|
>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?
you could add the fact that the Colored population in SA includes descendents of South Asian and Indonesian slaves, but in any case, what about them? i mean, you could find white people as well who intermarried in africa or fought with the anc or whatever, but what would that really say about the wages of whiteness?
and whether or not these historical antagonism was created by white elites -- i mean, divisions between the white working classes and black slaves in the US was most certain created and exacerbated by white elites, that these things are historical constructions doesn't change their status as social facts.
i think there are excellent reasons for africans to distrust south asians, and i think there are equally excellent reasons -- from indentured-labor era Trinidad to the anti-Indian calypsos of today, the social prejudices against coolies in the French Antilles, the riots in South Africa and Guyana, the expulsion from Uganda, the anti-Indian incitements in Kenya, dare i mention larme price and 9/11 -- for the distrust to be returned.
>freddy mercury was pathan, closer to afghani...but i feel >you on that one...
i thought freddy was a parsi?
>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?
afairead him, he was talking about culture, not blood.
i'm not arab, persian or indo-aryan, but if someone were to say that they found my culture gross, i don't think i would trouble myself to point out that we've done <whatever>. as long as they aren't making mendacious claims of solidarity, i have no problem with it.
|