Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Op-Ed: Why Arabs are so Easily Offended
Arutz Sheva ^ | 30/9/12 | Ron Jager

Posted on 10/01/2012 1:15:14 PM PDT by Eleutheria5

“Call me Ishmael”, is the opening sentence that opens the novel “Moby Dick” authored by Herman Melville. Ishmael, who is telling the story of Moby Dick, recounts that he is sailing to sea out of a sense of alienation and cultural inadequacy.

.....

Ever since the days of Napoleon's landing upon the shores of Egypt at the very end of the 18th Century and bringing with him the modern era to the Middle East, Islam has been unable to free itself from the shackles of inferiority and self-destructive primal rage that typifies the hatred of modern day Islamic radicalism against Western civilization.

In recent years, despite Israel being at the foci of much of what has been termed the "war of civilizations" between the Western world and Islam, Europe is undergoing a rapid demographic transition that will lead to a large Muslim population harboring an unchanging, hostile attitude toward their national communities.

Nicolai Sennels, a Danish psychologist who has had extensive experience with treating Muslim youths has identified four main differences that are important in order to understand the behavior of Muslims and how they interact with Western influences. Without dismissing the intrinsic value of multiculturalism or the need to identify with ones cultural roots Sennels has identified four main differences that are important in order to understand the behavior of Muslims. They concern anger, self-confidence, the so-called "locus of control" and identity.

Westerners are brought up to think of anger as a sign of weakness, powerlessness and lack of self-control.

In Muslim culture, anger is seen as a sign of strength. ....

.....

(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: araboffense; arabs; honor; islam; jihad; muslim; muslimoffense; offended; sharia; violence
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-142 last
To: Eleutheria5; muawiyah
OK. 1757, then. The British conquered India.

The British didn't conquer India in 1757. In 1757 they fought the Battle of Plassey. They only conquered what is now Bengal and parts of the Coromandel coast. Prior to this they had ports along the shores

this is what their possessions in 1744 looked like



And in 1769

The pre-eminent power in India at that time was the Maratha confederation

The Marathas had just ended a 150 year war with the Mughals and took over most of India except forthe extreme south (which was divided between the Keralites of Travancore and the Nizam of Hyderabad) and the northern portions

The problem is that the Marathas, unlike the centralized Mughals were highly de-centralized, a confederation with a number of autonomous lords

This is why the British and French could set up their own spheres of influence whereas under the Great Mughals they could not

Even in 1857 they hadn't conquered the entire continent of india but had most of the area under their influence

Note also that the "Delhi" that was burned was not the "New Delhi" of today. The city of greater Delhi in India today encompasses 7 prior cities -- the oldest, Hastinapur dating back to at least 1000 BC and the newest, "New Delhi" dating from the 1920s

101 posted on 10/02/2012 5:58:07 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Half the Arabic speaking people on the planet live in Egypt.


102 posted on 10/02/2012 5:59:04 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Just to be clear, Jewish tradition regards Ishmael as the archetype of Islam (and Esau/Edom as the archetype of Christianity).


103 posted on 10/02/2012 5:59:09 PM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; Eleutheria5
Their bad luck to encounter the technologically superior Brits at a time when the princes each felt the Brits could be of use to them.

well, not completely correct. The Brits were not so technically superior in the 1800s. In comparison the Portuguese who came in the 1497 and were pre-eminent in the 1500s had a technological advantage

The Brits were initially cowed by the might of the Great Mughals. But when the Mughals fell, due to the outcome of the jihads by Aurangzeb, India became once more a chequerboard of states -- Marathas but also Rajputs and the various satraps like the Nizam, rulers of Oudh etc. looking for independence

The British played a smart game of carrot and stick. They didn't use the stick much, but gave the princes a fantastic carrot -- "we'll take care of your state for you, defence etc., and we'll give you a large stipend to sit around and do nothing".

104 posted on 10/02/2012 6:02:01 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; Eleutheria5
They have a grand history of seeking to uplift the poor and extending charity to the oppressed.

Not true for the initial Company Raj in India when it was just about making money from the fabulously wealthy continent of India

Only in the 1800s, thanks to Methodists did that change. And it was after Company Raj ended in 1858 and the Empire started, that's when the entire myth of "we have come to better the world" started.

Yes, they did a lot of good, but also a lot of bad. On the whole the British Empire wasn't evil, but the outcomes of it's blundering (Pakistan, Palestine, Iraq, etc.) mean that it just gets a small plus point

105 posted on 10/02/2012 6:05:21 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

The Brits as a people, not the Raj ~ there’s a difference.


106 posted on 10/02/2012 6:08:37 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl; Eleutheria5
well, yes and no. The British initially came to India in the 1600s following the Dutch (who had come in the 1600s following the Portuguese, who first came in 1497 to India)

For 150 years they had small operations, trading posts.

The Dutch were pre-eminent, even in Europe

But after the Anglo-Dutch wars, the Brits knocked out the Dutch.

Then they had the wars with the French, the 7 years war which was across western Europe, North America and India.

At the same time, India's centralized Mughal Empire had collapsed (note of course that India is a continent with many nations in it - 300+ languages, different ethnicities, in fact 4 different races etc.), so kind of like the aftermath of the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West

The Brits were initially in the 1700s just about importing tea, silk, textiles and selling them at a profit

But in the late 1700s the industrial revolution meant that the Brits could make textile cheaper than India, so imported cotton, but the best way for them was to have a monopoly on buying cotton -- so they took over the chief cotton growing and then tea growing areas

The train was a by-product and it was very good for transporting goods across the vast distances of the indian continent

As things progressed and the Brits slowly co-opted or conquered various Indian nations, they kept up the monopoly, this time not only on buying but also on selling -- no other European or Indian state could sell textiles in British areas. This then extended to other goods

So the Brits had a marvellous system for their own enrichment -- the Indians could only sell their raw products at a substantial discount to the English and then could only buy the finished products from the English

Hence the massive drain of wealth from the Indian continent to England.

Did not the British increase their efforts when it had an empire towards India once we Americans fought and won our independence from the British? - not really connected as the American colonies were colonies of the Crown, the British "govt" so so speak, while the Indian colonies were Company areas, the British East indian company

only in 1858 did this get taken over by the British government, and only in 1858 did the British Empire start.

Also the methods used were different as in America the natives were at least a few 1000 years behind in development and the land was mostly uninhabited, while in India the level of civilisation was the same, actually in 1600 it could be argued that parts of India were ahead. And of course India was inhabited....

107 posted on 10/02/2012 6:18:06 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl; Eleutheria5
British to put together Israel

Actually the Brits didn't do this. Jews continued living in Tiberias, etc. from the middle ages under the Ottomans

The Ottomans in 1874 set up a separate district of Jerusalem and Jews escaping from Russian pogroms (note that the Russians in the years from 1772 to 1793 had participated in the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. Prior to this, in the years from 1500 to 1772 the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth,encompassing what is now Poland, lithuania, belarus, western ukraine, large parts of western Russia was home to nearly 60% of the world's Jews -- the Russians didn't have Jews before the partitions and suddenly got this big bunch of non-Russians, so they restricted them to the Pale of Settlement (essentially the parts of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth that Russia took)) -- anyway, the pogroms pushed Jews to America and Israel

The Jews (in Alyah I think it's called) moved in to this Ottoman province

The Jews in WWI supported Germany against Russia -- the Brits tried to get them over to their side to get American Jews to be pro-Brit

The British after WWI got this entire region plonk in their laps

108 posted on 10/02/2012 6:28:55 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; Eleutheria5

Also the Brits were set up in India thanks to a dowry from the other Iberian power — Charles II got Bombay as a dowry for his marriage to the Princess of Portugal


109 posted on 10/02/2012 6:31:02 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
I"m not sure the English in the 1700s drew any clear distinctions between themselves and the Scandinavians and the northern Germans.

True, they were considered one of the Germanic nations (with the Scandanavians and Hanover, Bremen etc. etc.) until rather late

110 posted on 10/02/2012 6:33:03 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

yes, but note that the Egyptian dialect of Arabic is nearly unintelligible to someone from Syria or the gulf


111 posted on 10/02/2012 6:36:43 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
The Jerusalem accent leaves you marked as well ~ according to the neighbors.

The language has been in use outside the old True Arab regions for a very long time.

112 posted on 10/03/2012 12:09:24 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; Eleutheria5

I have no idea about the Palestinian dialect of Arabic. You mean just the accent or do they have different words and meanings as well?


113 posted on 10/03/2012 12:38:26 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

IT”s mostly the accent ~ but there are some vocab differences.


114 posted on 10/03/2012 12:49:24 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
The Brits as a people. hmm.... well, this has only been since the Methodists in the early 1800s and that too, not in large numbers initially.

But in the Victorian age they saw themselves as bringing civilisation, at the same time trampling on peoples in the North of England and in Ireland and India (think the famines).

As I said -- they come on the positive on the whole, but just about.

They were not the grand bringers of charity etc. but bringers of charity -- a leser magnitude, but still good.

115 posted on 10/03/2012 12:59:24 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Nice novelization of the Ottoman-period Yishuv is Tevye in the Holy Land, by Tzvi Fischer, available in both English and Hebrew. President Yitzchak Ben Tzvi’s major work on the subject is unfortunately rough going, even if you know Hebrew, and is unavailable in English. But there’s always Joan Peters’ Since Time Immemorial.


116 posted on 10/03/2012 2:26:00 AM PDT by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

The Brits? They’re a great people. As such, they have their dark side as well. But the world we inherited would not have come about without them, and would have been much poorer for it. That’s how I define “great” this morning, after having coffee.

So how does that definition match the Arabs? They invented Algebra (if they didn’t steal it from the Assyrians. Did they, anyone?), scared Europe enough that they went on the Crusades that started the European world moving towards the Renaissance, and made the Castilian/Catalonian alliance of Ferdinand and Izabella a Spain-wide phenomenon, so they could drive out the Muslim Moors, start the Inquisition to fleece Jewish and Muslim backsliders, and finance Columbus’ attempt to find a westerly route to India so they could avoid the brigandry and tariffs of the overland route, and the long trip around Africa. By accident, he discovered America instead, all because of the Moose Limbs. So they, too, were catalysts of great things, which happened in opposition to them, just like the British. But unlike the British, Arabs are mostly f@#$ed up in the head. There. I made a distinction. Hah.


117 posted on 10/03/2012 2:37:50 AM PDT by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5; muawiyah
the Brits were a great people. No disrespect to the many fine English folk I know. I lived in England for years in the early 2000s and while there are still a few good people, the majority are yobs now, unfortunately

This is due to their schooling which has deteriorated precipitately and their Paki minority. Tests showed that most students of the batch of 2003 couldn't pass the exams of the 1950s in Brit schools

But the world we inherited would not have come about without them, and would have been much poorer for it. -- that is true.

The "arabs" -- again, let's be specific and use this to refer to only the Nejd Arabis -- Mohammed and tribe

They didn't produce anything.

The Assyrians, Babylonians were Semites like Arabs or Jews but of different (Amorite or Akkadian) stock.

These Nejd Arabs didn't provide anything, BUT a continuous empire from India to Europe, which allowed for mixing of ideas on a scale that hadn't happened since the Seleucids (and was started by the Persians under Cyrus)

118 posted on 10/03/2012 3:35:12 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5
Europe going on the Crusades... well.. note that the Western Empire never actually "fell" to the Barbarians, but the Barbarians were romanized, just with themselves as rulers.

The real separation was caused by the Moslems conquering Christian Egypt, Syria, Iraq etc.

119 posted on 10/03/2012 3:39:04 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
The True Arabs did do one thing rather amazingly ~ during the early period of the European Dark Age (535 to 800 give or take a few decades) when the entire northern tier of nations were in the dumper with busted economies and social orders (Including China), they'd begun saving their gold.

Although they officially want everybody to look to Mecca and Medina as the "source" the city state of Petra and the highlands in Yemen, devised a way to trade in the near abroad (to borrow a soviet term) and build stores of gold and silver.

Although the Silk Road was, so to speak, 'Down', their own overland trade route wasn't and what little trade came from the Indian ocean litoral or the Eastern Mediterranean, would go through there.

Their population centers were far enough removed from the areas affected by recurring plagues that they managed to miss out on that business as well.

One day the guys at Petra discovered the outside world and that changed everything for everybody. Discovery 2 was the Byzantine Army ~ they hadn't been paid in a century. It was a "Hello boys, you need jobs?" Moment.

After the lightning conquest of Syria the Arabs sat down and invented Mohammad and everything that went with it. They continued to buy Byzantine military strength and quite rapidly (as such things went in those days) drove the Persians back to the old Persian core.

That was quickly followed up with economic hegemony in North Africa and the Fertile Crescent ~ and virtually total neglect of the North shore of the Mediterranean.

120 posted on 10/03/2012 4:39:44 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

and made the Castilian/Catalonian alliance of Ferdinand and Izabella a Spain-wide phenomenon,

Oops. Meant Castilian/Aragonian.


121 posted on 10/03/2012 10:28:12 AM PDT by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

Well,Napoleon wanted to gain control of Suez and cut the British off from India. Oil did not begin to come into the picture until after 1912, and that in a limited way. American was the world’s great oil producer until after WWII. In thr 19th Century the Euopean powers,, simply overwhelmed the old Turkish empire as they did the antique power of China.


122 posted on 10/03/2012 10:16:19 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

Well,Napoleon wanted to gain control of Suez and cut the British off from India. Oil did not begin to come into the picture until after 1912, and that in a limited way. American was the world’s great oil producer until after WWII. In thr 19th Century the Euopean powers,, simply overwhelmed the old Turkish empire as they did the antique power of China.


123 posted on 10/03/2012 10:16:28 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

“Well,Napoleon wanted to gain control of Suez and cut the British off from India. “

??But the Suez Canal wasn’t dug yet, and the Brits could still get to India by sailing around the Cape.??


124 posted on 10/04/2012 2:22:22 AM PDT by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: jjotto

If you think Jewish anti-Christian bigotry is bad, you should hear what they say about Jews!


125 posted on 10/04/2012 4:59:02 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: jjotto

could be about archetypes — I specifically wanted to point out the ethnic descents. Ethnically the Syrians, Jordanians, Lebanese are ethnic cousins of Jewish people -— and Jewish people from Yemen and north Africa have more semitic inheritance than Sephardic or Ashkenazi jews — there was some mixing of european blood with european jews.


126 posted on 10/04/2012 10:52:10 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5; RobbyS

it wasn’t about the canal. Suez has been for millenia (right since old Dynasty times in Pharaonic times) used to carry goods from Europe to Asia — by ship to Suez, then overland to the red sea, then by ship again


127 posted on 10/04/2012 10:53:31 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5; RobbyS
The brits could get to India by sailing around the Cape -- they followed the Portuguese. The Portugues from 1400 under Henry the Navigator, slowly moved around Africa, from the Canary Islands to Angola, to South Africa, to Mozambique, to Oman (the Portuguese controlled Oman and Bahrain in the 1500s) to Calicut to Goa to Sri Lanka to Indonesia to Macau

Spices and cotton were the big items from india, as indeed they have been since the time of Cyrus in 500 BC

The European powers from the 1700s overwhelmed the Turks as the Turks were too closed, too millet-organized, not able to run efficiently and moving back further and further

The Turks realized this and in the 1800s led a revolution to kick out the Janissaries. They were modernizing in 1914, thanks to ships from the Brits, which is why the Russians wanted to quickly launch WWI, knock out Austria-Hungary and then take over constantinople

128 posted on 10/04/2012 10:58:49 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

That’s sort of like what we do with Ashdod and Eilat.


129 posted on 10/05/2012 4:33:28 AM PDT by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

“More Semitic inheritance” is a claim not significantly borne out. DNA indicates less than one-half of one percent intermarriage between Europeans and Jews in Europe over 50 generations! I suppose that’s more than .005% of European intermarriage with Jews not living in Europe, but really?


130 posted on 10/05/2012 6:24:02 AM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Even before the canal, moving goods via Suez was more efficEsoient than around cape horn.Especially since the English had fleets in the Indina Ocean and in the med.The French were now just renewing their wolrd war with the English. Napoleon had the broader objective of establishing a new capital by displscing the sultan as suzerain in the Near East. The Russians of course had the same goal.


131 posted on 10/06/2012 9:48:14 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

The British were terribly wounded financially and militarily by the outcome of the Great Theirs “blunders” were the result of their weaknened position. Ghandi et al, depened on that weakness.


132 posted on 10/06/2012 9:56:26 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
by the outcome of the Great? You mean WWI?

Yes to an extent, but also they failed to give India dominion status at the same time as Canada and Australia got it.

133 posted on 10/07/2012 12:28:21 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: jjotto

You may be correct — I have no statistics at all on this, just based on the looks — most Yemeni Jews look like Arabs or Kuwaitis. Many American or European Jews even have blonde hair. That’s why I would guess that they’d have more European blood — but of course, this is not a scientific look, so I may be wrong


134 posted on 10/07/2012 12:56:19 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

I didn’t know that, thank you


135 posted on 10/07/2012 12:57:16 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Honestly, I’ve been many times to Hebron. There are among Arabs more than a few blonde-haired kids that I’ve seen. A big glass factory there is owned by a family that 200 years ago came from Germany, opened up shop, and converted to Islam. Islam is a religion that aggressively proselytizes, and has for centuries. The notion that all “Arabs” are of pure Middle-Eastern stock is nonsense.

Jews have accepted converts when they come to us, once we know they are sincere, but we do not go looking for them, much less coercing their conversion. An entire nation, the Khazars, converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages, and that engendered the myth that the Jews of Europe are all descended from the Khazars, which became very popular after Arthur Koestler’s The 13th Tribe was published. But seriously, the fact that Khazars joined the Jewish community does not mean that the Jewish community became subsumed within the Khazars. Their empire faded, many backslided to heathenism, but some stayed and married within the larger Jewish community. Koestler is a great novelist, but not a historian or geneologist.


136 posted on 10/07/2012 3:32:18 AM PDT by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5
oh, I believe you -- I know Syrians who are more European looking rather than Semitic. The reason is the intermixing in Syria -- Greeks, Romans, Gauls etc. were there 2000 years ago and Hittites (Indo-Europeans) earlier

I've defined Arabs above as being purely "Nejd Arabs", not Syriacs or Egyptians or Sudanese

Khazars were Turkics, not Indo-European so I don't see a heavy indose of "blood" in that sense

however, Yemeni Jews to my eyes (and note I repeat, this is not a scientic observation, just an observation of mine which could be wrong) look more Semitic

137 posted on 10/07/2012 5:19:49 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5
Thanks, for the (excellent :) post. :-)

138 posted on 10/07/2012 7:33:05 AM PDT by skinkinthegrass (WA DC E$tabli$hment; DNC/RNC/Unionists...Brazilian saying: "$@me Old $hit; w/ different flie$" :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

World War One made New York rather than London the financial capital of the world. During the next twenty years, the Britain failed to recover the position they held in 1914. Fighting Germany from 1939-41 broke them. Without Lendlease, they would have had to come to terms with Hitler. Canada and Australia were truly colonies of Great Britain, with smallish, largely British populations. India was something altogether different. Who would have ruled this “dominion”? We know what happened after independence.


139 posted on 10/10/2012 9:42:43 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

The Indians would have ruled this dominion. in 1914 the only party in town was the Indian National Congress. The Muslim League had next to no members and the radicalisation of Moslems hadn’t begun


140 posted on 10/10/2012 11:33:30 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Rule by Congress probably would have CAUSED radicalization. Just as the establishment of the Jewish homeland in Palestine in the Palestinian Mandate caused Arab resistance to Jewish immigration. The Muslims would have immediately started to demand inclusion in the government, and if the Hindi majority has resisted, as they probably would, then no telling what might have happened. The differences may superficially seem to be like that French-Anglo divide in Canada. But I think that it would eventually have followed the route taken in the Palestinian movement where religious fanaticism begins to grow and grow and to make compromises almost impossible. The British would have been caught in the Middle.


141 posted on 10/11/2012 9:22:25 AM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS; Jyotishi
1. a minor corection -- "Hindi" is a language, "Hindu" is the religion/culture

2. Muslims were already represented in the Congress -- Maulana Azad etc. and they stayed there even after Pakistan was created. There were also pacifist Moslems like the "frontier Gandhi" - a Pathan (from the north-west frontier province): Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan.

3. Though the rest of your point about a growing fanaticism rings true - Hindus in the 1800s welcomed the British for having destroyed the possibility of Moslem rule (even the current Hindu rightwing RSS did not participate in the national movement)

142 posted on 10/20/2012 11:20:54 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-142 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson