# If Goanet stops reaching you, contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # Want to check the archives? http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others #
##########################################################################
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Cecil Pinto wrote:
2) This is GoaNet so naturally being Goan is in one's favour. It does not automatically assume that we have to be rude to Somalians, Afghans, Sudanese, Americans, British or French. But this is not World Net or IndiaNet. This is GoaNet!!! So naturally being a Goan is in one's favour. Or isn't it?
Just for the sake of debate...
* Is this GoaNET or GoanET? I think Herman has done away with all possible confusion over this by simply calling it Goanet, which we know is his preferred spelling for the mailing list. (In reality, though, earlier, I often misspelt it very often as GoaNet in my writing; many seem to have picked up and retained this misspelling. I have recanted and made suitable changes for the past two years or so.)
* My ethnicity is as irrelevant to the debate as -- to cite a recent argument put forth in another context -- my blood-group, the colour of my underwear, or my caste background. You should be judging me on the basis of what I say, not on the basis of such considerations.
* If not, please tell me why. Is there some special concession on the basis of ethnicity that allows me to get away talking 20% nonsense just because I claim to be a "Goan".
* Are we presuming that someone who is or calls himself a "Goan" is always right, or his/her actions are always beneficial to Goa and her people, while those who might have migrated into Goa more recently are to be viewed with suspicion?
* The concept of being "Goan" is quite problematic, considering that what is "Goan" is defined by (accident of) Portuguese conquest. Alito Siqueira has alluded to this issue in his essay on caste. Till the mid-sixteenth century, Bardezkars, Sashtikars (and those in today's Mormugao taluka) weren't "Goans". Obviously there couldn't have been "Goans" before this place got called "Goa" -- since when? Till a little over two and half centuries ago, most of the so-called New Conquests people weren't simply "Goans". If the Portuguese had come a bit earlier, gone a bit later, mixed more closely with the locals, or forgotten their home back in Europe, couldn't they too have become "Goans". If the idea of a Vishal Gomantak had succeeded, we probably would have had many more people calling themselves "Goans". Or maybe none, if the name was changed.
In Goa, we don't accept the poor migrant, but a Pratapsing Rane whose family migrated from Rajputana land after the Portuguese, or a little earlier, gets prompt acceptance as one of Goa's longest serving CMs.
Help me someone... this is an exercise in drawing boundary lines which obviously doesn't have any logic to it.
Additionally, we have this severe problem of different segments of the population not quite accepting each other as human, let alone as fully Goan! If you think I'm exaggerating, look what often happens at the time of marriages.
* Since we all do not believe that man originated in Goa, it is obvious that all of us migrated *into* Goa at some point of time. Do we accept as fair a system that allows discrimination by the earlier migrants against the latter migrants? (And no, I don't subscribe to the view that those controlling the comunidades in Goa were necessarily the *earliest settlers* of these respective areas. The most dominant at one point of time? Probably.)
These comments reflect my personal biases, and are not intended to pretend to be the opinions of the Goanet Admin Team.
I quite respect Helga and her forward-looking point of view, and she has questioned Gadgil's interpretation of her comments. But in this case, I must concede that my gut-level response was closer to Gadgil's -- Tariq has a right not to be insulted on grounds of religion or ethnicity, regardless of whether he is from Miramar or Mars.
More so, when the debate was about the US Presidential elections. (Even if the debate was about Goa, the test would be who is more logical, and not the background of the discussant. For example, a Philip Thomas can and is adding a lot of value to our debates, while a number of us so-called blue blooded sons of the red soil of Goa continue to talk crap.)
Over to you guys...
FN
