Is colonialism evil or good?

For topics which do not fit into any of the other categories.
Nosuperstition
Posts: 3815
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Comparing Pakistan with India

Post by Nosuperstition »

THE PHANTOM wrote:Yohan wrote:
Colonization takes place when a foreign people come as settlers, settle down, propagate themselves and take over everything subduing the natives. That is what happened in the Americas, Australia for example. That is what Indians are doing in the Andaman islands. So Colonization in a technical sense did not happen in the subcontinent with the British rule. It just became a part of the British empire.

Whenever I mention that Indians; who allegedly claim to be the victims of British colonization; are the real colonizers in Andaman islands and are destroying its natives, they run like rats into their holes and hide, and refuse to answer why they insist on being hypocrites.
Hark, all ye! During the British Raj in the Indian subcontinent, there weren't settler colonies, no trading posts, no plantations, no British rule; in fact not a single British was there. Yet the impossible was made possible, beyond the wildest dreams of both the Indian and the British: the Indian subcontinent JUST BECAME a part of the British empire!

PS:I don't favor the exploitation of one man by another man; and if that's what the Indians of today are doing in Andaman Islands, then I condemn their actions.
Yohan wrote:
tsrajesh wrote:Guys! guys! guys! stop it. Noone is getting anywhere. Lots of words but nothing achieved. however they argue, they can't get the indians to believe that colonizing is good, not evil. Again, however much you argue, you can't talk a british away from his imperialistic mentality. (If any british thinks otherwise, please say so. As far as i can see, the only voice of a britisher is in this thread). Can we just stop this nonsense and carry on with the purpose?
The colonizers of today are the Indians. They colonize, Kashmir, Nagaland areas, and Andaman, as I have noted earlier. I bet you are also against Maurya, Gupta, and Moghal conquests and empires too. When will these subcontinentals stop double talking?
///viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1314&p=20407#p20407" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Assam lost territory as non-Assamese populations were granted autonomy by the Indian government. In 1963 the Naga hills district was made into the state of Nagaland. The Naga independence movement has maintained its guerrilla struggle. In 1970, Meghalaya was created in the south. Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, separated in 1972, received statehood in 1987.
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Assom

An outsider cannot buy property in Kashmir,so the question of colonisation in Kashmir does not arise.More or less similiar provisions were granted to most North-East Indian states.Settlements began in Andaman during the British rule and were due to extreme conditions such as partition or genocide and torture of Hindus in East Pakistan.

How brute were the Mauryas and Gupta Empires.This can be adjudged from the fact that there is tremendous diversity in the subcontinent unlike China and also from the fact that these Empires did not last longer.Gupta Empire was very much like present day Europe in having banned capital punishment.Maurya Empire patronised Buddhism which said that it is much more meritorious to save an ant rather than maintain an Empire.
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.
Nosuperstition
Posts: 3815
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Comparing Pakistan with India

Post by Nosuperstition »

M wrote:Yohan=Pragmatist=expozislam=religionexposed(of the old forum).
You are wrong. It seems to be a a consensus amongst our subcontinental members that Yohan is multinicking and I have recieved multiple complaints regarding it. However, I don't have any indication, neither now nor in the past of Yohan multinicking.


Dear all,

I had a request to split this thread, but frankly I don't know where to start splitting. How about I split the beginning of the thread off, so you can start your discussion again and rename the rest of the thread in something like "Colonialism and India"?

Best Wishes,
M.
[/quote]

Thats O.K, can you elaborate on my query in the link below.
Did we old-forummers lose some of the posts of Balls_of_Titanium_1 in the old forum just like we lost Kala Naga 's in the holiday forum?I remember him write lot many things which are not to be found anywhere upon searching for his posts.The relatively recent ones are the ones which are present in the old forum(the one from 2004 to 2008).
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1147&p=16537#p16537" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.
THE PHANTOM
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 8:56 pm

Re: Is colonialism evil or good?

Post by THE PHANTOM »

Yohan wrote: The history of British in India is totally different. As I have said, British came as traders. With time the whole subcontinent became totally lawless plagued by internecine warfare. Many Indian kings sought British help in their wars, which they gave. With the continuance of such help, one thing led to another, and the British ended up conquering the whole subcontinent, creating a modern unified nation in the end. Then one day they packed up and left, handing over all their accomplishments back to Indians on a silver platter. British rule was the most benevolent and the most creative ever by a foreign people who have ruled the subcontinent. Much of the prosperity of the people of the subcontinent today could be traced to the enlightened governace and institutions British had set up in India. Such a story is not of colonization.

But the people of the subcontinent is still far from having civil manners, as they do not express gratitude to the British who gave so much.
http://india_resource.tripod.com/eastindia.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
From Trade to Colonization: Historical Dynamics of the East India Companies

SEEK GRATITUDE ELSEWHERE, FOR THEY HAVE NONE TO SPARE!
User avatar
Akshay
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 1:02 am

Re: Comparing Pakistan with India

Post by Akshay »

Pragmatist wrote:
Akshay wrote:
Pragmatist wrote:This is a pointless argument Yohan no matter how many FACTS and how much TRUTH you give to people from the sub continent they still fall back on the old Chestnut Colonialism = Evil without applying their brains to analyse if it really was or not. Which of course is why Askhay runs from my questions about the Greek, Roman and Egyptian empires and instead wants to talk about an IMAGINARY FUTURE invasion by Muslims.
A large part of the blame for this falls on the post Colonial Nations who in completely illogical fashion instead of pointing out the huge benefits mankind in general got from colonialism instead apologised and are ridden with self guilt when the facts and History proves almost Universally exactly the opposite. Your excellent point about Indians being INCAPABLE of establishing a combined State of India prior to the British being there is ample proof of this. Even the History of slavery completely airbrushes the involvement of Black Tribes and Muslims both before the arrival of Europeans in the area but still existing TODAY. Without this involvement by Blacks and Muslims slavery would never have been on the scale it was if indeed it had occurred at all. The Muslims in particular had a history of HUNDREDS OF YEARS of practicing slavery in Africa before a single European set foot in Africa and they STILL do so today and Black on Black slavery was a common thing then as now except now they call it Tribalism and insane Political Correctness stops us pointing it out. In India its known as the CAST SYSTEM.
A large portion of the blame must also fall on the USA whose 'fence sitting' and selling to both sides during WW1 ( 1914 - 1918 but in the USA 1917-1918) and WW11 ( 1939- 1945 but in the USA 1941 -1945 and then ONLY because Japan attacked them and Germany declared war on THEM in support) ensured the huge transfer of wealth from London to Fort Knox thereby bankrupting the British Empire as it fought virtually alone at least from 1939 to 1941 to hold back the forces of Fascism both German, Italian and Japanese from the world. A fight in which I might add Indian Forces played a large and distinguished part in all theaters of War Burma, Italy, Africa and continental Europe. With the exception of course of those traitors who fought for the Japanese thinking foolishly that Japan would treat them better than the British. I think the Japanese occupation of China, Burma, Indonesia, Philippines , Malaysia and Korea etc shows how misguided that idea was.
Prior to WW1 the USA was a very minor power but with the natural resources and potential but with virtually no Army or Navy to talk about they even found it a stretch and difficult in confronting Pancho Villa in Mexico. However subsequent to WW11 a fully armed, enriched and avaricious USA was so intent on setting up ITS World Financial Empire and in doing so reducing the competition that at the War's end they did everything they could to try and stop the British, French and Dutch from re-establishing their Empires. The altruism expressed than as now was just a cover for their real motive USA dominance. Most notably when they FORCED the British and French to leave Egypt and the Suez Canal , which they built, to Nasser's kind hands ( as an analogy can you imagine the USA letting the Panama Canal be taken over by its ENEMIES) and look what has happened to the Middle East as a result of that extremely misguided decision by President Eisenhower. It is commonly accepted that the current VIOLENT Islamic resurgence has its roots in an Egypt buoyed up and encouraged by their USA engineered perceived victory over the British and the French. The undermining of the French Colonialists in Vietnam of course eventually resulted in the USA's shameful defeat there.
Completely absurd on many counts.

1. Positive spillover effects (especially after invasion has taken place) cannot be used to justify invasion of another country. In this scenario, my analogy of US invading Britain or Muslims taking over Britain is correct. On what basis can you object to a foreign regime taking over your country if you want to wait and see whether it had positive effects or not?

2. Positive effects DO NOT cancel out negative effects. That the British gave Railways or abolished Sati cannot take away their attrocities. This is not a "debit and credit" balance sheet.

3. It is not apparent that those positive effects would not have happened by today in India if the British did not invade. For example, the British was not invaded by a foreign power to put an end to witch burning. They did it themselves. Over time, ideas spread.

4. Whether India was or was not a unified country does not take away the attrocities of invasion. Go back to the beginning of colonialism, would the people want to be conquered if given the promise that 100s of years in the future they would have a much larger country? No. They were perfectly happy with the princely states. That India did exist before the British conquered (as I have said before) is actually irrelevant.

5. Imposing upon another people is evil.
As usual you have not addressed a single point I raised and just responded with a load of Third World knee jerk bluff bluster and inferiority complex.

This BTW is what is called irrelevant, OT, lame nonsense not what I wrote . Really your arguments don't get any better we are not hear to discuss LUDICROUS HYPOTHETICAL future events just the REAL historical past which you seem to be in denial of.
'Does Britain want to be conquered today if given the promise that 250 years from now the "New Britain" would consist of many other neighbouring countries? I don't think so. Just remember that many states in India are larger than Britain. These are not arguments to conquer.'
Pragmatist,

You need to realize something. We are discussing whether colonialism and invasion of another land is evil or good. In this discussion, we cannot look at what transpires ex-post. Almost anything that transpires ex-post can be used to justify the invasion that took place. This is not logical. If a Muslim claims that Muhammad's invasion of Mecca is "good" because of the "good things on offer in Saudi Arabia" today, he is not being logical.

Is invasion and colonialism a very common part of history? Yes. That is true. But can you justify one country invading another and subjugating people? No way. As long as we are discussing this, my analogy is correct. Look at invasion and colonialism for what it, not what it may or may not bring in the future.
Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: Comparing Pakistan with India

Post by Pragmatist »

Pragmatist wrote:
Akshay wrote:
Pragmatist wrote:This is a pointless argument Yohan no matter how many FACTS and how much TRUTH you give to people from the sub continent they still fall back on the old Chestnut Colonialism = Evil without applying their brains to analyse if it really was or not. Which of course is why Askhay runs from my questions about the Greek, Roman and Egyptian empires and instead wants to talk about an IMAGINARY FUTURE invasion by Muslims.
A large part of the blame for this falls on the post Colonial Nations who in completely illogical fashion instead of pointing out the huge benefits mankind in general got from colonialism instead apologised and are ridden with self guilt when the facts and History proves almost Universally exactly the opposite. Your excellent point about Indians being INCAPABLE of establishing a combined State of India prior to the British being there is ample proof of this. Even the History of slavery completely airbrushes the involvement of Black Tribes and Muslims both before the arrival of Europeans in the area but still existing TODAY. Without this involvement by Blacks and Muslims slavery would never have been on the scale it was if indeed it had occurred at all. The Muslims in particular had a history of HUNDREDS OF YEARS of practicing slavery in Africa before a single European set foot in Africa and they STILL do so today and Black on Black slavery was a common thing then as now except now they call it Tribalism and insane Political Correctness stops us pointing it out. In India its known as the CAST SYSTEM.
A large portion of the blame must also fall on the USA whose 'fence sitting' and selling to both sides during WW1 ( 1914 - 1918 but in the USA 1917-1918) and WW11 ( 1939- 1945 but in the USA 1941 -1945 and then ONLY because Japan attacked them and Germany declared war on THEM in support) ensured the huge transfer of wealth from London to Fort Knox thereby bankrupting the British Empire as it fought virtually alone at least from 1939 to 1941 to hold back the forces of Fascism both German, Italian and Japanese from the world. A fight in which I might add Indian Forces played a large and distinguished part in all theaters of War Burma, Italy, Africa and continental Europe. With the exception of course of those traitors who fought for the Japanese thinking foolishly that Japan would treat them better than the British. I think the Japanese occupation of China, Burma, Indonesia, Philippines , Malaysia and Korea etc shows how misguided that idea was.
Prior to WW1 the USA was a very minor power but with the natural resources and potential but with virtually no Army or Navy to talk about they even found it a stretch and difficult in confronting Pancho Villa in Mexico. However subsequent to WW11 a fully armed, enriched and avaricious USA was so intent on setting up ITS World Financial Empire and in doing so reducing the competition that at the War's end they did everything they could to try and stop the British, French and Dutch from re-establishing their Empires. The altruism expressed than as now was just a cover for their real motive USA dominance. Most notably when they FORCED the British and French to leave Egypt and the Suez Canal , which they built, to Nasser's kind hands ( as an analogy can you imagine the USA letting the Panama Canal be taken over by its ENEMIES) and look what has happened to the Middle East as a result of that extremely misguided decision by President Eisenhower. It is commonly accepted that the current VIOLENT Islamic resurgence has its roots in an Egypt buoyed up and encouraged by their USA engineered perceived victory over the British and the French. The undermining of the French Colonialists in Vietnam of course eventually resulted in the USA's shameful defeat there.
Completely absurd on many counts.

1. Positive spillover effects (especially after invasion has taken place) cannot be used to justify invasion of another country. In this scenario, my analogy of US invading Britain or Muslims taking over Britain is correct. On what basis can you object to a foreign regime taking over your country if you want to wait and see whether it had positive effects or not?

2. Positive effects DO NOT cancel out negative effects. That the British gave Railways or abolished Sati cannot take away their attrocities. This is not a "debit and credit" balance sheet.

3. It is not apparent that those positive effects would not have happened by today in India if the British did not invade. For example, the British was not invaded by a foreign power to put an end to witch burning. They did it themselves. Over time, ideas spread.

4. Whether India was or was not a unified country does not take away the attrocities of invasion. Go back to the beginning of colonialism, would the people want to be conquered if given the promise that 100s of years in the future they would have a much larger country? No. They were perfectly happy with the princely states. That India did exist before the British conquered (as I have said before) is actually irrelevant.

5. Imposing upon another people is evil.
As usual you have not addressed a single point I raised and just responded with a load of Third World knee jerk bluff bluster and inferiority complex.

This BTW is what is called irrelevant, OT, lame nonsense not what I wrote . Really your arguments don't get any better we are not hear to discuss LUDICROUS HYPOTHETICAL future events just the REAL historical past which you seem to be in denial of.
'Does Britain want to be conquered today if given the promise that 250 years from now the "New Britain" would consist of many other neighbouring countries? I don't think so. Just remember that many states in India are larger than Britain. These are not arguments to conquer.'
Pragmatist,

You need to realize something. We are discussing whether colonialism and invasion of another land is evil or good. In this discussion, we cannot look at what transpires ex-post. Almost anything that transpires ex-post can be used to justify the invasion that took place. This is not logical. If a Muslim claims that Muhammad's invasion of Mecca is "good" because of the "good things on offer in Saudi Arabia" today, he is not being logical.

Is invasion and colonialism a very common part of history? Yes. That is true. But can you justify one country invading another and subjugating people? No way. As long as we are discussing this, my analogy is correct. Look at invasion and colonialism for what it, not what it may or may not bring in the future.[/quote]

Ashkay you too need to realise something Colonialism can ONLY be discussed ex-post as you call it. Because that is the ONLY place Colonialism exists. To try to discuss HYPOTHETICAL EXTREMELY UNLIKELY future Colonialism merely leaves the poster open to express HIS prejudices and inferiority complexes which you have in spades. It is also a completely useless excercise and just a platform for you to continue to whine and moan about a HYPOTHETICAL future as a way of expiating your self imposed guilt and inferiority feelings over the total inept abilities and inadequacies of pre Colonial Indians.
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.
Nosuperstition
Posts: 3815
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Is colonialism evil or good?

Post by Nosuperstition »

Yohan wrote:The only real abuses which were going on in the subcontinent were between the Indians. Muslims demolishing Hindus temples, and Hindus demolishing Muslim ones in revenge. Then the endless religious riots. And of course everyone abusing each other based upon ones caste (an eternal gift from Hinduism to anyone of Hindu heritage) regardless of religion!

These subcontinentals have no shame in accusing others for their own problems.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1314&start=180

Cmon watch the film 'Gangs of New York'.Even an impoverished old female immigrant in rags is not exempted from stone pelting and rioting in New York as she is not a 'native'.
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.
User avatar
Akshay
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 1:02 am

Re: Comparing Pakistan with India

Post by Akshay »

Ashkay you too need to realise something Colonialism can ONLY be discussed ex-post as you call it. Because that is the ONLY place Colonialism exists.
Invasion and colonialism are continuos concepts that can occur even today. If that is the stance you are taking, you cannot oppose any country invading another country. If Saudi Arabia decides to invade Britain tomorrow, then on what basis would you oppose it as a Briton? Yes, it may be an unlikely situation but it drives home the point.
To try to discuss HYPOTHETICAL EXTREMELY UNLIKELY future Colonialism merely leaves the poster open to express HIS prejudices and inferiority complexes which you have in spades.
If we are to discuss "invasion and colonialism" only ex-post, we have no moral grounds to oppose it at all. And even if we do discuss it ex-post, you do not demonstrate consistency. Do you agree with Muhammad's invasion of Arabia just because of the *good* on offer today?
It is also a completely useless excercise and just a platform for you to continue to whine and moan about a HYPOTHETICAL future as a way of expiating your self imposed guilt and inferiority feelings over the total inept abilities and inadequacies of pre Colonial Indians.
It is not the Indians who need to feel guily about being colonized. It is the British who need to feel like that. Most of the British people do feel guilty about about their previous inadequacies (just so you know, your ability to invade others does not show your adequacies). That you have different view shows a lot about you. You are trying to justify all the atrocities committed by the British as if *perceived good* years from the fact takes away the the evil act of invasion and the numerous atrocities that came with the *good*.
Yohan
Posts: 2272
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:27 pm

Re: Comparing Pakistan with India

Post by Yohan »

Akshay wrote:It is not the Indians who need to feel guily about being colonized. It is the British who need to feel like that.
Nonsense! It is the Indians who need to feel guilty. It is they who are colonizing Andaman islands, and destroying its native population.

FYI, British did not colonize Indian subcontinent since they didn't settle down there. It was the Aryans and Muslims who colonized it. British conquered the subcontinent for the good of its own inhabitants, made it a modern civilized place, and gave it back a million times better. These subcontinentals never get it!
Nosuperstition
Posts: 3815
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Comparing Pakistan with India

Post by Nosuperstition »

Yohan wrote:
Nosuperstition wrote:Google East India Company and corruption.Native rulers who were quite tough with grain dealers who create artificial scarcity in times of famine by hacking of the limbs were called barbaric by the Company(as they also were grain hoarders).Yohan justified it in the guise that the company had a dearth of workers, so it permitted those left the home comfort and who risked their life to make that extra buck.In the film 'Far and Away' starring Tom Cruise when the silver tea spoons brought by the heroine fall in the railway station,there is a commotion and everyone appropriates on whatever spoon he can lay his hand.It takes time to place proper checks and balances so that corruption is averted.
Those who are brought up in a world of corruption see corruption everywhere and by everyone. That is what subcontinentals suffer from. They see corruption all over the world and believe their corruption is no different. Such mentality shows how deep corruption is rooted in the subcontinental culture. As I have said numerous times, corruption in the subcontinent is second only to Africa. That is the major reason why the area remains so poor.
Sati claimed a few hundred lives every year,but famines killed many more.East India Company surpassed everyone else in corruption.Thugges could be suppressed as many native Indian soldiers serving in the Company actively participated in the military operations.
Sati had been a part of the Hindus culture for thousands of years. It was never put to an end by Hindu rulers. It had to wait until the British rule.

It doesn't matter whether just one woman was religiously murdered by Sati or a million, but the very practice is evil.
That thought never ever dawned on Hindus until a few Hindus who were enlightened by the British wanted sati abolished and a few more supported their wishes, but the majority of Hindus objected the abolition of Sati when it was done away with.

I know you have a defect of seeing only the trees and never the forest, in your posts. Your input on corruption and Sati are another example of it.
I agree that it is evil though a lesser one.Well ,Jerry Blank said that Abrahamic religions preach absolute morality and Eastern faiths preach only relative morality.Even with such a morality in existance pilgrim quoted George Bernard Shaw saying that more people were tortured in his times in the Star Chambers in Britain than in what could have happened in the Inquisitions that targeted medicine/low class/witch women/mentally sick women who danced with the devil and heretics.So is he not preaching a relative truth or trying to trivialise evil?
Last edited by Nosuperstition on Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.
Nosuperstition
Posts: 3815
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Is colonialism evil or good?

Post by Nosuperstition »

The Pragmatist wrote: 5) They(British) got rid of your EVIL Mohammedan MASTERS
The only reason that India has so many Muslims is because Hindus did not massacre Muslim civilians or forcibly convert them like Spain did,
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... ht=#616656" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.
Nosuperstition
Posts: 3815
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Is colonialism evil or good?

Post by Nosuperstition »

doubtless wrote:Given human nature, it is very likely that many hindu widows were probably thrown into the fire because the living gained some advantage from the death of the widow. Covering crimes in the garb of religion is something that the guardians of religions do very will across all religions. Hinduism could not have been any different.
Bottom line:The numbers are more than a handful. I doubt they reach the millions, but they are certainly more than the thousands. But if further research indicates that it was in the millions, I will not be too surprised. Hopefully, some Indian should research that and try to get at a more realistic number. Hindus should try to reconstruct that part of their history as well. If the number does reach millions then it is one of the more horrific crimes against humanity done in the name of religion.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... &start=300" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 9:04 pm
[There are no reliable figures for the numbers who died by sati across the country. A local indication of the numbers is given in the records kept by the Bengal Presidency of the British East India Company. The total figure of known occurrences for the period 1813 to 1828 is 8,135,[17]; another source gives a comparable number of 7,941 from 1815 to 1828[18], thus giving an average of about 507 to 567 documented incidents per year in that period. Raja Ram Mohan Roy estimated that there were ten times as many cases of Sati in Bengal compared to the rest of the country.[18][19] Bentinck, in his 1829 report, states that 420 occurrences took place in one (unspecified) year in the 'Lower Provinces' of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, and 44 in the 'Upper Provinces' (the upper Gangetic plain).[20]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice)#Numbers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(prac ... n_Hinduism

Also I have read Europeans recording that Sati instances were just around 40 per year in South India.Lower caste women were also allowed to remarry,a large number of Hindu women went as slaves to Middle Eastern markets instead of committing Jauhar.So my opinion is it would not have touched millions.We will only know the truth unhindered by revisionism only if we reach God,if he is existant.

I do not want to suffer rebirths such as those of those who are burnt,so I give the above data.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... ht=#496951" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The above link shows that even doubtless is not above revisionism.Another important accusation that Yohan hurled against subcontinenetals is that they still have feudal mindset.According to doubtless in the above thread or elsewhere,India under Nehru implemented land-reforms while Pakistan remained feudal in its land definition.
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.
Nosuperstition
Posts: 3815
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Is colonialism evil or good?

Post by Nosuperstition »

Yohan wrote:But the majority of low caste Hindus did not change religion. There are multiple reasons for that and here are a couple:
1. As I noted they have seen the light at the end of the tunnel and willing to wait it out. Hindus are a patient people.

2.Hindus are also generally a passive people less inclined to stressful situations such as religious conversions no matter how bad one is treated.(American black slaves stayed loyal to the Christian religion of their masters throughout the age of descrimination.)

In summary, if caste Hindus had not changed the religious rules and laws in modern India there would hardly be a Hindu low caste person left in that country today. Hinduism had two options, adapt or perish. Hindus chose to adapt.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... ght=#61845" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So it is highly unlikely that a vast majority of Hindu widows would have committed Sati as that is a much more stressful.Careperson also said that harm caused by Hinduism is nothing when compared with Christianity.
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.
Nosuperstition
Posts: 3815
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Is colonialism evil or good?

Post by Nosuperstition »

Yohan asked Hindus to express gratitude for Christians for putting an end to Sati.Elsewhere he also said that present day Hindus are only namesake Hindus/Christianised Hindus as they do not follow all that is in their texts such as the Sati to the letter.Well someone then retorted that present day Christians are only namesake Christians/Hinduised Christians as they bath regularly(in the middle ages they bathed not many times as that involves having a look at your naked body with lust which is a sin)This comes directly from the Bible which says that it is better to be blind rather than look with lust as that might land you in everlasting hell,(B.T.W that could also be the reason why Byzantine women covered up completely).And keeping your body squeaky clean from 7 or so impurities of the body comes from the manusmriti.Easterners also administered vaccines long before Europeans put in their best efforts.I read of a story of a muslim sultan in India who poisoned himself in little doses so that he becomes immune to any palace intrigue poisoning.He had to kill himself with a sword when poison was of no use as his enemies gained victory.(suicide in Islam comes under shrik or minor offence)According to what I read at atributetohinduism,even Europeans were fascinated at how vaccines were administered by Brahmins in Bengal.Also they are said to have recorded that Hindus use soap and they took it back home.

So can I ask Christians to be grateful to Hindus for their contributions?
Last edited by Nosuperstition on Sun Jun 28, 2009 5:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.
Nosuperstition
Posts: 3815
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

nit picker's tu quoque/personal abuse

Post by Nosuperstition »

Yohan wrote:Kashmir
Righteous wrote:You know... when two kids have a spat about something, it is often the best policy to deprive both of them of that object.

Kashmir should be given to me....
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... ht=#498638" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Righteous/Radagast/Brain wrote:Furthermore, I find it very hard to conceive of them legitimately claiming "Indigenous" status, although I am happy to be corrected here.

I have come to the conclusion that just because there is a distinct group, even though in majority, that does not make it right to call for RoSD.

I can see the south of America one day being more Hispanic than European in ancestry - but would hope that nobody would call from secession from the U.S. because of that.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... c&start=30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Alas ! Radagast is also a kid. :cry:
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.
Nosuperstition
Posts: 3815
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Is colonialism evil or good?

Post by Nosuperstition »

Yohan wrote:"What one wears outside is a reflection of what one wears inside. It is a projection of how one thinks. If subcontinentals wear medieval dress they also have a medieval mindset."
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1314&start=140" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Yohan wrote:That is too naiive of a statement. In democracies people always vote for their pocket book. That's what happened here. People in India want prosperity for all and not just limited to the computer literate. It just so happened that an Italian Christian was the leader of the Congress party. For that one has to blame the party. I don't think Indians cared whether Sonia has white skin or not. (But people like me will use this as a weapon to hit over the heads of the Hindu fanatics in this forum to keep them in place.)
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... c&start=15" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Eopethicus wrote:The problem with Muslims is the extreme wealth and their increasing literacy. Messages of hate can be broadcast and understood in all kinds of differnt media and with the excess money flaoting on a sea of black Gold they can afford to spread the hate quite thick and often. Once the wealth dries up the Muslims will be back tending to their desert flocks peacefully.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28136" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Texican also agreed with me when I said that Israel was created by the West to keep the Arabs in their place and for that reason Arabs experience utter humiliation.He said that it works.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... ht=#760855" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Perhaps, old habits are hard to get rid off.
Last edited by Nosuperstition on Sun Jul 19, 2009 6:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.
Nosuperstition
Posts: 3815
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Is colonialism evil or good?

Post by Nosuperstition »

Jerry said that Hell exists in the Bible only in Revelations.But this is not from the revelations.
Matthew 5:29-30 (NKJV) "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30 "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell."
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1314&p=42842#p42842" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So does God want Antassuddhi(the inner cleanliness),Bahya suddhi(outer cleanliness) or both (cleanliness is only next to Godliness) with prioritising one over the other or trikarana suddhi or cleanliness of the three senses of heart,word and deeds? He alone knows.
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.
Nosuperstition
Posts: 3815
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Is colonialism evil or good?

Post by Nosuperstition »

Yohan wrote:I have explained what is colonization - a foreign people coming in to settle over a land owned by natives, without their permission, usually by invasions.

In the subcontinent's history this kind of colonization has happened a few times, but the most notable and the most destructive were the Aryan and Muslim invasions and colonizations. Aryans invaded and colonized the subcontinent and propagated their religions and language. These Aryans came looking for lands to settle and wealth to loot from the Indian natives. Once they accomplished that after defeating the Indians, they settled down as rulers of the subcontinent. Much of the Hindu heritage comes from this colonization. The same process is repeated with the invasions of Muslims. Much of the Muslim heritage in the subcontinent comes from this. (The brutal ongoing Indian colonization of Andaman Islands is very similar to this.)

Today many Indians claim that once these foreign people settled down in the subcontinent they became its protectors. That was never the case. In all cases these colonizers acted only to protect their loot of lands and other plunder, but always on the back of the Indian natives. There is no evidence that Indians invited in these Aryan and Muslim colonizers. They were destructive by every measure and much of the present problems of the people of the subcontinent could be traced to these Aryan and Muslim colonizers.

The history of British in India is totally different. As I have said, British came as traders. With time the whole subcontinent became totally lawless plagued by internecine warfare. Many Indian kings sought British help in their wars, which they gave. With the continuance of such help, one thing led to another, and the British ended up conquering the whole subcontinent, creating a modern unified nation in the end. Then one day they packed up and left, handing over all their accomplishments back to Indians on a silver platter. British rule was the most benevolent and the most creative ever by a foreign people who have ruled the subcontinent. Much of the prosperity of the people of the subcontinent today could be traced to the enlightened governace and institutions British had set up in India. Such a story is not of colonization.

But the people of the subcontinent is still far from having civil manners, as they do not express gratitude to the British who gave so much.
Actually the British did try to colonise parts of land tracts containing Indigo plantations that produced good deal of income.They then left them.Why we do not know.Might be because they had a conscience.
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.
Nosuperstition
Posts: 3815
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Is colonialism evil or good?

Post by Nosuperstition »

Yohan wrote:Kohinoor diamond, Peacock throne Persia Nadir Shah,Hindus ask for return of kohinoor diamond from British but have not guts to ask the Iranians to return parts of Peacock throne.
Long long back,I have read about how the French asked for the return of valuable artefacts from the British Queen to which she said no.The Greeks have also asked for the return of valuable statues of the Panthenon as a Britisn diplomat took them away to Britain.So the urge to get back stolen heritage things is not uniquely Indian or sub-continental.
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.
Nosuperstition
Posts: 3815
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Is colonialism evil or good?

Post by Nosuperstition »

patriot who is currently banned, said that he would love to see the thumbs of Britishers cut and thus deprived of their livelihood in a fashion similiar to what happened to Indian weavers under East India Company.Jerry Blank said that for all the evil that happened to Indians,they still must not wish ill towards the British.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... ht=#652636" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is a saying in Telugu 'ee baadha paga vaadiki kooda vaddura devuda' meaning ' my God, even my enemies should not experience this pain'.This is uttered when people are in a state of extreme distress.

So people must forget/forgive others.Germany and/or Baltic republics also asked for the return of valuable articles of historical importance from Russia.The Nazi Germans thought of the Russians and Slavs to be much inferior to Germanics.So they raped Russian women.The Russians paid back in the same coin when they overran the then East Germany.A woman who got raped was asked by the BBC how she felt when Germany was liberated from the Nazis.The answer was it might have been a good experience in areas conquered by the West,but in the East where she lived,she simply cannot say that it is good.
Last edited by Nosuperstition on Mon Jul 20, 2009 1:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.
Nosuperstition
Posts: 3815
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Is colonialism evil or good?

Post by Nosuperstition »

STEAM wrote:I do not care about apologies and such assorted nonsense - one must move on.

But LIES should not go unanaswered, especially arrogant ones.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... c&start=15" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.
Post Reply