posted on December 19, 2002 07:35:19 PM new
The Middle Eastern people use the hawalas because the binking system as we use it here is not accesable to the working people over there.
Very likely most of this money was sent to be used for their families because that is why they came here in the first place to make money and support their extended family back home and bring as many as they can here.
The hawalas function based on a non-western civilization concept - trust.
It is due to the fact they can not document where all the money goes in an audit trail that they are cracking down on them.
You can see how useful the system is here for keeping track of large transfers of money in companies like Enron.
posted on December 19, 2002 09:34:55 PM new
Thanks, Ken. Good topic. We seem to have had a similar sub-theme in mind with our posts.
I think I recall now your mentioning that association with the term redneck once before in your posting, Borillar. I had always assumed its origin traced back to outdoor laborers but never investigated it, though I do have a passing interest in etymolgies. So taking a break from Christmas-type tasks, I did a little cyber hunting. What I found most often is summed up in this entry from an etymological research site:
-----
"Redneck" dates to 1830, when it was first used to denote the Presbyterians of Fayetteville. The significance of the name is somewhat obscure. Three explanations are commonly offered. First, it could be a reference to a ruddy neck caused by anger. Second, it could be a reference to sunburned necks caused by working in the fields all day. Finally, it could be a reference to pellagra which turns the neck red.
There is also a tale in which it referred to striking coal miners tale who wore red bandannas a means of group identification. This is unlikely due to what we know of its origin. The sunburn or pellagra explanation seems more likely than the anger one.
Interestingly, the Afrikaans "Rooinek," which literally means redneck, is a disparaging term the Boers used to apply to the British and later became associated with any European immigrant to South Africa.
-----
I came across quite a few sources that referenced its first use to describe the Presbyterians at Fayetteville, though none cited the specific reference. Since the Presbyterians would have almost certainly been Scottish, it led me to wonder if perhaps it connoted an Anglican or English bias, a carry over from the English overlordship of the Scottish. I couldn't find any specific correlations however. Some historians postulate that the word was likely used as simple description without connotation.
I thought that that information might interest you.
posted on December 20, 2002 12:10:59 AM new
>I thought that that information might interest you.
Yes, indeedy, it was!
I was taught that it meant laborers whose necks were red from the outside sun, and often referred to coalminers as well; that those who were called rednecks were not bigots or racists back then (meaning early ninteen hundreds).
posted on December 20, 2002 12:13:15 AM new
Also, the Presbyterians thing, somthing comes to mind. Recall hom Pilgrim clothing is always depicted? I recall that back then, a man's neck was supposed to be covered (hence, the eventual tie that men wear today) and I wonder if they wore a red neck covering as their style? That would certainly explain the connection.
posted on December 20, 2002 09:36:03 AM new
From the Reagan Selective Memory files of Linda_K
The reason, which should be obvious, is the English, French, German, etc immigrants haven't been the group that has been threatening us. They haven't killed close to 3000 of our citizens either.
Neither have 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999% of individuals of Middle Eastern Descent.
Oh by the way....
Germans....There are still several revolutionary cells presently still active whose sole purpose is the killing of American Servicemen and destruction of American interest.
French....Besides being annoyingly rude individuals , they also have terrorist cells dedicated against America
English....Hey, what can I say?
As for killing 3000 Americans....King Bush the Corporate Buddy and his gutting of the environmental regulation will kill several times that many per year.
.................................................
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
[ edited by mlecher on Dec 20, 2002 09:41 AM ]
posted on December 20, 2002 10:09:13 AM new
gravid - It is due to the fact they can not document where all the money goes in an audit trail that they are cracking down on them.
Agreed, that may very well be why the law was changed after 9-11 and this type of funding was declared illegal. [So we could see where these funds were going.] From what I've read, and the millions and millions of dollars going out...I'm very skeptical these large amounts of money are going to their family members. I lean more towards believing our government that these funds are [mostly] going to fund and support terrorism.
posted on December 20, 2002 10:13:54 AM new
mlecher - Cute....gave me a chuckle.
Yes, I'd agree there are terrorists in the countries you mention. I believe that our government watches the terrorist factions in all countries. I didn't mean to imply there there were absolutely no terrorists in any other countries.
I was speaking to the majority of muslims who do hate the west, the US in particular and have openly stated they won't stop until we are destroyed.
Now, academia has changed B.C. Before Christ, to B.C.E. Before the Common Era.
People want to get rid of Jesus, denied he ever lived, when they never met Jesus and
they surely weren't there when he was born.
Maybe these people are trying to change history? By trying to cover things up
that people used to really stand for, things
that were part of their belief system? Maybe the ACLU can go after cave paintings,
because frankly, I'm offended that they
used so few colors. But the ACLU won't go
after cave paintings, because it's not
political and social and religious at the same time.
Just because the Puritans are dead and can't call the ACLU doesn't mean they don't
deserve respect.
And if the Puritans were alive, they wouldn't need to call the ACLU because social welfare and politics were a lot different back then.
And the ACLU might not want to defend the
white guy, since most all problems in society according to them are his fault any way.
posted on December 20, 2002 02:27:48 PM new
How clever!...You've introduced every controversial topic but war in one comment.
The rational decision is to raze the graveyard and the park along with the religious monument and put in a parking lot.
Let's look to the future and forget historical preservation.
The ACLU should focus their time, energy and money on serious problems.
