You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #113: they were just as racist, I think [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU
Aidoneus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-05-03 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #107
113. they were just as racist, I think
Edited on Sun Oct-05-03 01:06 PM by Aidoneus
The British felt they had the right to rule over the subcontinent & Burma because of the "moral superiority" of their race, that the Indians were backward savages who needed Christian salvation--usual bullshit, same reason they were messing around with the Arabs, Africans, and anyone else as well. They got taught their lesson when Indian resistance against their carefully built structure of empire was dismantled and were driven out after committing massacre after massacre, though failing to learn the basic fact that other people don't like some self-rightous assholes with guns and a flag bossing them around (hence their involvement in the re-colonizing of Iraq).

The insidious conspiracy of Pakistan is a footnote to this; during the periods of stuggle near the last century of the raj, the British created an organization of middle class Muslim lawyers and businessmen to help them maintain the empire, called the Muslim League. During the last European war/"WWII", the Congress Party and other organizations were in full revolt against the occupation, the Muslim League was to be rewarded with a state of their own after the war ended. Jinnah never thought there would be conflict, but the real stupidity of dividing states along ethnic/religious lines came right upfront with mankind's 2nd favourite pasttime, mutual slaughter for stupid reasons pushed on by opportunistic politicians and various other elite-class assholes (used to be the #1 favourite, now overtaken by soccer).

Kashmir was supposed to go to the new state--or if I was in charge of things, totally independent of the two under Sheikh Abdallah and not used as a battleground for 2 sets of opportunistic nationalists to vent their diversions on--, but through creative jerrymandering that would make the Texas Governor stand back in awe, the province went de facto to Indian possession before a vote to determine the status; 55yrs later, no vote, but plenty of war and a dandy police state. Personally, my opinion is that it should be independent on the caveat that Pakistan (and to a lesser extent China) also fuck off of it as well, though out of principle I don't think that should be imposed by any "Western"-backed pressure for that usually implies less worthwhile motives on the side (my insipid eurocentricism shines through again). :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC