Hi Gilbert, Since you invite counterpoints, let me respond without allowing myself to go off-track. My goal is to focus on inconsistencies or factual inaccuracies.
Below are some core issues. *1. Narrowing and widening the topic inconsistently* You emphasise that we stick to the question *“Why did Western Europe colonize the world?”* But many long sections of your own argument also shift to: - Bardez conversions - Demographic speculations - Camões’ exile - Learning Konkani - The arrival of the Roman script - Missionary training - Stephens' (not Stephen's) grammar and catechisms These are interesting topics in themselves, but they are not *causally *connected to Europe’s initial decision to colonise the world. A *causal* connection is when one event directly produces or influences the outcome of another. When you introduce these themes but later dismiss responses to them as “catching the bull by the tail”, it amounts to shifting goalposts. *2. Selective standards of evidence* Several of your key claims are presented without data: - That Europeans or mestiços formed a large portion of early Goan society, - That priests “must have used sign language,” - That conversions were impossible before Romi Konkani existed, - That fresh arrivals had “no multilingual teachers,” - Or that pre-Stephensian Roman-script Konkani works could not have existed simply because we lack surviving copies, or because these did not go into print. At the same time, you seek strict demographic or linguistic data from sources that you disagree with, even when these sources are widely accepted ones (such as Disney, Boxer, TRdeS). This amounts to using different standards of evidence for different claims. *3. Factual inaccuracies that undermine key premises* Some core statements that you present do not hold up historically: - The recurrence of plague in Europe into the 18th century does not mean the “Dark Ages” continued into that era. - Manueline culture did not arise after colonial wealth; it thrived precisely during early Portuguese expansion (Manuel I: 1495–1521). - Luís de Camões was not an example of Portugal “sending the unwanted” to colonies as the degredado was. Camões was not a “poster child for sending the unwanted”; he was exiled due to a court altercation, not penal deportation like degredados. - Iberian maritime expansion began well before the end of the Reconquista (see, for instance, Ceuta: 1415; Madeira: 1420s; and the Guinea coast: 1440s). On these issues, factually inaccurate claims are being used to justify causal arguments. It only weakens the argument. *4. Causal oversimplification* The links you identify (Crusaders returning home, the end of the Reconquista, unrest among the knights, or the Ottoman advance) are an important part of history. But, in themselves, these do not form a sufficient explanation for global colonial expansion. Economic incentives, maritime innovations, centralised State-building, competition among European monarchies, the bullion crisis (c. 1370–1450, when Europe faced a severe shortage of silver and gold that disrupted trade and monetary stability) and attempts to capital accumulation all predate or exceed the factors you emphasise. This creates an impression of *post hoc* reasoning (assuming that because event B happened after event A, event A must have caused event B) rather than a well-supported causal model. *5. Mischaracterization of my arguments* Some rebuttals respond to points that were not actually made by me—for example, implying that the Padroado Real was presented as a “reason for colonization,” or that we are agreeing on points 4 and 5. In these two points, my argument is based on the long Atlantic coastline, Portugal's early mastery of navigation and the need to break Muslim-controlled trade routes firstly.... which don't feature in any of your arguments. Secondly is my attempt to focus on the fact that a number of important and strategic posts were taken well after 1515---Diu (1535/1546), Bassein (1534), Ceylon (mid-16th c.), Mombasa (1593) This introduces strawmen that distract from your core thesis or the arguments being used to shore them up. *6. Treating speculation as certainty* Statements such as “there must have been sign language,” or “conversions must have been difficult without grammar,” or “Europeans likely faced great barriers” are plausible but remain speculative. This isn't evidence to support your wider argument. Treating speculation as fact leads to weak inferences and will invite legitimate critique. *7. Internal contradiction regarding language* On the one hand, you argue that language barriers can somehow explain conversion, colonisation and missionary action. But, on the other hand, and at the same time, you treat any discussion of scripts, texts and Stephens' chronology as irrelevant to your thesis. If language is central to your argument, then the linguistic reality of those times cannot be simultaneously dismissed when it complicates your narrative.... or you get details incorrect (such as Stephens' *Kristapurana* being in the Nagari script). *8. Tone inconsistency* Although you repeatedly emphasise openness to dialogue, your allegations suggest that I have “hijacked” the discussion or that I misunderstood your writing. This rhetorical move redirects the debate from substance to personal positioning; it makes it harder for me to engage on the basis of facts. Your core question—why Western Europe expanded globally—is an important one and your enthusiasm for a broader dialogue is welcome. Strengthening your argument would possibly require: - Consistent standards of evidence, - Clear separation between background context and causal explanation, - Avoiding errors or oversights on basic facts, - More careful handling of historical chronology, - Avoidance of speculative claims framed as certainties, - Engagement with established scholarship even when it challenges your perspective. I hope this helps to refine the argument. As you say, dialogue sharpens thinking. FN _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ _/ Frederick Noronha फ्रेडरिक नोरोन्या * فريدريك نورونيا _/ AUDIO https://archive.org/details/@fredericknoronha _/ http://goa1556.in +91-9822122436 784 Saligao Goa _/ Goanet :: 30 years of discussions. [email protected] _/ http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 at 10:53, 'Gilbert Lawrence' via The Goa Book Club < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Frederico, > > Thank you for your detailed response, which I am sure took much thought > and patience. I welcome dialogue and find it refreshing to encounter a > contrarian point of view. None of us has the final word on the subject we > write about. I really like the specific, pointed rebuttals. The analysis > you provide is valuable. I hope you appreciate my counterpoints as > improving and sharpening your own perspective. In my response, I will > preserve the pattern you set. > > I do want to make sure our efforts do not make us lose sight of the topic > of dialogue, "Why did Western Europe colonize the World?" (in the 15th / > early 16th century), or else we will be catching the bull by its tail. In > rebutting my writing, your main thrust appears to be that the customary > Western Colonization was driven by the Search for Spices (wealth) and > Souls. The best way to answer this question is for Western historians to > describe this period in Western Europe, which Asian scholars may overlook > due to a lack of access to their history. > > Here are my responses: > > 1. As you surely know, the Dark Ages were the first half of the Middle > Ages. Yet these are not compartmentalized in real life and in all places. > The Black Plague, a hallmark of the Dark Ages, affected parts of Europe > till 1800. You are right, the Dark Ages devastated Europe's population, but > by the second half of the Middle Ages, that population had fully recovered > - long before the Age of Exploration, Discovery, and Expansion. > > Much of Portugal's Renaissance (Manueline Style) came after colonization, > and the spice wealth started flowing to Portugal in the mid-16th century, > not before colonization. > > 3. Most Western historians write about the concerns Europe's royalty had > about the returning knights from the Crusades, the Reconquista, causing > turmoil at home. Many attribute the reasons for Europe to continue its > internal wars to keep these knights occupied, instead of challenging the > Absolute Monarchs. While most of Europe disbanded its knights into civilian > organizations, Portugal and Spain preserved the knighthoods in their > countries. The Reconquista ended in 1492, the same year Columbus explored > America. > > The poster-child for Portugal sending its inmates and the unwanted to the > colonies was none other than Luís Camões, who in the 1550s was given the > choice of prison or Goa. > > 4. and 5. We are both saying the same thing! > > 6. I am talking about the Silk Road Trade before colonization (14th and > 15th centuries). You are referring to the post-colonial period (16th and > 17th centuries). The Ottoman Turks have been besieging what today is > Greece, the former Yugoslavia countries, Bulgaria, and Hungary since the > mid-14th century. They conquered Constantinople in 1453 (mid-15th > century) and were on the March to Vienna, which they first besieged in > 1529. I would strongly encourage the readers to see the map of Eastern > Europe and look at the distance between Turkey and Austria, and the many > countries lying in between them. > 7-8. Portuguese Empire Fait Accompli by 1515 - This issue has little to do > with the topic of presentation "Why did Western Europe colonize the > World?" Can you explain the details of Padroado Real in the early 1500s > and its *practical links* to Spices and Saving Souls in Goa? It is my > understanding that this was just an edict by the Pope on the distribution > between Spain and Portugal as they set out to colonize the world. It did > not do anything practical to acquire the land or to save souls. Is this > just another distraction from the topic of discussion? Or are you > suggesting the Padroado Real was a reason "Why Western Europe colonized the > World?" > > 9-12. Many of these points have little to do with the main topic of this > presentation. My article was not an essay on the Konknai language. So many > of your comments about the language are catching the bull by the tail. I > agree with you that Stephen wrote in the Roman script and not the > Devanagari script. Despite your claim, you cannot provide the names of any > books written in the Roman script before Stephen's arrival. Would it be too > much to also expect one to back up their rebuttals, and thereby really > educate the rest of us? Or do rebuttals get a free ride, with no references > to back them? > > My point about the native language and script was to highlight the > difficulties the fresh-off-the-boat European nuns and priests had to learn > a foreign language, written in a foreign script, with a different phonetics > and an accent, with no multilingual teacher. Stephen arrived in 1579. Till > he came and wrote the grammar and Romi script (which the Europeans could > follow), and translated the catechism and bible to Romi Konkani, the > European priests likely found it difficult to learn, translate, and > transmit their Latin religion in the native language. Learning a language > as an adult is a lot more difficult than learning as a child. Clearly, > there must have been a lot of sign language in use as both sides tried to > communicate with each other. > > 13-14. You criticize my "sweeping, unsubstantiated claim, that the > 'majority' of Goa’s early-colonial population consisted of Europeans or > *mestiços*." Yet you gladly accept and quote "Estimates place them at > only a few thousand individuals versus hundreds of thousands of the native > population. Disney, Boxer, Teotonio R de Souza." Why don't you demand > data from all these sources, too? Perhaps another article of ours will > analyze the likelihood of Goa's demographics in 1555. As far as the Bardez > conversions, you will need to read the writings of natives, which I quote > in my article -Fr. Cosme Jose Costa SFX (Society of Pilar), - Christianity > and Nationalism in Aldona, and Alphie Monteiro - The Bardeskars: The > Mystery of Migration. > > You claim “the bulk of conversions in Bardez took place between 1560-95." > (no data). Yet during this period, the European population was “only a few > thousand individuals,” and only a small fraction of them were priests. They > had major language and cultural barriers. I am not trying to play gotcha! > I am just trying to be real in facing the challenges they faced. It appears > that after some foot-dragging, the Viceroy (rather than the bishop) in 1555 > (20 years after the taluka acquisition) assigned the three talukas to the > different orders. So now, likely there were no excuses, and there was > assigned responsibility. At this point, there was also a diktat from > Lisbon that the Estado would establish schools (an attraction to keep the > Whites in Goa). Stephen's first book was titled *Krista Purana *(*Discurso > sobre a vinda de Jesus **Cristo* - Story of Christ, published in 1616) > about 17 years after the arrival of the linguist. The book, related to the > events in the life of Christ in the form of a poem, used a mix of Marathi & > Konkani vocabulary, printed in the Roman script. Stephen is also the author > of *Doutrina Christam em Lingoa Bramana Canarim* - a Christian catechism > book written in Konkani and printed at Rachol Seminary in 1622. So till > then, there was no structured published catechism book in Konkani. > > You and others seem to take each statement I write and analyze it in > isolation, rather than looking at a perspective as part of the narrative, > trying to make a point that I want to make. Result: Catch the bull by the > many tails! I am sure you understand that the readers need to try and > understand what the writer is sharing and have an open mind, rather than > inserting their own preconceived thoughts into the writing. The history of > Vietnam written in the 1980s is very different from the same event written > in 2000. That is how academia grows. Many of the “unaddressed issues” have > nothing to do with the topic of my presentation, which, as a reminder, is > “Why did Western Europe Colonize the World”. My article analyzes conversion > in Goa, as that is often claimed by historians as the high priority reason > for coming to India. Frankly, you just hijacked the topic of my > presentation to suit your own narratives. And that is your prerogative. I > will be happy to continue to discuss the issues if you define what the > issue is and the point you are trying to make. We have shared in the past > that a lot of claims made by historians about Goa, including about the > Inquisition, lack hard data. > I am sure you know that authors have the latitude to express their views > without the need for someone’s validation. That is the reason for writing, > rather than just repeating what others have written. If a reader does not > want to accept a different perspective, that is their choice to live with > their past understanding. As mentioned earlier, as a writer, I welcome a > contrarian view to expand the dialogue. It makes both sides smarter and > sharpens the focus on specific issues. May I suggest that you perhaps > should do your own writing on Goa, given your wide knowledge of facts and > your skills in writing? It will certainly be a better use of your time and > talents. I do not think you will need a publisher.:=)) > > Thanks for your feedback. > > Regards, GL > -- *** Please be polite and on-topic in your posts. *** --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Goa Book Club" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-book-club/CA%2Bmqab8y7ut6njPzJkJC2U78_j_uzCS0JTEWj5%3DYNqfd-YnyYA%40mail.gmail.com.
