quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Oh, and nobody 'had to'. There were two significant groups that contributed to the independence of India/Pakistan, and one was the Muslim League. The other, the Indian National Congress, welcomed Muslim members and was interested in having a unified state (which they have; India is not a religious state). The Muslim League decided they wanted to have a go at their own state, and the British gov't decided to go along with the plan. That was a positive choice, not something the Muslim League was forced into.
I missed this post until after I posted my above statements. Yes the Muslim League pushed very hard for Pakistan's formation. But to say that the Indian National Congress was universally in favor of keeping the country together I think is overstating it. Hundreds of thousands died in the Hindu/Muslim riots during the independence movement. Muslims wanted their own country with a form of Sharia law, and Hindus did not want to give it to them and preferred they just leave. Gandhi himself criticized the Indian National government for it's sometimes pro Hindu anti Muslim sentiments.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Okay, I'm going to probably ignore the "condescending" portion of this debate after this post, because honestly, I was being snippy in my last post. I do think you were being a little condescending in saying that you need to fix them by removing a portion of their religion from their lives (at least, condescending by the standards you've set up)...
To be honest, I think we will have to skip this too. I've noted my reasoning for why I consider a specific notion condescending, once in detail. Corwin seems to understand, so I don't think I'm speaking incoherently. I could understand if you *disagree* with the reasoning, but your comment seems to indicate that you're still misinterpreting my standards. I'm not sure how to handle that short of pointing you back at my last post.
quote:Frankly I don't have an opinion on Mao. I don't know enough about Chinese history to discuss what you're referencing. I've only so much time to read and so much RAM in my head, and Chinese history is one of those things I've left by the wayside for the moment. The Crusades on the other hand I do know enough about to form an opinion and discuss at length so, if you want discuss that specifically, and the role that Christianity played, we can do that.
To be honest, I'd prefer not to since a fair number of people on these forums have invested into a personal bias that Christianity is not to blame for "anything" More seriously, its also less relevant. I picked Maoism specifically because it is quite relevant to the radical Islam situation, both because both are horrible ideologies and in both are situations where it is commonly accepted that things should get better. One place where they differ is what approach we use and because it illustrates quite vividly an odd double standard in Western society.
See, Maoism is the closest thing to a religion that I can think of in modern times, that curiously, is by public consensus not a religion. It has a cult of personality, an equivalent to holy books, people were encouraged to literally confess their sins to a portrait of Mao, and you also have the equivalent of apologetics. Throw in the remnants of the Chinese beliefs about the imperial mandate of heaven and how they look at an emperor and you pretty much have a religion.
However, because we do not consider it a religion, we in the West are free to critically dissect it, to denounce its excesses, and learn from its mistakes. Even though it has evolved to Dengism and the current bizarre hybrid government system, we still retain this critical attitude. Granted, we (as in the West) screw it up a lot, shoot ourselves in the foot when it comes to Tibet, and some of us definitely have ulterior motives. But on the balance, I think this is a good thing. That critical attitude is one of the only things that ensures that Hong Kong is still moving forward as a democracy and that the Chinese response in Tibet is still restrained as it is.
Flip over to Islamic governments though. Suddenly, we do not denounce their flaws (relatively speaking, obviously not in absolute terms). We try to rationalise their behaviour as misinterpreting their religion and we let their religion off the hook when it comes to economic or social problems. Try to change what the CCP does and you're usually a hero, a martyr in the making even if the facts do not support it. Try to change what Muslims believe and you're well, "Islamophobic" even if the facts do.
Its a silly double standard and its not helping anyone.
quote:I was referencing it in it's most basic premise, that of it being, fit to this situation, the job of the West to help the lesser people's to come up to our level. That's what it looked like you were saying to me...
No offence, but thats just plain wrong. Show me a place where I said that any "people" were inferior or take that back.
quote: I think a lot of this conversation could have been saved by settling upon a definition of condescending before we even started.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: I don't mean for this to be a "Pile on Mucus" day,
Thats ok, I can take it Besides, I agree with most of what you said and can't figure out what your problem with my statement was.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The British gov't did force people to move; they did not choose that there would be two countries, but they did dictate many of the terms of separation (in a very ham-handed fashion), including which country most of the princely states would fall into, and the procedures that would be followed in those states given a choice, including Jammu & Kashmir. The plan was largely conceived by a man who had essentially no experience relating to the region at all.
I don't have an immediate source on hand for statistics about proportions of Muslims staying in India vs going to Pakistan, but keep in mind that those already in the region of Pakistan (/Bangladesh) are not whom I am counting -- just those for whom going to the new state would be a departure. Considering that the Muslim population of India isn't much smaller than the entire population of Pakistan at this point in time.
By significant violent conflict I was referring to insurgency, but it would be hard to call the first kashmir war a significant violent conflict, even, if one means (like I do in this case) significance to be measured in lives. The insurgency in Jammu & Kashmir, which did not start until around 1989, has killed over sixty thousand people, with five to ten thousand people killed in some years.
Yes, the first three wars were extremely low violence, particularly the first two. Note the total deaths you mentioned, which are by far mostly soldiers. The total deaths in Partition were somewhere between two hundred thousand and one million people. Yet when these two neighbors went to war against each other, they only managed to kill something like ten thousand people combined in the first two wars. Sad as even ten thousand deaths are, that's a tiny casualty lists for the forces that were at play.
As far as disagreements in the INC, yes, they happened. As I was talking about the group as a whole, however, I used the official stance, which was strongly pro-integration, and was supported by a broad swathe of the membership.
Funny you should say the Muslim League wanted a country under Sharia law, since they never established Sharia law there until one province adopted it in 2003. The Muslim League wanted a Muslim state, but Sharia law was not the plan.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, I think you're being condescending to them. It comes across as "we know better than you, even though you're in the situation itself." They're literally saying that they're dying for the religion. You're telling them that you know better and that if they would just stop caring so much about their religion and listen to your advice about their economy, that they'd really agree with you and care less.
You said this on the first page. To me that's the standard that you set up for condescension in this debate. But a few times you've said that you know better, they are wrong, and their religion is wrong. My issue is causation, yours is directly with their beliefs. Thus by the standard you've set up, I think you are being just as, if not more, condescending as you think I was being. Do I not understand your idea of condescending? If not, you'll have to tell me plainly, not pertaining to this specific issue, what you think condescension means.
quote:Flip over to Islamic governments though. Suddenly, we do not denounce their flaws (relatively speaking, obviously not in absolute terms). We try to rationalise their behaviour as misinterpreting their religion and we let their religion off the hook when it comes to economic or social problems. Try to change what the CCP does and you're usually a hero, a martyr in the making even if the facts do not support it. Try to change what Muslims believe and you're well, "Islamophobic" even if the facts do.
I don't know if I agree. There are Muslims all over the world that don't believe it is their holy mission to destroy the Western way of life. It is my view that the problem is not with their religion itself, in much the same way that I don't think Christinity's problems were inherent to the religion. The problem is with the people who espouse their own particular interpretations and force them on millions of people, and either convincing them, through coersion, indoctrination, or just through the power of persuasion, that death and violence is the way to go.
quote:No offence, but thats just plain wrong. Show me a place where I said that any "people" were inferior or take that back.
I've already explained this. I told you that that was the impression I got from what you were saying, not necessarily that they were inferior, but that you knew better than they did and that they needed fixing, and you had the plan to do it.
quote:To be honest, I'd prefer not to since a fair number of people on these forums have invested into a personal bias that Christianity is not to blame for "anything" More seriously, its also less relevant.
::shrug:: It's a purely academic debate to be had, about the Crusades and the role that Christianity plays in it. I've had the debates and arguments in history classes, tables in the student union, and on forums. You can have the discussion without intentionally offending people. I'm not even sure if I agree that it isn't relevant. It's not a perfect analogy, but I think there's value into looking at how some of the darker, more warlike chapters of Christian history played out and how they fit into the structure we have today of Islam's current warring nature in many parts of the world.
I'm not sure where else to go with this.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... Do I not understand your idea of condescending? If not, you'll have to tell me plainly, not pertaining to this specific issue, what you think condescension means.
I think I see the problem in miscommunication. My idea of condescension is, well, when someone acts in a superior manner to another, as an extreme example, treating other people like children.
The problem I think you've fallen into is that you've drawn an equivalence between statements like "I think X is important to me" and a statement like "I think Y exists and wants me to do Z."
How that relates to this situation: When it comes to self-analysis, I believe that in general people are the best at assessing themselves, after all, if there is anything people are an expert at, it is their own personal situation. So they would be the best prepared to make a personal judgement about themselves and how they feel.
In order to refute that (assuming they are talking in good faith), you need to know them as a person to the extent that you can practically read their mind and reject what they are saying in favour of what they truly feel.
You can do that for "maybe" a significant other and perhaps for your own children. But to apply this to other people, I think thats extremely tough. This applies for the statement about X.
However, the latter statement is not a personal statement. The statement that Y exists and wants you to do Z is a statement about the world and how it operates. There, everyone with access to the same facts in on an equal playing field. Indeed, those with access to more facts can refute that statement no matter how strongly a particular person feels.
Applying that to this situation, if someone says "Sharia law is very important to me" or "I feel alienated from French society" when explaining their actions then I'm generally going to take them at face value rather than presume other motives. I respect their personal opinions because who else is better to judge themselves than themselves.
However, if someone says that "Allah exists and wants me to abide by sharia law" then thats a observation about the world and how it operates. There, a person's personal perspective does not necessarily make them better suited to judge the situation. Allah cannot logically exist for one person but not exist for another while an opinion can logically vary from person to person.
Hope that helps.
quote:... The problem is with the people who espouse their own particular interpretations and force them on millions of people, and either convincing them, through coersion, indoctrination, or just through the power of persuasion, that death and violence is the way to go.
It is my view that religion, particularly radical religion, leaves one open to greater risk of suggestion and persuasion from others. Once a few ideas based on scripture or faith are accepted, then it is difficult to judge new ideas critically or scientifically. Almost like how one gains trust via a confidence trick, although I admit that this is an unflattering analogy. This is a particularly dangerous problem when the religion includes war and conflict as an important part of its narrative.
quote:... You can have the discussion without intentionally offending people. I'm not even sure if I agree that it isn't relevant.
less relevant != isn't relevant
Besides, I have no intention of intentionally offending people but I strongly suspect that people will take offence anyways. I can only take the confrontational route on so many issues at once Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
More seriously, its also less relevant.
