dammint Frenchy, everything you said in thsi post was ludicrously and laughably wrong. I don't knwo why I waste my time, but here goes....: and 2) the evidence.
: Nah, that's typical NJ rhetoric.
: After all, we're talking about a guy who
: : 1) said that India was better off being under imperial subjugation,j
: Well, yeah, before the Brits got there people were starving despite stumbling over perfectly edible cattle.
You evidently have no clue. India was wealtheir than England at the time of colonization, particularly in the textile industry. starvation didn't becoem a problem until the population began to grwo steadily. How come teh worst famines in her history happened to India AFTER the British took power? Simple; the British imposed a capitalist system, in which access to food was dependent of ability to pay. If you couldn't pay the bucks, you didn't eat. My father was born in Calcutta in 1944, in the midst of a famine which killed 3 million people, mostly destitute workers, due to British callousness. toady India is a socialist society, and there has not been a familne anywhere since independence, while they were common under the British. I don't knowhow many toimes I can make this point. Why don't you address it?
:The reason that castes no longer survive, according to NJ, is due to the influence of the Brits.
Are you incapable of paying attention and not misreading what I say? The abolition oif the caste system was due to India's socialism, which was laregly inspired by the Soviet Union. The British tolerated the worst abuses of teh caste system. If India's response to teh caste system had been one of British liberalism, tehy woruld never have engaged in the sort oif sweeping, unprecedented affirmative action which they did- affirmative action doesn't exist in Britain.
:Parlimentary government? Yup, the Brits. Law, you can finish...
'Law'? What do you mean, 'law'? Nonsense. Every society on earth ahs had their own system of laws; they don't owe that gift to anywhere. Teh British never brought any form of democracy to india, quite the opposite. Was it 'democracy' to herd tpogether 400 peaceful protestors and kill them in one afternoon? Was it 'democracy' to divide up teh country between unelected bureaucrats and unelected monarchs? Give me a break. india, incidentally, had constitutionally democratic cuty states thousands of years ago.
:
: : 2) endorsed 'pistol-whipping' a guy who suggested to peasants a philosophy he didn't like (so much for free speech and diversity of opinion)
: Ahh, you ere once again, to be charitable. I said that about an 'educated' person taking advantage of the ignorance of peasants to lead them by the nose.
Read the post again, Frenchy. Do you really oppose trying to get peasants to question why they are poor, not to blindly accept taht suffering is teh will fo God? Is it better if they think taht suffering is divinely ordained? Is it better if they never aspire to a greater position in life? And is it wrong to suggest to them taht tehre might be an alternative? If inspiring peopel and giving them hope is wrong, then Jesus Christ was wroing. If purifying the name of God is wrong, then every religion is wrong. And if asking questions is wrong, tehn you don't believe in free speech. Freire didn't think he was propagandizing, he was suggesting to peasants- in a very humble, diffident way- that perhaps God wasn't responnsible for their suffering, and that perhaps they didn't have to suffer. To him (and to me) that wasn'';t trying to impose anything on them, but rather to help them end their suffering- it was doing the only right thing under the circumstances. In light fo this, it'fs horrifuying taht you woudl stop peopel from trying to genuinely help otehr peopel, and mroeover would beat tehm up for their efforts. Perhaps you really do advocate a fascist state.
:That's propaganda, any way you want to slice it. Socialism/Communism isn't just a philosophy that I don't like, it's a philosophy that leads to butchery of innocent people.
Oh, nonsense. That 'communism is murderous' canard got dated around 1900; wise up and do a little reading. 1) The Stalinist regimes weren't really communist.2) plenty fo non-murderous communsit / socialist states have existed. (Kerala? Bengal? Nicaragua? Guyana? Etcetera.)
3) add up everyone killed by the few 'socialist' regimes that were really murdrtous, and they are still far less murderous than the right-wing capitalist regimes. (Can you say idnonesia? Belgium? Germany? Guatemala? El Salvador?)
: : 3) cares so little for the truth that he still has not recognized any of teh numerous examples of socialist / communist democracy and capitalists tyranny that were provided for him,
: Sorry old chap, Zimbabwe is a dud.
: To me the easiest way to prove what you are saying is to offer the citizens of those success stories you point to an offer to go to any Western country.
They do. Tehy're free to migrate, freer than citizens of most capiatlsit countries sucha s Guatemala or El Salvador, who are actively prevented from entering this country. If capitalism is so great, hwo coem we get so many Guatemalan refiugees?
:
: : 4) quoted a Nazi approvingly and said that he had some good points.
: Not sure here, what quote? What Nazi? Von Braun was a Nazi and he did have some good points.
Fred Rundle, of course? Don't you ever read what otehr epopel say? oh, i forgot, you're a capitalist, capitalists don't believe in free speech and free debate.
: : Given all that I think that such a guy is eminently worthy of Lark's criticism.
: $$$$$$$I second NJ's opinion.
:
: : McSpotlight: Nikhil, this is not a physical place. The very worst you can do to someone is to make them so annoyed they leave or blow their arguments apart in public. To resort to flaming a guy five times in one day on one particular part is akin to trying to win an argument by force.
: This is ironic because that is precisely the way, the only way, that the views expressed on this board will ever attain. '
: : Do you believe in censorship? We don't. Here at McSpotlight; we exist to fight censorship of any sort. I may personally find Nazism to be a repellent philosophy, but silencing it as it would silence me does not make me any better than it is.
: : If you really want to win a debate you do it by proving someone wrong, not drowning them out. No matter how repellant you find their philosophy. Are you saying that you cannot win an argument with a fascist? I don't think so.
: I agree. A fascist should be easy to discredit.
: : Satyagraha, Nikhil. It's not beating an opponent down by volume; it's beating an opponent by not doing so.
: Yeah, remember Ghandi.
: PS, appeals to cultural sensitiveity will be immediately round-filed.
