--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- On Thu, 11/20/08, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > From: off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Off_World refers to African-Americans as "colored people" > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > Date: Thursday, November 20, 2008, 5:54 PM > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > The Gurkas of India are still to this> day Loyal fighters to the > > British because the British treated them> fairly. > > > > Which is why one unarmed man in a dhoti drove your asses out of their > > country, huh? It was a collective uprising of thanks and appreciation...>> > You are ignorant of history. You have been brain washed. According to scholars, British violence in India was minimal compared to what it has been portrayed as by your propoganda, and the reason Ghandi was able to get rid of the British was because the British would not crack down on any uprising, and when there were violent uprisongs they were reserved inn their use of force. Your understanding of the British in India is skewed. The British wanted the Indians to take their country forward. These are the historical facts, so stop bandying your erroneous high school history education around like it has any meaning. > The first steps were taken toward self-government in British India in the late 19th century with the appointment of Indian counsellors to advise the British viceroy and the establishment of provincial councils with Indian members; the British subsequently widened participation in legislative councils with the Indian Councils Act of 1892. Municipal Corporations and District Boards were created for local administration; they included elected Indian members. > OffWorld >
<<I have never heard such unmitigated bull crap regarding the British colonization of India and their attitude towards the native culture.>> That is because you have not studied it and you are brain-washed. The British set up democratic positions for Indians long before Ghandi, and Ghandi was just a last protest to the British who were already leaving. These are the historical facts. What you have is years of propoganda. So Peter ,what violence are you talking about? Most of the violence at the time was Hindu-Muslim riots aimed at each other. "Gandhi's idiosyncrasies and failings are also laid bare; so, too, is the myth that he single-handedly brought down the empire. Von Tunzelmann is adamant that the 'Quit India' movement inadvertently fomented violence. And crucially, she demonstrates how the Mahatma, along with Jinnah, introduced the toxic element of religion to nationalism. "The very fact that he [Gandhi] brought spiritual sensibilities to the centre of politics stirred up extreme and divisive passions," she writes." -- Sunday Times of India http://tinyurl.com/6ktpsv <http://tinyurl.com/6ktpsv> "The post-1945 India was in social turmoil..In the months leading up to independence, radicals of all persuasions sharpened their weapons and laid their genocidal plans...Both these books identify the British policy of divide and rule as the cause of the violence." (ie. not the perpetrators of the violence itself.) Its like saying America policy in the the Middle East is responsible far all the bloodshed in Palestine today. Yes, that is true on one level, but Americans are not the ones committing the violence there. It is the Israelis and Palestinians. You need to educate yourself out of your brainwashing Peter and Curt, etc. At the start of WWII "Gandhi was criticized at the time by some Indian Congress party members and other Indian political groups, both pro-British and anti-British. Some felt that opposing Britain in its life or death struggle in the emerging World War II was immoral, and others felt that Gandhi wasn't doing enough." "The Raj, they suggest, promoted division. There is undoubtedly much truth in this. But this does not account for the gratuitous nature of the bloodshed. Perhaps, as Khan suggests, that is because, ultimately, such barbarity is "unfathomable"." "Certainly, those who survived the calamity have never found it easy to discuss their ordeal. Even today in India and Pakistan, there is little introspection or sense of collective responsibility. The memory of 1947 continues to fuel distrust and hatred. This was a Muslim Vs Hindu conflict. Not a British Vs Hindu. OffWorld
