Re: The Hindu right in Nepal
- From: micrurusf <micrurusf@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:13:30 +0200
Wanderer wrote:
Homogeneity ,especially in India , means the most commonly shared
features .
As it would in the UK. So do you support UK Hindus being amalgamated into a Protestant-based social setup? Of course not.
Your argument is Indo-centric, and when applied to Indians(specifically Hindus)
elsewhere you would disagree with your own argument.
Every case is particular , but if your question is whether Hindus should
respect the law,culture,traditions of their resident country ?
my answer is positive , but I still wish they keep their own culture &
traditions vivid as long as it doesn't trouble others .
I'm for integration but against assimilation or acculturation.
Minus the 2 WW and the Iron Curtain , it's /like/ India
Well, apparently millions were killed on the Kurukshetra battlefield....
what about the Neanderthals' genocide ?
I believe you should spend the rest of your life making restitution for that. Wtf do the Neanderthals have to do with the comparison of WW2 casualty numbers,
what the Kurukshetra war had to do in our discussion ? :-D
which you proclaim to be a hallmark of Euro-Christian identity, with the similar numbers of casualties on a battlefield on the Indian sub-continent? Are you saying that the Europeans were responsible for wiping out the Neanderthals?
It was a joke ..never mind
But to reply to your question : the European homo sapiens should pay !!
but ultimately it is a lack of leadership,
True
an absence of empathy, and a distinct lack of respect for others of one's own race
that kept India in a state of frozen animation.
IMO ,India is not ready for Democracy yet
Your reasoning being?
Illiteracy , nepotism , film star turned politician , bureaucracy ,
corruption,lack of patriotism etc...I'm not saying that India is a
unique case ,but India is unable to have strong enough structures to
progress despite these illnesses .
Even today, when an Indian becomes fabulously wealthy, he does two things: builds himself a palace, and a temple for the gods. There are the odd exceptions, which only prove the general rule.
source ?
Look at every wealthy Indian(there are exceptions). Look at Mukesh Ambani, for example. He is building the world's biggest and most palatial private home within plain sight of people living on the pavement.
Now he and brother Anil are placating the gods:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Rajasthan_temple_town_unites_Ambanis/rssarticleshow/3397890.cms
Would you have said that if they gave donation to a Christian organization ?
And then you have the various builders, actors etc., who go and dump cash in the temple hundi when they have made a fortune and built their personal palaces, but will not pay for their servants' kids to go to a decent school.
They don't have to pay for their servants' children , grand fathers ,
mistresses whatever , they should only give them a decent salary
(depending on their income),for the rest it's the duty of the state to
ensure them a fair living .
Someone called Amandeep posted this on a blog: "i tried searching this ambani guys donations and guess wat, i found none. instead i found charities donating him money!!!!"
http://worldthrumyeyes.wordpress.com/2007/10/31/mukesh-dhirubhai-ambani-worlds-richest-man/
I'm not endorsing that writer's conclusion, but I will say that other than a few small donations, and one large one(to Wharton to rename an auditorium for Dhirubhai), I haven't found much evidence of the Ambanis' charity. Even Gururaj Deshpande's largest contributions have been to MIT, just ahead of his sons' admissions.
Rich people rarely give anything willingly or without having any
interest in mind
a common race(if you accept "white" to be a single race)
A Kabylian is white too but is not European .
They are Berbers from Algeria, not Europeans.
I know who they are
I clarified, in case other readers thought these were native Frenchmen.
Do you believe someone is still reading us ?
They were not considered white until this generation.
right ,but when I see their behavior with the "kalouchs" as they
call them , I guess they consider themselves as white for much longer
than that
It's not that, mostly it is a religion thing.
????
Many French Jews look North African too.
few sefarad jews look like North African ..
And that's why it's not pertinent to our discussion of the common heritage of white European people.
fine !
Eastern Europe has a great deal of Rroma people which are
are not really "white" .
They are not a "great deal".
10 M people is a significant number
Not in comparison to a billion.
10 M is nearly the Greek population , so it's a consequent number
on an European scale.
Also, they are gypsies and recent(16th century?) migrants, not immigrants.
The term "gypsy" is a derogatory term , Rroma is the respectful one
The term "gypsy" has become derogatory only relatively recently.
Like the N-word ? does it mean it wasn't offensive before ?
But in general usage, it still means a nomadic non-pastoral people.
Nope,today "gypsy" means in European mind thievery , unemployment ,
uneducated dirty children and prostitution :
[... Bulgarian observer Dimitar Stoyanov, of the Attack party and the
stepson of its leader, Volen Siderov, said "In my country there are tens
of thousands of Gypsy girls way more pretty than this honorable one...
you may even buy one, around 12-13 years, to be your loving wife"...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lívia_Járóka
Historically, they never confined themselves to any country, traveling in their caravans all over Europe.
Rromas had to settle down because of states' borders & rules ..if they
did travel it was within a given state .
Not true. They traveled all over Europe until probably the early 50s.
In western Europe that may stand true , but I doubt that many Romanian
Rromas have ever crossed more than 2-3 countries in their lifetime.
I remember seeing a caravan community of Roma in the UK in 1972, just outside of Birmingham. They are also sometimes called "gypsy travellers".
Or "Irish travellers" ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travellers
I don't believe in theocracy .
Anyway the Europeans don't want islamic Turkey as a member .
The Greeks are the ones blocking Turkish EU membership. If the Turks had become EU members prior to the Greeks, it would have been the Turks blocking Greek membership.
Not only Greece but also Armenia, Cyprus,Germany in fact most European
countries are against her adhesion to EU.
Armenia is not an EU member,
so she can hardly object to the inclusion of Turkey.
True , I should have written the Armenian lobby or the Armenian community
However, I do believe Armenia _would_ object, because it is part of the "Orthodox"
The main reason is The Armenian Genocide of 1915
As far as Cyprus, its opposition also has to be lumped in with the Greeks, being that they are mostly Greeks.
the convincing argument is : Cyprus is not recognize as an independent
state by Turkey , so why would Turkey become member of an entity when
she doesn't accept the existence and borders of another member of the EU ?
Germany, however, supports Turkey's EU admission.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3510885.stm
"The survey is embarrassing for Britain, which has championed Turkish
membership while lecturing other governments on the need to reconnect
with public opinion after the recent EU constitution referendum defeats
in France and the Netherlands. Britain, as president of the Union, will
chair entry talks with Turkey, which are scheduled to start on October 3.
In Austria, opponents of Turkey’s membership out-number supporters 80
per cent to 10 per cent. Opposition is 74 per cent in Germany, 72 per
cent in Luxembourg and 70 per cent in France and Greece. More people are
opposed to Turkey joining than to any other potential member. In
Britain, a relative majority is in favour, with 45 per cent for and 37
per cent against.
The high level of opposition in France and Germany makes it more likely
that Angela Merkel, who is expected to be the next Chancellor of
Germany, and Nicolas Sarkozy, who is expected to be the next President
of France, will stand firm against Turkish entry."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article545446.ece
Btw, Turkey is _not_ an Islamic state. It is a secular state with a
Muslim majority.
That's Right , but it's perceived as islamic because of this majority
The presence of Islamic elements does not detract from that, just as the presence of Hindutva elements does not detract from the fact that India is still a secular democracy.
if Indian secularism was applied to France , they would call it islamism
And if there was an Indian Atatürk you would be the first one calling
him a fascist .
.
- Prev by Date: Rabies in India. It is time to eliminate this deadly infection
- Next by Date: Re: The Hindu right in Nepal
- Previous by thread: Rabies in India. It is time to eliminate this deadly infection
- Next by thread: Re: The Hindu right in Nepal
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
