On 8 July 2010 13:28, soter <[email protected]> wrote: > > comment: > This should have happened many many years ago. The faster Goa gets negative > publicity the better will it be for its survival. Negative publicity for Goa > could be taken as sustainable development. Goa has been exploited > sufficiently and outsiders know there is nothing left for them. They will > now move to virgin lands and have to give some excuse.
This is a strange argument -- let's spoil Goa's name so that the "bhailo" is not attracted to it. Let's quickly shed all our positive attributes so that others find us distasteful (and don't come to settle here). This, to me, would be cutting the nose to spite the face! > Locals are getting hostile, something natural. It is happening in Manipur, > Assam, Jharkhand and several other States. Thetre is a limit to hospitality, > it cannot be taken as a license to colonise. It has already started in > Australia. . Put it on arrogant goans. The 'bhailo' has always been spurned > off but several of them have in time gained acceptability and have > adjusted. Those who have tried to impose their views and culture continue to > get kicked. The same principle will be used, I hope, when it comes to Mumbai-for-Mumbaikars or pro-Africanisation arguments. It cannot be one standard for me, and another standard for someone else. FN
