That post makes you sound like the Israel supporters.
Defending Nationalism, accusing others of being racist for bringing up racism.
Arguing there is no racism because they don't count.
Modi scolds Trudeau over Sikh protests in Canada against India
- Thread starter The Oracle
- Start date
Defending Nationalism, accusing others of being racist for bringing up racism.
Arguing there is no racism because they don't count.
No, they need to look into it no conditions attached. This is not an negotiation.
This thread should be renamed:
Rabid Modi neo-fascioned, Indian ultra-nationlist INDIAN/Canadian throws petulant, Indian-centric hissy fits at any and all who don't bow down to the greatness, majesty and unimpugnable integrity of Modi's neo-fascioned ultranationalist India.
Rabid Modi neo-fascioned, Indian ultra-nationlist INDIAN/Canadian throws petulant, Indian-centric hissy fits at any and all who don't bow down to the greatness, majesty and unimpugnable integrity of Modi's neo-fascioned ultranationalist India.
Yes, that's what makes it a stereotype. If I said, "I have a suspicion that this guy is a violent criminal," I may have reason to think that. If I say, "I have a suspicion that all black guys are violent criminals because of their ethnicity," then I'm stereotyping.
You're saying Europeans are "more likely" to be Nazis, therefore this European should face more scrutiny.
What if I said "Indians are more likely to be scammers, therefore all Indians should face more scrutiny if accused of scamming"? It would 100% be racism, prejudice, and stereotyping.
Have you seen any evidence that he actually fought against allied forces?
No, you're just saying because of his ethnic origin you're more suspicious of him, but if he had the same ethnic origin as you, you'd just assume his reasons were just and pure as with Bose. How do you not see that as prejudice, bigotry, and borderline racism?
I've already discussed that and I'm not interested in rehashing settled matters. This is not what you and I have been discussing.
But when it comes to Hunka (or Bandera), most people do not know him.
Secondly, most Ukrainian freedom fighters fought the USSR - I mean he number of Ukrainians who were against the USSR were far more than the people who fought with the USSR in the Ukrainian Socialist Army.
But everyone also knows that Ukraine was a Soviet puppet state with an active freedom struggle.
So in my opinion, wherever benefits you give to Bose as an Indian you need to give to Hunka, Bandera, and other Ukrainian freedom fighters. Legally everything you just said about India regarding the British Empire during WWII applies to Ukraine against the Soviet Union in WWII.
Saying one ethnic group is more likely to be something negative is literally prejudice.
But you're ignoring the culture, histories, and contexts of the Ukrainian struggle against the Soviet Union.
I believe all hate and prejudice, be it towards Jews or anyone else, is absolutely from ignorance. There is no other reason. And no offense, but I have met plenty of ignorant Indians, just as I've met plenty of ignorant people from everywhere. The world is full of ignorant people.
Yes, the article I linked that discussed Bose's suspected antisemitic leanings was literally about how it's not taught in India and why that's a problem.
I'm not going to keep going around on circles. You said if anyone wanted as referendum on India, they are a terrorist. I disagreed with that and said surely that is only true if they engage in violence. You keep coming back to violence. It's circular and irrelevant. It bothers me that you can't just say what you mean, either, "I misspoke, someone who merely calls for a referendum but otherwise does not engage in violence is not a terrorist," or "Even if they are non-violent, someone who calls for a referendum is a terrorist and deserves death." If we could just establish your position it would be helpful rather then this constantly bringing violence back up when I've done everything to make it clear what it is in asking you to clarify.
It's not interference to voice an opinion. Even to protest in the street it's not interference. If someone does not engage in violence, wherever they live in the would, they are free to say they think Canada should hold a referendum. Same with people on other countries who condemn the seal hunt, or condemn Canada of its treatment of First Nations. Canada should not take any action against anyone who says those things provided they are peaceful.
You didn't answer, but are you saying it's interference to criticize the Chinese handling of Taiwan or Hong Kong? Is that interference and terrorism?
it's only interference if they engage in violence or threaten to engage in violence or otherwise influence elected officials. Giving an opinion is not interference.
I can't say this enough times: that doesn't even make sense and at this point I'm not sure you understand what a referendum is. At best, Canada could hold a referendum on supporting or opposing an independent Sikh state in India, but if that referendum passed, it would then become part of Canadian foreign policy, meaning trade, aid, military cooporation, etc would then be directed towards pressuring India to do that, so I don't think you would actually support a referendum outside India. I certainly wouldn't, because it doesn't make sense unless it's to influence foreign policy and I don't want to see that happen.
This is how these things are handled. Look at the Russian assassin's in the UK and how that went down. Trudeau's public admission is exactly how this is supposed to be handled. It's exactly what India would do if India suspected a foreign country's operative assassinated an Indian National in India.
Well, it did. Again, this is exactly how these things are handled.
Then buckle up. It's going to get more and more common as India positions itself as a world player. We're seeing all the signs that India is moving up. Low level is where countries start when they start to get involved in these spy games because low level assassinations aren't going to cause major issues. And let's be honest, diplomats being expelled by only 2 countries is not major. Whereas had they assassinated someone major, the fallout can be significant.
I'll also point out that this has always been against US, British, French, and Russian policies. Always and still is. So being against Indian policy doesn't convince me of anything.
India has no rules. It's a human rights disaster over there. Further illustrated by their reluctance to cooperate.
Your reality and mine may be different, but truth will always be truth no matter how hard they try to hide it.
He keeps having his ass handed back to him by 'DinkleMouse' yet the Eveready Indian ultra-nationalist Energizer Bunny just keeps on banging his world leading Indian made drum.
Believing Modi he was a terrorist isn't proof either.
As I said many pages ago, many government intelligence sources are secret and they don't release the full story to the news. If you choose to believe Indian reports over Canadian ones then go ahead but don't keep demanding that evidence from one wile blindly accepting the other.
I am confused though because your views about Canada seem pretty negative but you chose to leave India to come here.
Ok. Despite all the clarifications I've tried to make, you stand firm. There's really no other way to put it: I'm very disappointed that you have decided to justify bigotry and prejudice.
You say, "It's not discrimination or racism", but your clarifications describe bigotry and prejudice. And you've repeated them enough that it's very clear you're engaging in bigotry and prejudice but think that it's perfectly fine. It's disappointing.
Nope. Never ok.
Those two examples are literally the same and neither is justified. And your claims about Europeans in WWII is bigotry and prejudice.
If it is, then why do you keep saying he should face extra scrutiny for having fought the allies?
Then perhaps you're not in a position to have such strong opinions about Ukrainians and their military actions in WWII. You said others shouldn't comment on Bose and India if they don't know the history, so maybe this is your sign to take your own advice.
So to say it's common knowledge that a Ukrainian fought against Russia, but in the next paragraph say you thought they all fought as one? Are you just confused or have I been wrong and you actually are a troll that's now trying to gaslight? That would certainly explain a lot.
Perhaps you only think the Indian freedom struggle is more widely known because it's your ethnic background and therefore you learned about and had an education focused on it. Every European is very aware of Ukraine's struggle against the Soviet Union and Russia.
If history and context matters and you don't know the history, why are you so confident your opinion is correct or valid?
That's the definition of prejudice.
Me too.
Why, when apparently you don't need to think you need to understand Ukrainian nationalism? Why should I, or anyone else, give India the consideration you refuse to give other nations?
The rest of your post remains circular. I'm not rehashing the same thing over and over. I made my point: it is not violence to voice the opinion that India should have a referendum and I'm not going in some back and forth about unrelated referendums that literally don't make sense as a concept.
I disagree with you vehemently regarding your views on this. I suspect if the topic wasn't India you'd also have a different opinion. I think, despite being unrelated to Hunka, the same problem exists in both: you're very biased when it comes to India and have a double standard. And I think that's terrible. I've lost a lot of respect for you based on the things you've said in this thread. It's very sad and I'm quite disappointed.
Give it a rest and give it up.
You just keep going on and on through the same circuit.
Your views do not pass the smell test here.
Last edited:
So much time trying to say that India isn't racist because the Caste system wasn't about race or that Hindu Nationalism isn't about race because he still thinks race is biological and only skin colour. So therefore k won't accept Hindu Nationalism is racist as is the Caste system.
History and context you admit you don't know.
No. Common sense is that they both face the same scrutiny. There is no reason not to give them the same scrutiny besides prejudice and bigotry.
I'm not conflating them. I'm saying your attitude in both cases demonstrates your bias, prejudice, and cognitive dissonance.
I have not called you racist. I've accused you of prejudice and bigotry in this case. Ukraine is not a different race and you have never implied that skin colour matters. If Hunka had been born in India and joined the SS with Bose and you still said Hunka deserved more scrutiny, then I would begin to suspect you actually are racist too, but you've never implied race was relevant yet.
Because you say you're open to understanding it, but then make no effort to learn about it and continue to say you're justified in treating India's independence movement and Ukraine's independence movement differently. If you say you're willing to do something but then demonstrate no willingness to do it, I discount your claims of willingness. As they say in Latin, "FACTA NON VERBA".
The same standard applies to both because anyone of any ethnic origin can be antisemitic. There is no "it's more likely" when it comes to judging and condemning people it you're not a bigot. Bose is not free from scrutiny just because he is Indian. Especially after it's been uncovered that he had made comments that are very questionable. In contrast, to date I've seen no one present a single consent from Hunka that is in any way questionable.
When there are two different people, one of whom is accused of saying, "I partly blame the Jews for my suffering," and the other who makes no comment about Jews at all, and you say, "I think the 2nd deserves more scrutiny because of his ethnic origin," then it is the definition of prejudice.
But you don't think it's common sense and fair to put Hunka's associations in perspective of knowing Ukraine's history and freedom struggle. You think he deserves "extra scrutiny" despite having no evidence other than his ethnicity to back that up.
You've made your opinion clear, I've made mine clear. We fundamentally disagree that someone's ethnic origin should be a consideration in anything. My view is the definition of equality and fairness, yours is the definition of prejudice and bigotry. You've clarified it enough to establish that. Unless you present some new argument that reframes your perspective, this is where the discussion ends for me.
They aren't the same thing and I didn't say they were the same thing.
They are just different movements based on racial supremacy.
Saying race doesn't apply to a country that's had multiple Hindu/Muslim riots is really quite ridiculous.
I say that both Hunka and Bose chose to fight in the Waffen SS, a unit so indoctrinated in racism and responsible for part of the most industrialized systematic slaughter the world has seen. The difference is Canada realized they screwed up by honouring Hunka while India is still proud of Bose.
Bose may have done some laudable things in your opinion but he also did some nasty things. It's like praising Mussolini because he made the trains run on time.
Racism includes religion. If you can prefer we can just call them all supremacists, but these days we say they are racial supremacists as 'race' can be religion.
Supremacism is the belief that a certain group of people is superior to all others.[1] The supposed superior people can be defined by age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, language, social class, ideology, nationality, culture, or belong to any other part of a particular population.
