Oy Vey Neri!

[rohitc99]

9 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

It says something about comparative (primarily) cultural advantages.

 

 

The White Man's Burden - Wikipedia

 

you mean this ?

[hasilp89]

9 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

It says something about comparative (primarily) cultural advantages.

 

 

It says something about US culture that such an invasion seems inconceivable, no?

So you believe that the ability to colonize a country by force and massacre is a comparative cultural advantage. 
Defense is one thing, that seems like another. I’d take a pass on having that advantage.

 

[Sweet]

24 minutes ago, rohitc99 said:

absolutely. i dont recall where, but it seems a lot of conflicts across the globe are linked to these 'partitions' they did before withdrawing from the area. Same thing in africa too if i recall correctly.

There was no conflict in these areas before the British came?  I think we are viewing history with rose tinted glasses.

[rohitc99]

3 minutes ago, Sweet said:

There was no conflict in these areas before the British came?  I think we are viewing history with rose tinted glasses.

ofcourse there was conflict, but atleast in India, it was limited and never at the scale of what happened as the british withdrew. around 1-5 Million people died in the partition. That never occured in the entire history of the country over its recorded history, from one single event.

 

ofcourse the blame is not entirely on the British, the leaders of the time were equally responsible

[Sweet]

1 minute ago, rohitc99 said:

ofcourse there was conflict, but atleast in India, it was limited and never at the scale of what happened as the british withdrew. around 1-5 Million people died in the partition. That never occured in the entire history of the country over its recorded history, from one single event.

 

ofcourse the blame is not entirely on the British, the leaders of the time were equally responsible

Then not why not say that to begin with?  Why lead with the platitude that it was the British that was responsible?  History is complicated.

 

With regard to partition in India, would the Muslims in the North East accept being dominated politically by the Hindus?  What should the British have done when the two communities didn’t agree to co-exist in the same state?

 

[rohitc99]

6 minutes ago, Sweet said:

Then not why not say that to begin with?  Why lead with the platitude that it was the British that was responsible?  History is complicated.

 

With regard to partition in India, would the Muslims in the North East accept being dominated politically by the Hindus?  What should the British have done when the two communities didn’t agree to co-exist in the same state?

 

Why should british be in the mix ? because they came and colonized the place and now its their job to sort it out after  taking advantage of the fault lines, using it to their benefit and now suddenly they are the neutral party to sort it out

 

The problem of minorty/majority exists everywhere and each country finds their own solution

[Sweet]

4 minutes ago, rohitc99 said:

Why should british be in the mix ? because they came and colonized the place and now its their job to sort it out after  taking advantage of the fault lines, using it to their benefit and now suddenly they are the neutral party to sort it out

 

The problem of minorty/majority exists everywhere and each country finds their own solution

When minorities and majorities cannot bridge their differences it normally gives rises to independent countries.  A map of the world tells that story.

 

I don’t think it’s obvious at all that the Northern Muslims would have just accepted living in a Hindu dominated India.  In fact I think there is plenty of evidence they wouldn’t have.

 

And it doesn’t seem like there is any movement to unite Pakistan and India at any point since partition.

 

So may a suggest to you that partition was always likely, with or without the British drawing the line.

[SharperDingaan]

2 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Sharper, are you that naive.  Bonded labor historically was akin to slavery.  You were taken from your village/town and moved thousands of miles away to work for a pittance and would never see your village/town again.  That's what happened to my great, great grandfather...taken from his village in India to Fiji to work the gold mines and sugar cane fields.  Cheers!

 

Quite true, but the definition has changed a bit over the years. Today. the slaving is often voluntary, and called human trafficking; paying/borrowing from the smugglers to get you out, and owing them for life - seen as a better life. Bond the entire family, and it is in the smugglers interests to keep the collateral alive; the family drowns, nobody gets repaid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage

 

SD

[Parsad]

5 hours ago, james22 said:

 

It says something about comparative (primarily) cultural advantages.

 

 

It says something about US culture that such an invasion seems inconceivable, no?

 

Not inconceivable.  Vivek Ramaswamy wanted to build a border wall along the Canada/US border...invasion doesn't seem far fetched when you have a nutsack like him in power.  Cheers!

[Parsad]

 

In both Ireland and India the British didn’t want to partition the country.  

 

No, they wanted to control both.
 

In Ireland there likely would have been civil war, partition was a way to avoid it.

 

The causes of a potential civil war in Ireland was because of English control and colonization.  In other words, separation from England.
 

In India the Hindu and Muslim leaders didn’t want to united India.

 

So let's blame Jinnah for partition deaths...not British colonization which created the instability after the Mughal Raj fell.  
 

Israel is a different story, it was the UN’s partition plan.

 

UN didn't get involved until a couple of decades after the Balfour Declaration of 1917 when Jews were moved into Palestine by the British.  

 

Cheers!

 

 

[Parsad]

5 hours ago, Sweet said:

Then not why not say that to begin with?  Why lead with the platitude that it was the British that was responsible?  History is complicated.

 

With regard to partition in India, would the Muslims in the North East accept being dominated politically by the Hindus?  What should the British have done when the two communities didn’t agree to co-exist in the same state?

 

 

It wasn't for the British to say!  That's the first bloody point.  What happened between the Muslims and Hindus should have been left to them.

 

Why do Libertarian nation states continuously stick their noses into other people's businesses when it isn't a security issue, humanitarian crisis and has nothing to do with them?!  

 

Cheers!

[Parsad]

4 hours ago, Sweet said:

When minorities and majorities cannot bridge their differences it normally gives rises to independent countries.  A map of the world tells that story.

 

I don’t think it’s obvious at all that the Northern Muslims would have just accepted living in a Hindu dominated India.  In fact I think there is plenty of evidence they wouldn’t have.

 

And it doesn’t seem like there is any movement to unite Pakistan and India at any point since partition.

 

So may a suggest to you that partition was always likely, with or without the British drawing the line.

 

We'll never know about all of these hypotheticals, since it wasn't ever solely left to them to decide.  Cheers!

[RichardGibbons]

7 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

That's not the sentiment at all in Canada.  Race is not remotely the issue it is in the U.S. other than under the breathes of a handful of disgruntled citizens who would be bitching about something else if it wasn't race.

 

I agree that DEI is not the broad sentiment yet (except institutionally) and Canada's racial problems are small compared to the USA (and almost entirely related to Indigenous people.)

 

But the smallness of the real problems are what makes it particularly egregious that most Canadian governments' are sprinting headlong into promoting race as the primary attribute that distinguishes people. There's really no sensible way to interpret insane policies and luxury beliefs like Gladue, this, this, this, this, this, this.... There are bucket-loads of examples--deeply shameful things that our Canadian governments promote.

 

What's more, the negative second-order effects of deliberately implementing systemic racism and encouraging Canadians to view the world through a racist lens are likely to be severe, particularly as young people's standard of living plummets.

[Sweet]

6 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

It wasn't for the British to say!  That's the first bloody point.  What happened between the Muslims and Hindus should have been left to them.

 

Why do Libertarian nation states continuously stick their noses into other people's businesses when it isn't a security issue, humanitarian crisis and has nothing to do with them?!  

 

Cheers!

Yes the British shouldn’t have been there but that’s a hypothetical point too.

 

The Muslim League leader Jinnah demanded partition and his party won 87% of the Muslim seats.  Congress and the Muslim league voluntarily agreed on partition and set up a Partition Council to administer.  This was what the Muslims and Hindus decided.  The boundary commission created the line.
 

The root cause of this partition was a divided people.  Since then there have been no serious efforts at unification and one must ask why.
 

So why is it not ok to suggest that it’s too simplistic to say partition was imposed by the British?

 

6 hours ago, Parsad said:

We'll never know about all of these hypotheticals, since it wasn't ever solely left to them to decide.  Cheers!

Sure, but in your previous comments you suggested partition caused many deaths, there your hypothetical base case appears to be peace and little / no deaths.  But it could also have been much worse, outright war and much more dead.

 

This isn’t just a Westerner view, Indian commentators have made the same point, that without partition it could have been worse:

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/swaminathan-s-a-aiyar/independence-day-why-partition-was-a-good-thing-for-india/articleshow/15497403.cms?from=mdr

 

 

Edited January 9 by Sweet

[Spekulatius]

Oh vey, this thread went off rails and it's partly my fault.

[Sweet]

2 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

Oh vey, this thread went off rails and it's partly my fault.

Mine too

[cheapguy]

>his party won 87% of the Muslim seats

Isn't that in the 1936 elections?

There is no agenda of partition at that time. How is this relevant? Partisan politics played by insecure occupiers played a huge role in creating a monster out of molehill after 1940 (ww2).

 

Every single significant leader like Gandhi/Nehru was imprisoned during that time.

Guess why? because they protested British occupation.

 

Guess what else? Not a single leader of the Muslim League was imprisoned.

The leader of the Muslim League Mr Jinnah was never arrested nor put in jail for even ONE day.

Gandhi and Nehru were locked up for 14-16 years total when added up from different events.

So Zero vs 14-16 years.

 

Kudos to colonialist British partisan politics for creating a historic nightmare!

 

Edited January 10 by cheapguy

[Sweet]

34 minutes ago, cheapguy said:

>his party won 87% of the Muslim seats

Isn't that in the 1936 elections?

There is no agenda of partition at that time. How is this relevant? Partisan politics played by insecure occupiers played a huge role in creating a monster out of molehill after 1940 (ww2).

 

Every single significant leader like Gandhi/Nehru was imprisoned during that time.

Guess why? because they protested British occupation.

 

Guess what else? Not a single leader of the Muslim League was imprisoned.

The leader of the Muslim League Mr Jinnah was never arrested nor put in jail for even ONE day.

Gandhi and Nehru were locked up for 14-16 years total when added up from different events.

So Zero vs 14-16 years.

 

Kudos to colonialist British partisan politics for creating a historic nightmare!

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1946_Indian_provincial_elections

[ICUMD]

Doesn't matter who's at fault in Indias partition.

 

Separating India into two independent countries, each with religious majorities and persecuted minorities is a failure of humanity and leadership.

 

As is the war in Israel.

 

Absolutely sickening to see all the senseless death and destruction. 

 

This is the ultimate racism. And it is contagious. Spilling into university campuses and becoming the personal agenda of powerful billionaires apparently.

[james22]

 

[thowed]

The FT has a quiz now with quotes, asking: "Bill Ackman or American Psycho?"

 

Wonder if he'll threaten to 'write a letter'?

 

[james22]

 

[formthirteen]

It's interesting to see that Bill is still human. Who would have thought him to not have access to a printer and that he forgets things:
 

Quote

 

It immediately becomes clear to us that BI’s and the reporter’s goal for the story is to get Neri fired from MIT for plagiarism. In her email, the reporter says that I sought the firing of former President Gay from

@Harvard due to her plagiarism, and suggests that Neri should be fired from MIT for the same reason. As a result, Katherine and the editorial team are very disappointed that Neri is no longer a professor as they won’t be able to get her fired. So they then set out to destroy Neri’s reputation and career, as the second-best outcome. The questions about plagiarism concern Neri’s 2010 MIT PhD dissertation entitled: Material-Based Design Computation. Unfortunately, our hotel has weak WiFi and the subject document in question is 330-pages long. We do not have a printed version, nor access to a printer.

 

 

Quote

In summary, he said that he would resolve the issue with a four-part plan including an investigation of what went down, an opinion piece he was writing for BI on plagiarism referenced above, and two other steps which I don’t remember.

 

I guess his opponents achieved their first goal:

 

Quote

I have reached this point in the journey only after taking every step I could possibly take to try to end this madness that is severely harming the woman I love. And time is not her friend, every day of this incredibly damaging media mess is grinding down on her.

 

 

[james22]

 

[cubsfan]

12 hours ago, james22 said:

 

 

Bill Ackman is a junkyard dog. Good for him continuing to expose Harvard and now BI.