|
>There may be "extreme" differences, but in terms of what >matters to me their relations with africans: they all have >had a consistent antagonistic relationship with africans. In >differing degrees perhaps, but none is an ally nor neutral >party.
but they have enough alliance to be grouped together? evn aside fromt hat history would show otherwise. there were african leaders (good and bad), traders and mercenaries in india. with arabs maybe, but even then there are just as many counter examples. there are just as many examples of antagonism within all of these cultures (african, arab, indian, european) too.
>The treatment of Siddis/Hubshe (recent African descendents) >in South Asia, despite their relatively small population is >nothing to boast about.
which ones? the makranis of western coast of pakistan who live just like other poeple of balochi descent who are fisherman? or the royal shiddis of hyderabad who are among the elite/high caste there? or the ones in gujrat, who really are oppressed...
>The "leech" like precense of N. Indians in East African >countries like Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda and their buffer >class status in South Africa.
while some of that is true, those classes were brought in AND created by the british. but what about the balochis in kenya who are mixed in even among tribes? the pathans in zimbabwe who came before "british imported" classes who live, and look like the shona and ndebele? rhe ones that fought with and for the Mau Mau in kenya? the ones who fought along side the africans against other arab-indians in zanzibar?
u fail to acknowledge the differences that occur betwen those that came earlier and those that were brouth by british for a specific purpose....
>Arabs - gross because they are infighting, first cousin >marrying barbarians that started the slave trade of africans >for commerical purposes, invaded africa, and horribly >polluted parts of africa with their patriarchal psychotic >culture through the vehicle of religion. > >Persians - gross for their role in the indian ocean slave >trade, their invasion of ancient egypt, and giving the world >freddy mercury. > >Indo-Aryans - gross because of their high lactose diet, >their caste system, and their horrible, horrible music and >movies.
so there was no slavery or patriarchy before foreign contact? at all?
freddy mercury was pathan, closer to afghani...but i feel you on that one...
the high lactose diet only applies to punjabis, like me. caste system instituted by less than 5% of population upon others. and still central only to hinduism. the history of anti-casteism within india? doesnt count? plenty of casteism in africa too.
horrible movies? yes. music? no, but thats all relative...and irrelevent really...
>nope. just not a part of that community.
but if everyone else's blood is tainted and fucked up as a group, (ignoring dissent, differences within each group like you did), then arent u the same by the same logic?
|