**************************************** For more information/links, see http://goanet.netfirms.com ****************************************
In a message dated 03/05/2003 2:46:59 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << >It is an unmitigated fact that the State of Goa is presently an >integral part of Republic of India. The subcontinent of India, also >includes Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Pakistan and Bangladesh. > But from the above perspective, which I think is eminently sound, everybody from the Indian subcontinent can be regarded as an Indian, in the same sense that anybody who has any link with Goa can be regarded as a Goan. So, Paddy, even though I meant it differently, the assertion that all Goans are Indians actually reflects a very enlightened view. No tunnel vision here. >> And, for good measure, would we also not want to include native American Indians? I'm truly fascinated by your sound logical deduction! IMHO, 'Indian' is a colo(u)r word, with different meanings, and hence should be avoided in generalizations. It would immensely help if the proper context is specified in order to preclude the least semblance of tunnel vision. We all seem to see the world from our own perspective of where the tunnel ends. Of course, I am well aware of your broad cosmpolitan outlook, Chimbelcho :-) Thanks for your kind responses. Cheerio: Pat PS: If only meanings could be effectively deduced from words, this world would be far better off without all those legal wranglings and political bickering. Hence the call for "One World Order;" though "One India" seems more plausible and worthy of debate. _______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.goanet.org/mailman/listinfo/goanet
