between Muslims and Jews in terms extending our tolerance and fair play. I've been spreading the good stuff to all groups evenly. I must not have gotten the memo. The EU is really slipping!
You should catch up on the news. As both Galliano and Assange have shown, they support anti-semitism. So, as per johan neesekens' logic*, anti-semitism is now Europe-supported, just like Gert Wiilders is Zionist-supported. *Not to be confused with logic.
Well,who has political power in the netherlands ,Tukkers or non-Tukkers? You say Jews shouldn't get upset about being called Zionists,but perhaps that's because you're silently accepting the epithet slung your way by a non-Tukker. Maybe you think that you're being subersive in the manner in whaich you accept and appropriate it. Words matter,and it sounds like the rest of Holland views people from Twente as lazy naptakers. I'm also thinking you may not also understand how the term "Zionist" has been used in the past as a pejorative to excuse an anihilationist policy towards Israel.
I don't use the word zionist as a pejorative term. I explained that earlier in this thread and I even apologised to the people who might be offended by it. I don't want to offend people, I just want to discuss the fact that a major figure in Dutch politics is backed by people with a political agenda that isn't exactly targeted at promoting Dutch interests. Whether that political agenda is determined by zionists or by people from Tasmania, Finland or Takatukaland is of no importance to me. Fact remains that we have a Dutch member of parliament whose priority is not his own voters. But I still don't really see why I had to explain it in the first place. I don't see why zionism has to be tippy-toed around on political forum. How in god's name else do you expect me to refer to an organisation that describes itself as zionist? I don't even care what the agenda of these zionists are. What bothers me is that a Dutch member of parliament lets himself be guided by non-Dutch interests. The job of a member of Dutch parliament is to represent the will of his voters. He's not doing that. Frankly it baffles me that you all zero in on the zionist bit while you completely ignore what's really at stake when discussing Geert Wilders. This is what you see on 90% of all threads on the political board. As soon as anyone refers to Israel or zionism, all discussion falls flat. I think people need to ask themselves why that is. I also still think Nicephoras was completely out of order the way he tried to discredit me. I guess however that with that he was admitting to the weakness of his own argument. Why else resort to lies.
I am confused, So we are not claiming the Jewish people to be an ethnic group (I guess race means skin color so ethnic group is better) I mean I do understand that the majority (or plurality) are of Semitic origin, but I would not consider Jewish people a single ethnic group. As nicephoras said, you do not have to be Semitic (am I spelling this right?) to be a Jew, that is a stereo type. as Umar said, there are Ethiopian Jews in the world. Also not all Malayans are of the same ethnic group the 3 biggest Malayan groups are Chinese, Indian and Malay, I am sure there are many other. Even if they are in America, a Indian Malaysian is different from a Malay Malaysian.
First, race and ethnic group are not remotely the same thing. German is an ethnicity. I don't think anyone but Julian Assange or John Galliano would call them a "race". Most people who are Jewish are of the same ethnic group. Not all are. Furthermore, there is absolutely no requirement to being "ethnically Jewish" to be religiously Jewish. This is why, for instance, people identify as Jews while not being religious, a situation that is inapplicable to any other religion. If a Christian becomes atheist, he's not a Christian anymore. Whereas most atheist Jews (like, say, chad or myself) still identify as Jewish. If it was just a religion, this wouldn't happen. That's why the nonsense of "Jews for Jesus" exists. If Judaism were just like most other religions, it would be equivalent to "Christians for Mohammed". You are confusing ethnic Malaysians with people who are citizens of Malaysia. Chinese Malaysians are ethnically Chinese. (Yes, I fully realize there are so many sub-ethnicities in China that "ethnically Chinese" is a loaded term, but this is short-hand.)
I wasn't lying. As I've repeatedly said, you said you love Ghaddafi in the same place that people claimed Jews are a race.
And I never said you claimed it did And if you're backed by 'a few Zionist contacts', what would that make him? Is there a certain percentage of the Zionists one would need to have as Facebook friends to be officially "Zionist-backed"? I'm unsure. Don't blame Johan for you not getting the point. The point was that claiming someone to be backed by zionists is not anti-semitism. And it's not. Seeing how you're pretty informed on zionism, would you care to tell me how this specific group relates to the central zionist command?
Talk about ignorance, LOL Apart from being a continent, there is no such thing as "Europe" btw. Never has been. Never will be.
That wasn't the point I was responding to, so you're wrong. As for not getting the point - johan is still trying to figure out where she claimed she loved Ghaddafi. It's one of very many.