India and the Wars

Old Feb 17th 2019, 8:16 am
  #301  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,783
Bipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by morpeth
Bipat, no one said whether it was right or wrong, just the fact that India invaded however justified you think it was, and as usual India would not conduct a referendum on whether the people wanted it be part of India. These are just simple facts.
Morpeth the people were "part of India". A referendum was held---did you read the results.
Who 'rules' that State at the moment?
Who takes part in the Central Government?
If the 'rescue' was right/justified what is your problem?
Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 17th 2019, 8:19 am
  #302  
EMR
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
EMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by Bipat
EMR-----why can you not understand? Britain existed as Ancient' Britain
We are still 'British', this is British Expats Forum!!
Bharat/India existed for thousands if years, it is still Bharat/India!! The people always were and still are 'Indian'!
You are obsessed with India, learn at least some Hindi (if not Malayalam!!!)
I give up, it is pointless trying to have an adult fact based discussion with you..
EMR is offline  
Old Feb 17th 2019, 8:21 am
  #303  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,118
morpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by Bipat
Morpeth your post doesn't make sense!
What is your definition of "culture"------All British people are identical in "culture"?----all do the same things under the same circumstances----all eat the same food, enjoy the same entertainment, have the same 'lifestyles'?
"Indian by definition"----"doesn't apply when they live elsewhere"?? The UK is a 'territory inhabited by ethnic' Indians I don't think India is planning to 'Take it over'!!

From your previous posts I assume you are mixing up the situation of a foreign power ruling over a remote territory by force and the remote territory being returned to rule by its own people, example the Channel Islands .
Bipat let's stop being silly- as anyone who has traveled or read any history knows, there are different cultures which doesn't mean everyone in a particular culture thinks or acts the same or there are not particular sub cultures.No one in their right mind would say Colombian culture is the same as Swiss, or Japanese the same as West African, or a Saudi Arabian the same as someone from Sweden,Does an Indian who emigrates to America stop being Indian ?

What on earth does the distance have to do with anything ? Does that mean Australia has the right to invade New Zealand because (a) it is close (b) the people in New Zealand in decades or century past had the same overall culture and ethnic background ? The world would be in constant war by your justification of use of armed force in contravention of international law- at least Russia did seek out the vote of those in the Crimea. India seems to never conduct a referendum when it forcible takes over territory.If I am not mistaken Nehru several times in the early 1950's denied India would use force or that force was correct.

All over Europe there remain ethnic groups under the rule of other groups- by your definition European nations would be justified invading each other right left and center. The Channel Islands were part of the United Kingdom before the Germans came, Goa was never part of the Republic of India.That is one difference. But if the Germans had ruled the Channel Islands for four centuries, or in the case of Romania it has ruled the Hungarian minority for a shorter time period, should everyone now in the 21st century be going to war over such things ?
..
On many occasions in posts you have denied there is an Indian culture, yet stressed Goans are Indians because of their race and geographic location.Friends of mine form East Africa certainly considered themselves Indian even though they were not living there geographically.

Last edited by morpeth; Feb 17th 2019 at 8:28 am.
morpeth is offline  
Old Feb 17th 2019, 8:26 am
  #304  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,783
Bipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by scot47
India became a Republic in 1950.
Yes, an independent nation in 1947. Note you use the words "India became", so they were already 'India'!!
Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 17th 2019, 8:29 am
  #305  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,783
Bipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by EMR
I give up, it is pointless trying to have an adult fact based discussion with you..
Tell us EMR what in my post were not facts??

Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 17th 2019, 9:01 am
  #306  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,783
Bipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by morpeth
Bipat let's stop being silly- as anyone who has traveled or read any history knows, there are different cultures which doesn't mean everyone in a particular culture thinks or acts the same or there are not particular sub cultures.No one in their right mind would say Colombian culture is the same as Swiss, or Japanese the same as West African, or a Saudi Arabian the same as someone from Sweden,Does an Indian who emigrates to America stop being Indian ?

What on earth does the distance have to do with anything ? Does that mean Australia has the right to invade New Zealand because (a) it is close (b) the people in New Zealand in decades or century past had the same overall culture and ethnic background ? The world would be in constant war by your justification of use of armed force in contravention of international law- at least Russia did seek out the vote of those in the Crimea. India seems to never conduct a referendum when it forcible takes over territory.If I am not mistaken Nehru several times in the early 1950's denied India would use force or that force was correct.

All over Europe there remain ethnic groups under the rule of other groups- by your definition European nations would be justified invading each other right left and center. The Channel Islands were part of the United Kingdom before the Germans came, Goa was never part of the Republic of India.That is one difference. But if the Germans had ruled the Channel Islands for four centuries, or in the case of Romania it has ruled the Hungarian minority for a shorter time period, should everyone now in the 21st century be going to war over such things ?
..
On many occasions in posts you have denied there is an Indian culture, yet stressed Goans are Indians because of their race and geographic location.Friends of mine form East Africa certainly considered themselves Indian even though they were not living there geographically.


Goa was not "close to" India, it was 'part' of India! It was not part of or near to Portugal in any sense!
By your reasoning the Empire colonies should by rights still be ruled by Europe!!!!!
(Nehru tried negotiation, Salazar refused.)

The republic of India is a political 'description'. Are you agreeing with EMR that Bharat was created by the British!

Morpeth you make statements but never answer questions!
Did you read the result of the referendum? Who is 'ruling' Goa now?

I seem to be discussing the same points with your twin poster but different answers----Your East African friends are "Indian" but apparently those in the UK are not!!!!

(Just for interest in what way is an Indian of the same economic level/ the same job/ same family status----different in "culture" from a British person? (Apart from food preferences!!!)


Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 17th 2019, 10:10 am
  #307  
EMR
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
EMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by Bipat
Goa was not "close to" India, it was 'part' of India! It was not part of or near to Portugal in any sense!
By your reasoning the Empire colonies should by rights still be ruled by Europe!!!!!
(Nehru tried negotiation, Salazar refused.)

The republic of India is a political 'description'. Are you agreeing with EMR that Bharat was created by the British!

Morpeth you make statements but never answer questions!
Did you read the result of the referendum? Who is 'ruling' Goa now?

I seem to be discussing the same points with your twin poster but different answers----Your East African friends are "Indian" but apparently those in the UK are not!!!!

(Just for interest in what way is an Indian of the same economic level/ the same job/ same family status----different in "culture" from a British person? (Apart from food preferences!!!)
liarvliar your pants are on fire.
You really do not want to be taken seriously do you..
EMR is offline  
Old Feb 17th 2019, 10:23 am
  #308  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,783
Bipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by EMR
liarvliar your pants are on fire.
You really do not want to be taken seriously do you..
EMR ----If you accuse someone of lying the least you can do is to say what you think was a 'lie and give evidence that it was!!
Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 17th 2019, 11:05 am
  #309  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,118
morpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by Bipat
Goa was not "close to" India, it was 'part' of India! It was not part of or near to Portugal in any sense!
By your reasoning the Empire colonies should by rights still be ruled by Europe!!!!!
(Nehru tried negotiation, Salazar refused.)

The republic of India is a political 'description'. Are you agreeing with EMR that Bharat was created by the British!

Morpeth you make statements but never answer questions!
Did you read the result of the referendum? Who is 'ruling' Goa now?

I seem to be discussing the same points with your twin poster but different answers----Your East African friends are "Indian" but apparently those in the UK are not!!!!

(Just for interest in what way is an Indian of the same economic level/ the same job/ same family status----different in "culture" from a British person? (Apart from food preferences!!!)
Goa was not "close to" India, it was 'part' of India! It was not part of or near to Portugal in any sense!I don’t mean to be rude but either it is a language problem or a complete lack of logic. Has anyone posted Goa was geographically close to Portugal? Are you unaware that Goa was considered part of Metropolitan Portugal both legally and in practice – so how can you write in ‘any sense’? By your reasoning the Empire colonies should by rights still be ruled by Europe!!!!!

Because of your strong ideological bias you have consistently not read my posts or EMR’s posts clearly, and the hypocrisy of your position is rather astounding. Neither EMR nor myself have said colonies should or shouldn’t be ruled by Europe ( and either position would need some evidence to make a conclusion not emotion) but simply the fact Goa was ruled by Portugal, recognized by international law, and the hypocrite Nehru for several years acknowledged this and swore India would not use force. But then you justify India’s use of force, or do not criticize the Moghuls because they intermarried. The Spanish also intermarried, does that mean they were justified in their colonies? (Nehru tried negotiation, Salazar refused.) My children used this sort of logic when they were young. “I tried to convince him and when he didn’t agree I hit him.” The republic of India is a political 'description'. Are you agreeing with EMR that Bharat was created by the British! You are obviously confused. The political entity of India today arose from British rule, and as such very simply Bipat Goa was never part of it. I happen to agree with you that there has always been a conception India, however it was called, in the Indian subcontinent, as part of a cultural and historical tradition, with obvious differences in parts of the country from history. This India and its traditions also recognized beyond the subcontinent- anecdotally when I lived in Indonesia and attended the Shadow Plays, of which the two great Hindu epics are the main national epics- and clearly it was recognized the Indian heritage- and the difference with Indian culture. (And yes the island with the most Indian influence the people do think and act differently regardless of similar outward appearances that than areas of Indonesia with less Hindu and Buddhist influence.
Morpeth you make statements but never answer questions!
Did you read the result of the referendum? Who is 'ruling' Goa now?
I have referred to referendums on areas India has taken by force in whch India did not hold referendums on independence. I have several times when such a referendum was held in Goa. Please do point out when such a referendum was held in Goa. I am unsure what possible bearing who is in the local government in Goa has with any subject being discussed.

I seem to be discussing the same points with your twin poster but different answers----Your East African friends are "Indian" but apparently those in the UK are not!!!!

Why on earth would they be the same answers ? Your last sentence makes no sense as I only pointed out friends from East Africa who considered themselves Indian at no point did that depend on their geographic location-and they would be the first to say their culture made the difference as well as the obvious racial difference. I am unsure when I stated an Indian in the UK is not Indian. (Just for interest in what way is an Indian of the same economic level/ the same job/ same family status----different in "culture" from a British person? (Apart from food preferences!!!) I gave numerous examples of the obvious differences in culture worldwide that anyone who has travelled or read history or linguistics or philosophy or about religion would notice. Most people would believe culture is a result of numerous factors whether philosophy or religion, art and literature, history and folk-memories, language, and so on and so on. If I understand it correctly your point of view is that material similarities in income level or material goods is culture in its totality, then we are using different definitions, or you have a very limited understanding of the world. To avoid your delicate Indian sensibilities I gave numerous examples-are you really wanting to say that a Middle Class Japanese person shares the same culture with a Middle Class Colombian? Absurd. (In 2017 I had a consulting assignment related to a Japanese factory in Colombia, this was precisely the issue of some management and administrative issues- cultural differences.) Cultural differences between the Swiss and Namibians regardless of similar economic status can be noticed by anyone. My Pakistani friends, several whose families originated from India, both religious or not, to whom I have related your conception of culture, find it hilarious to assume that a middle class Pakistani and a middle class German would share the same culture. In fact I find it appealing that there are different cultures in this world and some cultures seek to maintain their traditions and customs. And you may be right in the long run Globalization will eradicate the beauty and diversity of cultures around the world.
morpeth is offline  
Old Feb 17th 2019, 11:35 am
  #310  
EMR
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
EMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by Bipat
Goa was not "close to" India, it was 'part' of India! It was not part of or near to Portugal in any sense!
By your reasoning the Empire colonies should by rights still be ruled by Europe!!!!!
(Nehru tried negotiation, Salazar refused.)

The republic of India is a political 'description'. Are you agreeing with EMR that Bharat was created by the British!

Morpeth you make statements but never answer questions!
Did you read the result of the referendum? Who is 'ruling' Goa now?

I seem to be discussing the same points with your twin poster but different answers----Your East African friends are "Indian" but apparently those in the UK are not!!!!

(Just for interest in what way is an Indian of the same economic level/ the same job/ same family status----different in "culture" from a British person? (Apart from food preferences!!!)
liarvliar your pants are on fire.
You really do not want to be taken seriously do you..
EMR is offline  
Old Feb 17th 2019, 11:55 am
  #311  
EMR
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
EMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by Bipat
Tell us EMR what in my post were not facts??
You constant denial of facts and recorded history..
You constant lies.
It is imposdible to have an informed debate and discussion with you.
EMR is offline  
Old Feb 17th 2019, 12:01 pm
  #312  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,783
Bipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by morpeth
1) Goa was not "close to" India, it was 'part' of India! It was not part of or near to Portugal in any sense!I don’t mean to be rude but either it is a language problem or a complete lack of logic. Has anyone posted Goa was geographically close to Portugal? Are you unaware that Goa was considered part of Metropolitan Portugal both legally and in practice – so how can you write in ‘any sense’? By your reasoning the Empire colonies should by rights still be ruled by Europe!!!!!

Because of your strong ideological bias you have consistently not read my posts or EMR’s posts clearly, and the hypocrisy of your position is rather astounding. Neither EMR nor myself have said colonies should or shouldn’t be ruled by Europe ( and either position would need some evidence to make a conclusion not emotion) but simply the fact Goa was ruled by Portugal, recognized by international law, and the hypocrite Nehru for several years acknowledged this and swore India would not use force. But then you justify India’s use of force, or
2) do not criticize the Moghuls because they intermarried. The Spanish also intermarried, does that mean they were justified in their colonies?
(Nehru tried negotiation, Salazar refused.) My children used this sort of logic when they were young. “I tried to convince him and when he didn’t agree I hit him.” The republic of India is a political 'description'. Are you agreeing with 3) EMR that Bharat was created by the British!
You are obviously confused. The political entity of India today arose from British rule, and as such very simply Bipat Goa was never part of it. I happen to agree with you that there has always been a conception India, however it was called, in the Indian subcontinent, as part of a cultural and historical tradition, with obvious differences in parts of the country from history. This India and its traditions also recognized beyond the subcontinent- anecdotally when I lived in Indonesia and attended the Shadow Plays, of which the two great Hindu epics are the main national epics- and clearly it was recognized the Indian heritage- and the difference with Indian culture. (And yes the island with the most Indian influence the people do think and act differently regardless of similar outward appearances that than areas of Indonesia with less Hindu and Buddhist influence.
Morpeth you make statements but never answer questions!

4) Did you read the result of the referendum? Who is 'ruling' Goa now?
I have referred to referendums on areas India has taken by force in whch India did not hold referendums on independence. I have several times when such a referendum was held in Goa. Please do point out when such a referendum was held in Goa. I am unsure what possible bearing who is in the local government in Goa has with any subject being discussed.

I seem to be discussing the same points with your twin poster but different answers----Your East African friends are "Indian" but apparently those in the UK are not!!!!

5) Why on earth would they be the same answers ? Your last sentence makes no sense as I only pointed out friends from East Africa who considered themselves Indian at no point did that depend on their geographic location-and they would be the first to say their culture made the difference as well as the obvious racial difference. I am unsure when I stated an Indian in the UK is not Indian. (Just for interest in what way is an Indian of the same economic level/ the same job/ same family status----different in "culture" from a British person? (Apart from food preferences!!!) I gave numerous examples of the obvious differences in culture worldwide that anyone who has travelled or read history or linguistics or philosophy or about religion would notice. Most people would believe culture is a result of numerous factors whether philosophy or religion, art and literature, history and folk-memories, language, and so on and so on. If I understand it correctly your point of view is that material similarities in income level or material goods is culture in its totality, then we are using different definitions, or you have a very limited understanding of the world. To avoid your delicate Indian sensibilities I gave numerous examples-are you really wanting to say that a Middle Class Japanese person shares the same culture with a Middle Class Colombian? Absurd. (In 2017 I had a consulting assignment related to a Japanese factory in Colombia, this was precisely the issue of some management and administrative issues- cultural differences.) Cultural differences between the Swiss and Namibians regardless of similar economic status can be noticed by anyone. My Pakistani friends, several whose families originated from India, both religious or not, to whom I have related your conception of culture, find it hilarious to assume that a middle class Pakistani and a middle class German would share the same culture. In fact I find it appealing that there are different cultures in this world and some cultures seek to maintain their traditions and customs. And you may be right in the long run Globalization will eradicate the beauty and diversity of cultures around the world.
Morpeth another of your lengthy posts, difficult to reply to.

1) A colony is a colony-----I presume British India was a legal entity! Goa was part of the Portuguese Empire. The Portuguese did not settle there or make it home.

2)That is the difference with the Mughals---they were also 'invaders' but at least they became part of the country, settled and 'mixed'.
There was also the great difference in historical timing---with the Portuguese we are speaking of the 20 century!

3) My post was referring to the multiple posts in the 'Republic' thread where EMR claims that 'India' as such did not exist until the British came. That the word "India" just refers to the geographical situation, that the word "Bharat" is part of an ancient culture"!!!!! I failed to convince that it is also present day language!!

4) The referendum regarding the future of Goa, I asked you to read the results as it is obvious that the Goans considered themselves part of the Konkan coastal community of western India not Portuguese!

5) As I have said before there are obvious differences in human peoples, history, traditions, customs, language, cuisine, art, music etc. etc
However at a basic level I believe people are the same. They have the same sense of family, rearing children, ambitions, rule of law.
You will probably disagree but I tend to think that a persons job/profession is a closer link than their country of origin.
For example--- teachers/doctors/lawyers/ criminals! whether from France, Nigeria, China. UK. Australia will have immediate rapport. with each other.

(Yet again you refer to "language problem"----my "Indian sensibilities"-------how many times to tell you that I am British in every way---origin, birth, language!! As above you seem to want to create differences where non exist!!!! )







Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 17th 2019, 12:06 pm
  #313  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,783
Bipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by EMR
You constant denial of facts and recorded history..
You constant lies.
It is imposdible to have an informed debate and discussion with you.
Give an example of a "lie" or a denial of "facts"!!

EMR---- I am serious! To accuse another poster of lying without giving any examples is not in keeping with the ethos of BE.
Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 17th 2019, 6:28 pm
  #314  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,118
morpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by Bipat
Morpeth another of your lengthy posts, difficult to reply to.

1) A colony is a colony-----I presume British India was a legal entity! Goa was part of the Portuguese Empire. The Portuguese did not settle there or make it home.

2)That is the difference with the Mughals---they were also 'invaders' but at least they became part of the country, settled and 'mixed'.
There was also the great difference in historical timing---with the Portuguese we are speaking of the 20 century!

3) My post was referring to the multiple posts in the 'Republic' thread where EMR claims that 'India' as such did not exist until the British came. That the word "India" just refers to the geographical situation, that the word "Bharat" is part of an ancient culture"!!!!! I failed to convince that it is also present day language!!

4) The referendum regarding the future of Goa, I asked you to read the results as it is obvious that the Goans considered themselves part of the Konkan coastal community of western India not Portuguese!

5) As I have said before there are obvious differences in human peoples, history, traditions, customs, language, cuisine, art, music etc. etc
However at a basic level I believe people are the same. They have the same sense of family, rearing children, ambitions, rule of law.
You will probably disagree but I tend to think that a persons job/profession is a closer link than their country of origin.
For example--- teachers/doctors/lawyers/ criminals! whether from France, Nigeria, China. UK. Australia will have immediate rapport. with each other.

(Yet again you refer to "language problem"----my "Indian sensibilities"-------how many times to tell you that I am British in every way---origin, birth, language!! As above you seem to want to create differences where non exist!!!! )
1) A colony is a colony-----I presume British India was a legal entity! Goa was part of the Portuguese Empire. The Portuguese did not settle there or make it home.

First, there is nothing inherently right or wrong about a colony, just a fact of life that throughout history there have been Empires and colonies.

Second, I had classmates who Portuguese from Angola, and families that had made that their home, just as I have had French friends from Algeria which was their home, or Rhodesians for whom Rhodesia was home- by your definition then these areas should not have had independence.


2)That is the difference with the Mughals---they were also 'invaders' but at least they became part of the country, settled and 'mixed'.
There was also the great difference in historical timing---with the Portuguese we are speaking of the 20 century!



Sorry but I had to smile at this Bipat logic- something is only true if it had happened within a certainly historical timeframe.


3) My post was referring to the multiple posts in the 'Republic' thread where EMR claims that 'India' as such did not exist until the British came. That the word "India" just refers to the geographical situation, that the word "Bharat" is part of an ancient culture"!!!!! I failed to convince that it is also present day language!!



It is just different definitions- EMR is certainly right that the political entity of India today did not exist before the British, and you are right (though elsewhere you argue against yourself) there was a certain degree of shared history and culture on the subcontinent.

4) The referendum regarding the future of Goa, I asked you to read the results as it is obvious that the Goans considered themselves part of the Konkan coastal community of western India not Portuguese!

Let us be precise Bipat- did the referendum give the option of independence from India ?


5) As I have said before there are obvious differences in human peoples, history, traditions, customs, language, cuisine, art, music etc. etc
However at a basic level I believe people are the same. They have the same sense of family, rearing children, ambitions, rule of law.

You are starting to back-track which at least shows you may be capable of changing your mind when confronted with reality. I don’t disagree some basic things the same but you are quite incorrect in the example you give, and perhaps because of limited experience with different parts of the world. The sense of family can be very different between cultures, ways of rearing children, and acceptance of rule of law definitely there are much different concepts in different parts of the world.




“You will probably disagree but I tend to think that a persons job/profession is a closer link than their country of origin.”

I actually agree members of a particular profession will have some commonalities. I doubt that is more important than language, philosophy, art and literature, religion- few people would consider a Saudi Arabian accountant to have more in common with a Swiss accountant that with their fellow citizens in general.


(Yet again you refer to "language problem"----my "Indian sensibilities"-------how many times to tell you that I am British in every way---origin, birth, language!! As above you seem to want to create differences where non exist!!!

I was trying to be polite and give examples that wouldn’t offend since you are hyper-sensitive about India. Amazing though you discount the value and effect of thousands of years of Indian culture and history- since now we are supposed to believe Indian culture has no real influence on its people, that the PC concept of ‘ everyone being the same’ discounts the value of culture.


morpeth is offline  
Old Feb 17th 2019, 6:31 pm
  #315  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,118
morpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by Bipat
Give an example of a "lie" or a denial of "facts"!!

EMR---- I am serious! To accuse another poster of lying without giving any examples is not in keeping with the ethos of BE.
I tend to agree that calling Bipat a liar is a bit much, the scary thing is that Bipat actually believes some of the no-factual illogical posts written, I dont think she deliberately lies,​ ​​​​​
morpeth is offline  

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.