Frederick [FN] Noronha wrote: The issue is not about it being derogatory, but more a question of definition and exclusion. Why is a Gaudi just described as a Gaudi, and a Bamon or Chardo usually portrayed as a "Goan"? Isn't this patronising?
Wonder if it would be acceptable to describe someone as a "White Australian" ... try it and tell me. == jc's response 1: Grateful if FN would please direct me to a photograph/painting (by Rajan Parrikar or any other photo-take-outer/painter) which portrays a "Bamon or a Chardo". 2: I submit that ALL those who are not Kunbi/Gavdi are just Mix-up. The Kunbi/Gavdi indigenous peoples of the subcontinent (as also the Nagas and the Adivasis) have distinct features. is FN suggesting that those who call themselves "bamons' or 'chardos' have features which can be identified on a photograph? 3: Do not understand the relevance to this discussion.... of the term "White Australian" - if indeed there is such a word used (publicly) in Australia 2007 4: The Gavdis/Kunbis/Adivasis of the subcontinent and the Aboriginees of Australia are the same subset of people .....and have very distinctive facial features jc
