Some Interesting Facts about Muslims.

OK. So I addressed religion in my last post.

And It stated a interesting discussion.

It was on Muslims. Or rather the way most people think about them.

_
So I Decided to make a nice little list of interesting facts about Muslim country's.

_
Geography.

#1. There are 47 Nations in the world that have a population that is at least 50% Muslim.

#2. There are give or take about a Billion and a half Muslims in the world.

#3. Most Muslim Nations are in fact no in the Middle east. With a little over a dozen being in the middle east. (Depending on your idle of middle east) About a dozen in Asia Major. And the rest. (Most of them) Being in Africa.

_
People.

I already addressed that there are about a billion and a half Muslims.

#1: out of that 1.5 billion about 20% are Arab. Thats about the same % of Africans that are Christian. So when people use the word interchangeably there a little off base.

#2: Out of 140 million arabs. About 14-15 million are Christian's. That more Arab Christians then Jews.... Like all the Jews.. Put Together... In the world.

_

So stuff people mess up ALLOT.

#1. Women.

A: Burqas and Niqabs. (Those are the viels some Muslim Women were)
The fact of the matter is that there are only two Nations in the world that require women to were these. Many more Muslim Nations Actually ban them. They are in fact not even part of Muslim Culture. Rather part of the Culture of a few nations around the world.

B: France a nation that has made a big deal about Burqas Did a study were they found that there were about three million muslim women in France and out of those less then 500 were a burqas.

C: Of the five largest Muslim Nations. (By population) In the world Four have had Female Leaders. And in all five Muslim Nations have had six females leaders. (Bangladesh twice)

Indonesia. Megawati Sukarnoputri

Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto

Bangladesh. Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina.

Turkey. Tansu Çiller

Kyrgyzstan. Roza Otunbayeva

So really it seams that the big offender in womens rights have been.

Iran.

Saudi Arabia.

And Afghanistan under Taliban Rule.

_
And there are some christians groups that dictate what there women were as well.

_______________________

Tomas Jefferson taught himself how to read Arabic by reading the Quran.

And held Ifrar on Ramadan in the WHITE HOUSE. Now I am by no means saying he was a Muslim, My point was that allot of the founding fathers had a good deal of admiration for the Muslim world.

_

And why wouldn't they?

For a good deal of history the Muslim world has been advanced. Welthy and Humane.

Muslims and Persians were pretty famously good hosts for a good portion of history. And In the Crusades treated captured prisoners and civilians MUCH better the Christian Army,s.

And Muslims advanced many disciplines wile the Christians were in the dark ages.

In fact the renaissance was largely started because A: Priests had kept good in monistanys for a long time. B: Crusading knights brought back knowledge from the Muslim world. Much of it having been forgotten by European.

_
The... trouble we see in the Muslim world right now only started after Europians "Colonized" The middle easy and then left. And can kind of be seen as a violent backlash to western influence starting in the 1930-50's.

Geography 101. (North America)

OK so i JUST posted a blog on Geography but this is kind of a follow up.

The subject of this post came up in a Religion class actually. And by that i mean a class on Religion taught by a Professor of Theology are Eastern Kentucky University. Which by the way is PAINFUL to take if you are not a idiot. Because you are the Minority.

90% of the people who seam to take religion classes are Bitchy Women who are STUNED to find out that the whole class is not about THERE Religion despite the title being World Religion.
(If you really want to make them mas use 1 Timothy 2:11-12 on them) "let a women learn in silence with all submission. And i do not permit a woman to teach or to have authoirty over a man, but to be in silence" Now its important to note that i don't really buy that crap. Its just usefully to shut up really bitchy religion women in Theology classes. (But i digress)

So our Theology teacher asked us one day, wile we were talking about religion in the new world how many country's are in North America. Almost every one in the class answered Ether 2! (Most of the religious Harpy's) or 3 (Most of the kids right out of high school) One girl answered 10. I answered 17. (The answer is 23)

The teacher admitted that he himself did not know, but he like me and the other girl knew it was more then 2 or 3. The point to asking is this. Most people think North America is Canada and the United States MAYBE Mexico.

But if you look at a map North America Starts AT PANAMA! So that's all of Middle America (which by the way is a region not a continent, just like the middle east of the Caribbean) And BTW the Caribbean is part of North America as well, along with Greenland. (which is itself not counted as a country in the 23, sense its part of Denmark)

The reason i couldn't get 23 right was because i don't know all those little one island nations out in the Caribbean.

Now this confusion comes from two sources.
The first being the use of the word Middle America. (Meaning the area from the Yucatan Peninsula to Panama) Mean the southern part of Mexico on down. People also call it Mezzo America. (which means middle in Latin.. i think its Latin) The point being this has nothing to do with Geography, its actually meant to represent the part of North America that is still largly inhabited by Native Descended people.

The second source is that schools in middle American. (Mexico on down in this instance) Teach that south America starts at Mexico. WHY? Because they consider every above Mexico white and every one below Latino. Part of the La Raza idle. (La Raza means The Race)

The problem with this is again consistency. First off. In most nations Latino's like middle easterners are Caucasian. Secondly they largely consider Lation in America to be white. Which just doesn't make sence, many of them have been there much longer then America or Mexico.

Not to mention that if a Mexican went to Columbia and said "I am Latino" The Columbia's would tell them. "No your Mexican" Because indeed, the Colombians are much closer to being Native Americans then most people from Mexico.

So the entire Middle America thing is just Bunk, there is no real consistent reason to separate it, and if you did why isn't the Caribbean in there? Because its a subo-political idle trying to pass its self off as Geography.

Geography 101. (Continents)

OK so back onto Geography.
There is a big discusion in the geography community that has been going every sense some smart ass Geography student looked at the map and said.

Wait.... Europe and Asian are basically the same landmass.
Or.
Wait..... North and South America are connected by a small strip of land.
Or.
Wait..... Asia and Africa are connected by a small strip of land.

OK so the problem stems from one fact.
There is no GOOD definition of a Continent.
The most widly used is "Continents are understood to be large, continuous, discrete masses of land, ideally separated by expanses of water."

OK so that means.
#1. Large. But large is a general term. Asia makes up 30% of the earth's landmass. So its Large by any comparison, but really just saying large is pretty slip shot.
#2.Continuous. OK so this one isn't that bad. And this is were most people throw in Asia/Africa and North/South America. The Argument is that a tiny little strip of land doesn't constitute Continuous.
#3. Discrete. So if you take Europe to a hotel and do the Nasty it wont kiss and tell.... No wait, when they say Discrete they mean apart from other 'enter word here' land masses in this case.
#4. Ideally Separated by Expanses of water. That's kind of iffy as well that's like saying a Sandwich Ideally has bread on it.. but we will let it slide.


OK so there are a number of opinions about how many continents there are, but they tun the gamut from 5 to 7.

Now what we are looking for hear is a good CONSISTENT count of Continents.

7. The first being the Seven Continents model. This is the one most westerners are taught in school. North/South America Africa, Australia, Antarctica, Europe and Asia. OK so the only trouble with this one is that Asia and Europe have NOTHING dividing them. Some people say the Ural Mountains do. But screw them, no one said anything about Mountains counting, if they did then India/California would be there own Continents.
Now the reason that Asia and Europe are separate is ~Drum Roll~ Because the Europeans and Asian's want it that way. NO REALLY that's why, because the cultures of the two land.... area's (Senses its the same landmass) Are so different they like it that way. That and if its was the same area then it would be HUGE. 36% of the earth's land mass. and holding 71% of the earth's population.

6a. aka:The smart six.
ok so the first of two counts just stats the above. That Asia and Europe are the same land mass, and should be the same Continent, in fact many people who use the 7 Continent count still use the term Eurasia (Notice that Europe is first in the name, Despite being small, having less people and being 2nd alphabetically, Course Asiope sounds dumb) the up side to this count is that it's consistent at least.

6b. aka:The crazy six.
ok so this one has the same number of Continents as the above, but this time idle is that Europe and Asia are different land masses but the America's (North and south) are the same land mass. Now i think most people right away would see the trouble, THIS is not consistent. If north and south America are the same land mass, shouldn't Africa/Asia be the same? or Europe and Asia be the same? I mean North and south america are only connected by a 70 mile wide Isthmus most of it being lake.
Africa and Asia minor. (The middle easy) are only connected by 119 mile wide Isthmus, most of it being natural river. So what that 30 miles make all the difference?

Now to be fair, this is mostly taught in South / Middle America. And most people who teach this also think North America is much smaller then it is. (As do most Americans) So there grasp of Geography is more of a Social idle and less of a Earth Science.

5. The Crazy five!
ok so this one is crazy for the same reason as above, this one is a combination of the two above. America (A combo of the north/south) Eurasia, Africa, Australia, Antarctica.
OK so again we go back to the Africa/Asia thing. Why are they separate if north and south America arent?

And Finally.

4! aka: The consistent one.
You ever see a movie were there is ONE Sane guy in the whole movie? This is that guy.
This one just takes the 5 Continent idle and makes it NOT CRAZY by saying.
"Hay is Africa is touching Asia, And Asia is touching Europe. Then.... Arent they all the same landmass?

Yes, yes it is. Afro-Eurasia aka Afrasia aka Eurafrasia aka Eurasica.
Or as i like to call it the African-Eurasia SUPER CONTINENT!
is just that idle that you must be consistent in your counting, and that anything touching anything else is the same landmass. The problem with this model is simply that this new super continent comprises 56% of the worlds landmass and 85% of the population of the planet.

The idle of Continents is to divine the worlds landmass into smaller parts so you can quickly and easily refer to places, if you say Afro-Eurasian Crisis. That's pretty general.

PS: Tectonic theory.
So people have the idle, or have posed the idle that you could just use Tectonic plates to decide how many Continents there are. But there are a couple problems with this idle, #1. Continents are older then Tectonic Drift theory. By o..... 1800 some odd years. #2. Continents are a matter of Geography, Tectonic plates are a matter of Geology. And THOSE are NOT the same subjects my friend. #3. If you did that there would be screwed up Continents.

For instant Austrailia and India are on the same plate. The middle east is on its own plate, Greece is ALMOST on its own plate, All of Eurasia is on one plate with the exception of the north easy part of Russia. The Phillippines are on there own plate, Panama as well. So you see the trouble.

Geography 101. (You get a F)

OK so as i stated before, I am a Geography student, at a university.

And something i have come to appreciate is people who can find stuff on a map.

A study done by 50+ University's, using college student's, college professors, school children, there teachers, people on the street and MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. Has shown that 1 out of 5 American's can't find the United States on a map.

And that's not a average, that's almost across the boards, for instance college professors and members of congress had the best scores, at 5 out of 6 being able to find it. So that means that one out of six of the people leading our nation can't find it on a map. And ~Clears thought~ Not to upset some people with the rest of the study but, Briggam young university were the people doing the congress part. (If you don't know Brigham young is a fairly conservative college) And they found that. Out of the 90 members of congress that could not find the United stats on a map. 67 of them were Republicans.

Now I'm not bringing that up to make fun of Republicans. (They do that with out my help) I bring it up to make a latter point. But moving on, out of the 4 of 5 americans who can't find the US on a map, 1 out of 4 of them Can't find Canada or Mexico on a map. And out of the 3 remaining 1 of them can't find France, Great Britten, Germany, Japan, China, Russia, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Afghanistan or Pakistan on map. (That none of them, not just can't find one of them)

Why?

Because under Regan, Most of the funding for Geography, and many other "Liberal arts" Subjects were cut, and the stats that suffered the most were pore southern stats. (Mostly Republican) Hence the reason they had lower scores.

And the reason is simple, Many American's, Notable the Extreme right, but largely across the board, just don't think its Important to know were other places are, and maybe there right, but think about this.
When the same test was done in other nation's, Almost every one knows were the U.S. is even, people who don't know were there own county is. (This happened allot in African country's)
Why? Because the U.S. has allot of power, and many would say does allot of good and or bad, in other nations. So American Citizens should at least be able to find places that we influence.


Just memorize the nations i have mentioned today people.
If you don't your on my Idiot list.

People are brown! Get over it.

OK so a good friend of mine were sitting around one day.
And for what ever reason. (Can't remember have slept sense then)
We were trying to figure out what color tone our skin was.

And my friend after sitting there for a moment, had the idle of.
"Hay lets go look up color's on Wikipedia and see were we fall"
Now before i go any further into this discussion, let me say this, I'm Caucasian, and so was the friend i was having the conversation. And i turned out to be a 'Desert sand' My friend who has a decidedly more olive tone ended up being a 'Wheat' And as we sat there looking throw color.

We came to a discovery.
The entire human race. (Unless they are albino) Are brown.
End of story. That's it don't believe me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shades_of_brown

There.
OK so no crap people.
Even before this i knew two things.
#1. I have NEVER seen a black person. I have seen people who have dark skin.
#2. I have NEVER seen a white person. I have seen people with light skin tones.
And people are called yellow and copper as well.

But every natural skin tone falls into the brown pallet.

And besides another race question.

They still call 'White people' Caucasian, But don't call 'black people' Negroid.
Now i know why.
But the question is why do they still call them Caucasian.

But that being said.
*Black is a bad name because no one is black.
*Negro is bad because its derived from a bad naming convention. (Not all 'black' people are from the Niger River Vally) And it now has a negative connotation.
*'Colored' is bad because all people have color (Brown)
*And African American is stupid because its very presumptions.

I say this based on the points that.
#1. Not all black people are from Africa. Many Indian's are darker in skin tone then Africans.
#2. Not all African's are black. There are many white Africans, And in north Africa most people would say the populous was Arabian. (If you didn't know, Middle Easterners are all white, as are Latino's)
#3. It makes the assumption that they are American's. I know a man from England who is black, now what?

And Finally its kind of disrespectful to say. "O your from Africa." You would never say "O your from Europe" to a German would you? There are 53 Country's in Africa. The Continent is the size of one and half north America's. (Which has 23 Country's, Not two)

_
So the point is this.
Human's are humans.
Ether go with that theory or the idle that we have Cultural Identity.
No one would say that Spanish people are like Norwegians. But both are predominately white and Europeans. Just like despite what he right wants you to think, not all Americans are White, Cristian (Or even Protestant) Conservatives.