| My original point is still the same. If the Dharmashastras permitted sale of oneself or one’s dependents, especially in time of famine; if the Goans (Christians and Hindus) had slaves; and if all religious orders in Goa had slaves until 1569, we should not be surprised at the Portuguese (Europeans) and their descendants having slaves. They followed the custom of the land. “Why did the Portuguese viewed the Goans as savages?” It is the other way around. It is precisely because they did not view the Goans as savages that they: * Praised the magnificence of the Goan culture, and, in general, of the Indian culture, from day one * Settled down in Goa, married Goans, and had children from them * Awarded titles of nobility and other honors and scholarships to Goan Hindus and Christians * Recognized and condemned their previous errors, such as the Inquisition and the laws against the native languages * Appealed to the Goans to study their language (Konkani) and promoted the learning of Konkani and Marathi * Respected the system of village communities * Built statues in Goa to Goan Christians and Hindus and named streets after them in Goa and in Portugal * Introduced the first printing press in India and the first Public Library * Appointed a Goan for Governor of Goa and many of them embraced his cause and died for him * Established the oldest school of Allopathic Medicine in India * Established an Institute for the advancement of the Indo-Portuguese culture of Goa * Named two of their medical institutes in Portugal after Goans * Recognized a Goan as being the founder of the science of Tropical Medicine in Portugal * Appointed Goans to Professors at the medical school they established in Goa from day one and at universities in Portugal. etc. etc. Here is an example of a biased appraisal. Dr. Panduronga Pissurlencar. An eminent Goan historian, established beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Portuguese Empire would not have survived without the active, willing, and loyal collaboration of Goan Hindus. This did not fall well with one of his readers. So what did he do? He accused Dr. Pissurlencar of serving “his Portuguese masters”, thus implying that Dr. Pissurlencar was a slave of the Portuguese which he most definitely was not. That reader was Dr. Teotônio de Souza (“Goa to Me” p. 71). Were there mistakes made along the line? Sure. Should they have done more? Yes. But there was also recognition of the mistakes made, and in many cases, the victimization of the Goans was not any different than it was of their own. With this I will close my case for a fairer appraisal and a history unbiased by ideology. JM de Figueiredo Sent from my iPhone On Oct 14, 2024, at 10:57 AM, [email protected] wrote:
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Goa-Research-Net" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-research-net/D98F2D5C-31CB-43E5-8AF3-F6DA61BE64FF%40sbcglobal.net. |
- Re:... albert . ro
- Re:... Sonia Gomes
- Re:... John de Figueiredo
- Re:... Sonia Gomes
- Re:... William Robert Da Silva
- Re:... Joana Filipa Passos
- Re:... fredericknoronha
- Re:... John de Figueiredo
- Re:... John de Figueiredo
- Re:... 'Nuno Cardoso da Silva' via Goa-Research-Net
- Re:... John de Figueiredo
- Re:... John de Figueiredo
- Re:... Peter de Souza
- Re:... John de Figueiredo
- Re:... Joao Paulo Cota
- Re: [GRN] Re: Dutch ... John de Figueiredo
- Re: [GRN] Re: Dutch map ‘stol... John de Figueiredo
- Re: [GRN] Re: Dutch map ... albert . ro
- Re: [GRN] Re: Dutch map ... Andrew Pereira
