raghu@rlgvax.UUCP (Raghu Raghunathan) (11/14/84)
> > Listen, turkey, my family comes from the 3rd world (Libya and Turkey to > be exact). The 3rd world sucks, and we are glad not to be there > anymore. > Just because your family comes from the 3rd world is no excuse or justification for your obnoxious statements. Your posting was obnoxious regardless of which part of the world your family comes from. > A large part of my family was killed from 1948-1968 for the crime of not > being Muslim so tell me these people are not savages. > I am sorry a large part of your family was killed, but again that is no reason to brand all 3rd world as savages. I know a lot of Indians (including some of my closest family friends and relations) killed by the British in the Indian struggle for independence, for absoultely no valid reason but you don't see me calling the British savages. > Perhaps, India should be returned to British > rule. The Brits seem to have done a lot better job at running the > subcontinent than the locals are doing now. That vividly displays your ignorance of Indian history. A lot more innocent Indians were killed by the British (for non-violent non- cooperation). In contrast only a handful of British soldiers were killed in the independence struggle. (Remember Jalianwalla Bagh massacre - I would be glad to refresh your memory). Please confine your postings to things that you know for sure; it's obivious that you don't know a whole lot about the conflicts in India - so stay off that topic. In summary, I don't think anyone in the world deserves to be called a savage (though I can think of one exception right now). (PS: My original posting had nothing to do with India, and your reference to it in your reply was unwarranted. But, if you really want to start a discussion on the details of the Indian conflicts through history, I'll be glad to oblige and bring you to your knees)
jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) (11/15/84)
Good for you, putting him in his place. Nevertheless, and not wanting to minimize the sufferings of your family, you can't deny that, while the British did maintain their hold over India by occasionally brutal (dare I say thuggish?) means, the real massacres, I mean the hundreds-of-thousands-killed massacres, took place between Indians, or Indians and Pakistanis, *after* the British left. Say what you like about imperialists, they do tend to keep the natives from each others' throats.
myers@uwvax.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (11/16/84)
> Good for you, putting him in his place. > > Nevertheless, and not wanting to minimize the sufferings of your family, you > can't deny that, while the British did maintain their hold over India by > occasionally brutal (dare I say thuggish?) means, the real massacres, I > mean the hundreds-of-thousands-killed massacres, took place between > Indians, or Indians and Pakistanis, *after* the British left. Say what > you like about imperialists, they do tend to keep the natives from each > others' throats. Hmm. Yes, I suppose that external aggression tends to unite a country's people, as evidenced by the recent elections in Nicaragua, which have been conclusively shown to have been fair (from all I have read, e.g. the New York Times). An example of "natives" being at each other's throat is, of course, the battle of blue and grey in the US Civil War. I must admit that although I am an avowed enemy of the militarism in today's societies, I am fascinated by the strategic and tactical aspects of war, especially the Civil War. Goddam 1st world savages and their "civilized" wars! Love / Hate relationship I suppose... -- Jeff Myers The views above may or may not University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of my employers. ARPA: myers@wisc-rsch.arpa uucp: ..!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,uwm-evax}!uwvax!myers
martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (11/16/84)
Well, turkey, if you had read the original article, you would have noted I said Reagan has given 3rd world savages the kick in the ass they deserve. I did not say all people from the third world are savages.
martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (11/16/84)
By the way, whilemore Indians were killed by British than British by Indians. The number of these deaths was far exceded by the number of Indians killed by Indians during the ensuing disorders when the British granted independence.
raghu@rlgvax.UUCP (Raghu Raghunathan) (11/16/84)
> > Say what > > you like about imperialists, they do tend to keep the natives from each > > others' throats. > Agreed. But they kept "peace" through complete dominance and with a heavy handed rule. In my opinion conflicts and blood-shed are part of the growth of every free country and in the long run better than "peace thru dominance". I could argue that Abraham Lincoln, had he imposed military rule in America just before the civil war and ruled as a dictator (assuming that is possible in America), could have maintained "peace" and avioded all the violence and killing that went with the civil war. But I am sure everyone will agree that having a civil war and getting the differences out in the open was far better in the long run. It is a similar case now in many 3rd world countries. You must keep in mind that Independent India is less than 40 years old, and as such is experiencing growing pains and the turmoil that go with it. As things get consolidated and the people become more mature, things will stabilize just as they did in America. America may be a "almost perfect democracy" now, but it wasn't so not too many years back. What bugs me about the American government is that they go about criticizing the "human rights violation" in 3rd world countries without stopping to consider that America has had a good human rights record only in the past few decades. Americans should be more understanding and give the 3rd world countries a chance to grow up and mature. I am sure after 200 years of democracy, India will become a far better society than it is now, just as did America.
ram@decvax.UUCP (Ram Rao) (11/17/84)
In article <mit-herm.2231> jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) writes: >Good for you, putting him in his place. > >Nevertheless, and not wanting to minimize the sufferings of your family, you >can't deny that, while the British did maintain their hold over India by >occasionally brutal (dare I say thuggish?) means, the real massacres, I >mean the hundreds-of-thousands-killed massacres, took place between >Indians, or Indians and Pakistanis, *after* the British left. Say what >you like about imperialists, they do tend to keep the natives from each >others' throats. On the contrary, the British kept the "natives" at each others throats. The British are (at least partly) to blame for the Hindu-Muslim massacres that killed hundreds-of-thousands. In the period following the Muslim invasion in the 15th century and preceding British colonial rule in the 18th century, how many documented instances are there of communal strife? The strategy of "divided they fall" was a major vehicle for Britain retaining control over India. As India was heading for independence under the leadership of freedom fighters such as Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Mohammed Ali Jinnah (among others), it was the British that planted seeds of distrust in Jinnah's mind. They questioned the status minority (25%) Muslims would have in an independent India where Hindus were the majority; despite the secular constitution that had been promised. The result: Jinnah demanded a separate Muslim state and Pakistan was carved out of India (consisting of the areas of high Muslim population). The massive relocations of tens of millions of people who happened to live in an area which would become a country they did not care for, ignited the massacres. Prior to independence, a fellow officer of my (Indian) dad (who happened to be British) remarked: if you Indians would only spit together, Britain would be drowned. Ram Rao decvax!ram
raghu@rlgvax.UUCP (Raghu Raghunathan) (11/18/84)
> On the contrary, the British kept the "natives" at each others throats. > > The strategy of "divided they fall" was a major vehicle for Britain retaining > control over India. The major policy of the British Rule in India was "Divide and Rule", a dictum well known to any student of Indian (or British?) history. They tried hard to foster suspicion and distrust among Indians in different parts of the country and thus keep them separate. There are many instances where the British would befriend a small Indian kingdom and encourage it to attack its neighbouring kingdom. A bitter war would follow. And at the end of it, when both the kingdoms were exhausted and spent, the British would move in and take them both over. (A policy not unlike the one the CIA and the KGB are following now with small third world nations) The British were probably afraid (and rightly so) that if Indians were allowed to join forces against them, they wouldn't have a ghost of a chance. Whether this is envisioned as "keeping natives at each others throats" or "keeping natives away from each others throats" is a moot point. - raghu
martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (11/18/84)
The British would not have been successful in poisoning Muhammed `Ali Jinnah's mind against the Muslims if he did not have legitimate grounds for worry about Hindu (and Sikh) feelings about Muslims. The history of Muslim/Hindu relations in Western India before the British is particularly replete with Muslim slaughter of Hindus. In fact, the Islamicization of Sindh is replete with some of the largest massacres in history. This is perhaps an example of the most successful imperialism in history. The descendents of the conquered and colonized Sindhis consider themselves to have been saved from their own native culture!.
martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (11/20/84)
It is a similar case now in many 3rd world countries. You must keep in mind that Independent India is less than 40 years old, and as such is experiencing growing pains and the turmoil that go with it. As things get consolidated and the people become more mature, things will stabilize ... That is, savagery in India should be excused because after all Indians are primitive savages who have only had a nation for 40 years. Well, I don't buy it. Indian civilization is thousands of years old and demands much better behavior of Indians than they have shown. To expect less from Indians is condescending. Americans should be more understanding and give the 3rd world countries a chance to grow up and mature. I am sure after 200 years of democracy, India will become a far better society than it is now, just as did America. Truly, less than 50 years ago, a large part of the Western World was acting like animalistic barbarians. Yet nowadays in first world countries such savagery is practically unknown, and in the few instances where such barbarism has appeared large sections of first world populations have striven to stamp it out. No similar opposition or remorse for 3rd world savagery appears in 3rd world nations. There is no excuse for such absence. The West only has technological competence over the Eastern cultures which are generally older and more sophisticated in many respects. Rationalizations and apologies for third world behavior is insipid and insulting to 3rd worlders.
martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (11/22/84)
If Wayne read the articles, I said Islam would have to undergo a major reform or the religion would have to be stamped out (not Muslim peoples). Having requirements to conquer your non-Muslim neighbors (if you can win) and then to degrade and humiliate non-Muslim subjects definitely makes Islam religio non grata. One could argue that Christianity had to wait until the eighteenth century to overcome many similar prejudices. But even though Islam became a state religion several centuries later than Christianity, the sort of ethical development I would like to see is a fairly obvious reform even for a young religion. By the way, my mother's family a few decades ago were troglodytes living in Southern Libya. None of us engage in or would try to apologize for or rationalize the type of disgusting barbarism which takes place in large parts of the third-world.
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (11/29/84)
John Purbrick writes: > imperialists do give their former > subjects something worth having; the concept of individual rights Whoa! Hasty generalization! German (in Africa), Belgian (Congo), Dutch (East Indies) imperialism notably gave their colonies NOTHING in the way of ethical ideas or political institutions. In the wake of the genocidal result of the Spanish conquest & its colonial system (which virtually en- slaved Indians), not much can be credited to Spanish rule, either. The French "mission civilistrice" was more savage than British imperial- ism, & any "good effects" it may have had are certainly moot, to say the least. I'm not sure how Portugese colonies fared (Brazil was one of the last countries to abolish slavery) but Mozambique & Angola weren't left with much of a legacy, as far as I can see. What about the British empire? A lot of the details of conquest & colonial rule are not widely known. One particularly obscure horror story is the British destruction of the city-state of Benin in West Africa: it had over a million inhabitants, & was one of the largest urban centers in the world at the time. I believe the British slaughtered all adult males, sold everyone else into slavery, & razed the city. Most of the historical records describing the holocaust are in Spanish; & until the late 60s, scholars apparently didn't see fit to make them available in English, if they knew about the event at all. In Tasmania, aboriginal inhabitants were hunted like animals to extinction by early settlers. For a fictional view of the annihilatory war that Germans waged against natives in Southwest Africa at the turn of century, see Thomas Pynchon's novel V. After destruction & slaughter on such a scale, does it make much sense to "weigh" possibly beneficial effects of imperialism? A second point I'd like to rebut concerns JP's remarks on "divide & rule": "Divide & rule" was a policy EXPLICITLY used by British conquerors (Clive in India) and the succeeding colonial rulers, both to initially conquer & to later assure colonial rule. I believe it was fairly common for admini- strators to publically cite "divide & rule" as a technique for ruling. Some of the later conflicts between ethnic groups were created in fact by the artificial unions & boundaries created by British conquest: Ni- geria is probably the most famous example. How about "divide & conquer, then rule & divide & rule" ? Ron Rizzo
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (11/30/84)
Nice theory that the colonial powers are responsible for third world civil wars by playing up animosities between various factions. Let's conduct a quick thought experiment to check it. If this were indeed the case, it would be expected that third world countries without lengthy domination by colonial powers would be relatively free of factional violence. There are a few of those countries, (e.g. Ethiopia, Thailand), and they appear as violent as the third world in general. Thus, we can conclude that the EVIDENCE does not warrant assigning the blame exclusively to Imperialism. David Rubin
donn@utah-gr.UUCP (Donn Seeley) (12/05/84)
From David Rubin: Nice theory that the colonial powers are responsible for third world civil wars by playing up animosities between various factions. Let's conduct a quick thought experiment to check it. If this were indeed the case, it would be expected that third world countries without lengthy domination by colonial powers would be relatively free of factional violence. There are a few of those countries, (e.g. Ethiopia, Thailand), and they appear as violent as the third world in general. Thus, we can conclude that the EVIDENCE does not warrant assigning the blame exclusively to Imperialism. Assuming my argument is the one being discussed here, I want to say first that I never claimed that the blame for factional violence belongs 'exclusively to Imperialism.' I simply said that imperialism aggravates post-independence violence. Perhaps I should make it clear that the kind of violence I am referring to is the kind of massive bloodshed that makes people go out and kill their neighbors because they belong to a different religion or political party; society goes temporarily insane and people get butchered right and left. The kind of violence based on regional differences has gone on for centuries and will undoubtedly continue as long as men make war. Societies often fight each other, but they typically don't commit suicide; it's the latter kind of violence that seems to be the result of colonialism. To take one of your examples, Thailand has suffered from the violence of secessionist hill tribes in the north and secessionist Malays and Chinese in the south, but it has avoided the mass slaughter that took place in Indonesia during and especially at the end of Sukarno's 'presidency', or the bloodbaths in Bangladesh or Cambodia or Uganda or Zaire, etc. Thailand is far safer than any of its neighbors. It seems to me that Ethiopia has suffered mainly from secessionists in Eritrea and the Ogaden, but I don't know as much about the country. I notice you didn't mention Japan or Tonga or Nepal in your examples... I will agree that it's easy to oversimplify these problems, and I perhaps I have done so to a small degree, but these responses are attempting to treat the extreme oversimplification of the original postings... Donn Seeley University of Utah CS Dept donn@utah-cs.arpa 40 46' 6"N 111 50' 34"W (801) 581-5668 decvax!utah-cs!donn
martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (12/15/84)
>> If Wayne read the articles, I said Islam would have to undergo a major >> reform or the religion would have to be stamped out (not Muslim >> peoples). >> >> Having requirements to conquer your non-Muslim neighbors (if you can >> win) and then to degrade and humiliate non-Muslim subjects definitely >> makes Islam religio non grata. >> >> One could argue that Christianity had to wait until the eighteenth >> century to overcome many similar prejudices. But even though Islam >> became a state religion several centuries later than Christianity, the >> sort of ethical development I would like to see is a fairly obvious >> reform even for a young religion. >> >> By the way, my mother's family a few decades ago were troglodytes living >> in Southern Libya. None of us engage in or would try to apologize for >> or rationalize the type of disgusting barbarism which takes place in >> large parts of the third-world. >You've been making a lot of statements to the effect that "Islam should >be wiped out", but here you say that this means the religon, not the >people. How do you propose to do it? The only way you will ever be able >to bring this about is by eliminating the practicers of Islam. (At least >within any reasonable time.) The Moslems who you are criticizing are >certainly a minority -- there are lots of perfectly peaceful and reasonable >people of every religon. Any way you look at it, what you are calling for >is genocide. Because of historical and current Muslim mistreat of nonMuslims, after Khomeini's seizure of power, after the assassination of Sadat and because of numerous other incidents in Muslim nations, I am not so sure of the minority status of the crazies although I will concede Wayne's opinion was the common wisdom as little as ten years ago. I know there are many peaceful and reasonable Muslims. My father does a lot of business in Muslim countries and we have many Muslim family friends. I simply suspect that peaceful and reasonable Muslims are peaceful and reasonable despite Islam. A popular turn of the century Ottoman opinion blamed Islam for almost everything that was wrong with the Ottoman Empire and with the Islamic world in general. Careful reading of Al-Afghani and `Abdu suggest that neither would have been particulary opposed to a thorough-going reform of Islam as I have suggested. In the 19th century noone was willing to pander the crazies the way people do nowadays.