From: Rajan Parrikar <[email protected]>[Goanet] Good Bamon and Bad Bamon The progressive Leftwing brigade never tires of telling us that Goa was betrayed by Timappa, the bamon. This serves 2 of their primary goals. One, absolve the Portuguese. Two, and this is central, use Timappa to crap on the bamons and Hindus of today. You see, in the progressive swamp, all the ills of Hindu society flow directly from the oppressive regime established by the bamons. Therefore, Timappa = Bad Bamon, very bad bamon. Note that during Timappa?s time there were bamons, there was varna & jati, but there was no 'caste', a perversion of the societal phenomenon the Portuguese didn't understand. Timappa is the stick the progressives try to hit current-day Goan Hindus - bamons especially - with. On the other hand, Damodar Mauzo has been crowned the Good Bamon. Why? Because he takes potshots at the same Hindus and Hindu practices the progressive gits have long despised.--------------
GL responds: The captions of this post grabbed my attention and I saw Malhotra's video. I tend to agree with his perspective as I am myself working on an article entitled "Is GEM culture the victim of Academic Baloney?" These academics are both Indian and foreign. Let's analyze the published material. British tourists on a few months visit to Goa in the colonial period are considered authorities on events in Goa. - Buchanan to Burton. these guys skill was more to write than to research the topic of their writings. PP Shirodkar and TB Cunha bitterly complained about loss of Goan culture due to "Colonization and Conversion." Yet this was all part of their agenda and struggle for the end of colonialism. Any unbiased observer will testify that Goans (Hindus and Catholics) in Goa and in the diasporas successfully preserved their culture (including joint-family system) till 1961; and post that period have markedly lost the regard for their heritage (without Colonization and Conversion). More Brahmins eat meat now (including hamburger) than during the colonial period, without any pressure of an Inquisition. It is accepted that facts speak for themselves. But it is the interpretation of the facts that reflect our biases and agenda. Malhotra has a point that foreigners have been adept to 'cause discord without leaving fingerprints' in foreign cultures. And we love to quote foreigners as sources of unbiased facts without critically analyzing their writings and rebuking them when needed. Yet to do so, we have to have an open mind to read their writings (as well as those of Indian authors) as well as question them. It is we who have to learn to separate Facts from Baloney! Regards, GL
