quote:

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Great analysis. That is well researched sir. Did you know that India lost a lot of soldiers in the World War 1 & 2. The correct figure is unattainable because the stats record them as part of British colonial forces.

The complexity within your post is of course unfathomable.

Not dissimilar to European countries. UK was 4 countries and several smaller dutchies that were ruled by various war lords who fought each other. The same all over Europe.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
India before the brits arrived wasn’t a cohesive nation state but rather a fractured series of smaller kingdoms and states each of whom was happy to take over and subjugate adjacent states where it could.

That is exactly how the British east India company and later the British state was able to expand its control over what is now modern India, by allying with certain groups or local rulers against others.

The majority of soldiers in India under the command of the British were locally recruited Indians, and most conflicts involved not only British but also allied local soldiers.

Whilst parts of what is now India may have possessed knowledge greater than the invader India was a patchwork of warring and competing states, not a homogeneous utopia of civilisation, human rights, peace and learning. The divisions within society were exactly what the British were able to exploit to take over.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Fools. Or they were members of the small elite group that profited from it.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Great analysis. That is well researched sir. Did you know that India lost a lot of soldiers in the World War 1 & 2. The correct figure is unattainable because the stats record them as part of British colonial forces.

The complexity within your post is of course unfathomable.

Not dissimilar to European countries. UK was 4 countries and several smaller dutchies that were ruled by various war lords who fought each other. The same all over Europe.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
India before the brits arrived wasn’t a cohesive nation state but rather a fractured series of smaller kingdoms and states each of whom was happy to take over and subjugate adjacent states where it could.

That is exactly how the British east India company and later the British state was able to expand its control over what is now modern India, by allying with certain groups or local rulers against others.

The majority of soldiers in India under the command of the British were locally recruited Indians, and most conflicts involved not only British but also allied local soldiers.

Whilst parts of what is now India may have possessed knowledge greater than the invader India was a patchwork of warring and competing states, not a homogeneous utopia of civilisation, human rights, peace and learning. The divisions within society were exactly what the British were able to exploit to take over.

quote:

But if you had not found western values superior, you would have stayed in India

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Doc

Have started reading about Indian history yet?

Here are some tips.

1. Who was Vikramaditya? What caste was he?

He was roughly equivalent to an Indian King Arthur. He was a legend, with perhaps some historical figure he was based on.

He was noted to be extremely generous and gave extreme wealth to individuals who did something that impressed him.

The English King Arthur was famous for his martial prowess, his excellence in governance, and being a cuckold.

Vikramaditya was also a warrior, a excellent governor, and mostly noted for his generosity.

As for caste, all I saw was that he was originally a warrior. I suppose it depends on which legend you quote from though.
2. Who was Shivaji? What caste was he?
Shivaji was a historical King who made his bones fighting the Mughal empire. He also tried to use the English at times, and fought the english at times. Thus some mutual distrust between the two.

He never did conquer the EIC fortress manufactories, but then the English were never able to beat him either.

The Mughals didn't like him as they felt he was a coward who refused to fight "fair" and utilized guerrila tactics (successfully) and eventually became a feudal underling of the Mughals (off and on).

He is widely considered a founding hero of Indian independence.

As to his origins, some claimed he was of a family from a woodcutting village chief. He himself claimed he was a Warrior, although there was quite a bit of intrigue involved there.

3. Who was Kutbudin? What was his heritage?

Not sure I got the right fellow... Kutbuddin (or Huthbuddin) was a Mughal slave- general who rose to promenince in the Sultan's army. One of 3-4 slave-generals, the sultan at the end of his life trusted them more than his biological family and divided his empire up amongst the slave-generals.

I'm not sure if he's really more Indian or Pakistani as he's muslim, and from the northwest of the subcontinent.

He was a very successful general and leader and ably ran the portion of the Sultan's empire he acquired.
4. Who are the Sidhi community?
Trick question from a Colonialist perspective.

Sidhi (also Sindhi) are the Hindu and Sikh populace of the Sidhi area that was given to Pakistan on the nations being formed. The Sidhi are the ones that refused to join Pakistan and fled as refugees to India, where a number of Indians gave them land and area to form their own communities. A roughly like number of Muslims on the Indian side of the divide chose to flee to Pakistan.

As to "kings" none, really as India was by that time a separate nation. One was proclaimed a Nawab

Another option might be the Siddhi, who are a remnant of Blacks of Bantu descent who were brought there by the Arab slave trade (and some as a gift to a Mughal sultan by the Portuguese.

As they are in Pakistan, and muslim, I thought them a bit less likely to be who you meant. They did have some rather important Mughal leaders who came from this group.
5. How many kings were there in Indian history who were of Sidhi descent?

I hope this opens the clogged brain of yours.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

But if you had not found western values superior, you would have stayed in India

And there is the meat of this dissertation.... Naki had to flee the most modern and brilliant civilization ever created....or starve...and throw himself on the mercy and welfare of western civilization.....

Just wow.....

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas "Ty" Beaham:

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
"On my first trip there (Mozambique) a guy told me Communism was the best thing that ever happened to them".

This is quoted from another thread and judged as stupid foolish.

Here are some thoughts.

1. Why is that comment foolish? Well, from a Western capitalist perspective, it is ideologically opposed.
2. Why did people embrace socialism and communism in the 1920s to 1970s?

There is a lot of serious and well researched scholarships on post colonial politics. Most of it was / is not taught or published in most Western universities or media.

The first point to note is that post colonial capitalism was a trap designed to expand colonial control and influence without the cost and collateral risks of colonial conflict.

Capitalism from the West was not a charity or some benevolent boon from God to the poor tribal or feudal economies.

Colonialism was oppressive and exploitative. Capitalism in it's current oligarchic nature is worse.

The big pointer to the Mozambican situation is the history of Portuguese colonialism. It was not based on trade like English colonialism. Portuguese colonialism was based on appointing Feudal lords in the colonies who had little administrative infrastructure. The feudal lords then established virtual slavery on the local population. This happened in most Portuguese colonies. Brazil had 3 times or more slaves than the US.

Any wonder then about the "foolish" comment that Communism was better than colonial slavery?

By now I'm sure folks are thoroughly impressed with your BIG brain.

Your credentials, impeccable.

Your intellect, unsurpassable.

Your honesty, unquestionable.

But,

After Mozambiquan independence it wasn't Capitalism that replaced Colonialism.

It was Marxism.

Marxism is an economic and political theory that examines the flaws of capitalism, a type of society where private ownership of the means of production is the primary way people provide for themselves. Marxism is based on the work of German economist and philosopher Karl Marx, who believed that capitalism would eventually stagnate due to internal contradictions and be replaced by socialism.

Marxism in this case backed straight from Moscow.

Despite the influence of Islamic coastal traders and European colonizers, the people of Mozambique had largely retained an indigenous culture based on subsistence agriculture.

At this juncture 80% of Mozambiques tribal culture was based in subsistence farming.

When 200,000 Portuguese left after independence, they took most of Mozambique's technological and entrepreneurial talent.

In 1977, in step the Marxists, and their Communist collectivist agriculture.

Political leadership immediately embarked on replacing colonial mercantilism with Marxism. Private enterprises were nationalized, collective farms created, and centralized planning adopted

Yeah, most people can probably guess where this is heading, and, I'm sure Mr BIG brain isn't following along because, well, gee, why would he give a wiff about some peon's opinion...

But I digress.

Yep, the Marxist's (not Capitalists) brilliant moves led to starvation and death.

In fact Naki,

The relocation of several million people into collective farms and other communist experiments contributed to food shortages that caused 300-600,000 Mozambicans to starve to death. According to Human Rights Watch, hunger caused more deaths in Mozambique during 1975-1985 than the country's armed conflict. Hundreds of thousands fled from hunger and repressions. Existing research, although limited, confirms the claims by Human Rights Watch that both parties of the civil war were involved in numerous crimes against civilians.

So there you have it folks.

The Real Reason I referred to several Mozambiquans, who told me their personal lives were better under communism,

as fools.


.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
There you go again with personal attacks and digressing from the original post.

Answer the question - "What options did tribal nations have after colonialism?"

You currently live in a system of criminal oligarchy where corporate greed has corrupted all political spectrums. You have no options but to feed the greed and join it. Family based community is non-existent.

Look at it another way. What do you think of the MAGA crowd? Are they not fools? Why is communism any worse than the MAGO Trumpism that seems to have taken over the US? Answer the question please. I am holding my breath.

The bigoted and hateful posts here by some only confirms the ignorance and arrogance of a mindset that is a continuation of colonial values.

If you used your brains and common sense, you would do some honest research and try to understand history as it happened. Not really difficult to do. Spewing hate and calling me names is not going to help.

If you want some credibility, follow the example of the more objective people who have contributed to this debate and focus on the topic.

Bullies who gang up and seek affirmation from other bullies are the dregs of any society!

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:

Irrespective of your intent, ...

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
John Key did 3 terms as PM and was great. The US shareholder spat hes involved with has nothing to do with his abilities, The state of our country, or the topic... Which is an incredible irony.
The laughs you bring as you attempt to manoeuvre Naki, are gold. This thread is priceless! Im enjoying all the spelling mistakes too.

Being that your reply is off topic Naki, I grade it a B+ with points for comedy.

Back on topic. When you think about it, the nations that have done best post British at least,colonialism, are NZ, Australia, Canada, The US who escaped it first, Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia. What option did they take? They kept the status quo and an orderly move to nationhood with no uprising or power grab.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
I'm 100% for legal immigration, productive people that actually add to society!

Of course that's why we didn't let naki in......


.

While I think most of what Naki posts is ridiculous I have a question for him.

Didn't the fact that colonialism happened in his home country open up the opportunity to immigrate to another former colony? Seems like colonialism did have 'some' benefits?

If you ask Maori, Naki is a colonial. He used the crowns laws to immigrate and actually lives on land forcibly taken in one of the most vicious episodes of the time.
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/occu...ttlement-at-parihaka

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Can’t believe this thread is still going on.

Bottom line: The world was better off when the sun never set on the British Empire. The tribal nations and the world as a whole would be better off today had they accepted colonialism. The down fall of the world is when Great Britain lost it’s stomach for colonialism and the US went off the deep end trying to spread our form of Democracy.

We should have supported Rhodesia and we never should have pressured South Africa to change. Both would be better off today. The people would be better off today.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Can’t believe this thread is still going on.

Bottom line: The world was better off when the sun never set on the British Empire. The tribal nations and the world as a whole would be better off today had they accepted colonialism. The down fall of the world is when Great Britain lost it’s stomach for colonialism and the US went off the deep end trying to spread our form of Democracy.

We should have supported Rhodesia and we never should have pressured South Africa to change. Both would be better off today. The people would be better off today.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Can’t believe this thread is still going on.

Bottom line: The world was better off when the sun never set on the British Empire. The tribal nations and the world as a whole would be better off today had they accepted colonialism. The down fall of the world is when Great Britain lost it’s stomach for colonialism and the US went off the deep end trying to spread our form of Democracy.

We should have supported Rhodesia and we never should have pressured South Africa to change. Both would be better off today. The people would be better off today.

King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa https://a.co/d/4WrdEz5

Weeeeeeell, Colonialism doesn't work out for everyone all the time.

I'm not against a Monarchy, every single resident of the Middle East being the easy example. Apparently the Saudis and the Emirates like it, more power to em.

Sort of an interesting point that monarchies survive and thrive only with the acceptance of the "ruled". America no longer accepted Rule and that was that. Zimbabwe the same.

Maybe the burden is on the Ruler to appease the Ruled.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Can’t believe this thread is still going on.

Bottom line: The world was better off when the sun never set on the British Empire. The tribal nations and the world as a whole would be better off today had they accepted colonialism. The down fall of the world is when Great Britain lost it’s stomach for colonialism and the US went off the deep end trying to spread our form of Democracy.

We should have supported Rhodesia and we never should have pressured South Africa to change. Both would be better off today. The people would be better off today.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
A very good thread on Rhodesia’s story.

I encourage all to read this thread in entirety.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Could you please refer us to some peer reviewed credible research.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Could you please refer us to some peer reviewed credible research.

Twitter will not open on my PC today & I have no time to process the right wing BS.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
A very good thread on Rhodesia’s story.

I encourage all to read this thread in entirety.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Could you please refer us to some peer reviewed credible research.

Twitter will not open on my PC today & I have no time to process the right wing BS.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
A very good thread on Rhodesia’s story.

I encourage all to read this thread in entirety.

That was sent to me by a Zimbabwean friend who was in Smith’s government as an accurate assessment — a good “peer” review.

quote:

Legendary Māori novelist Alan Duff believes social welfare is “robbing” tangata whenua of self-dignity and enabling a victim mentality that perpetuates the cycle of poverty.

Duff, best known as the author of 1990 classic Once Were Warriors, which centred on a Māori whānau living in material hardship, says there isn’t enough emphasis placed on the importance of education in freeing people from the shackles of poverty.

In the latest episode of Newstalk ZB’s Real Life with John Cowan, the author said some of his fellow Māori feel entitled to the benefit because they’re “fixed in their thinking that they’re never going to go anywhere and it [poverty] is generational”.


“The entire victim mentality is in-written with its own doom, because it says somebody else is responsible for me, for the state or the condition I’m in,” he said.

“Therefore, until whoever I am laying the blame on comes along and fixes it, I will forever remain the victim, instead of just saying there’s got to be another way.”

Duff believes social welfare policy in Aotearoa – particularly that of Helen Clark’s Labour government, which in 2004 introduced the Working For Families package – is responsible.

“They all feel entitled and it robs them of any self-dignity because they then have to justify that they’re uneducated or whatever and entitled to the unemployment [benefit],” he said.

“I said years and years ago that Helen Clark’s government – and I had a lot of time for Helen as a person – were destroying us… Apirana Ngata said a hundred years ago that if you give us [Māori] welfare, you’ll kill us. They went ahead, and that’s what they did.”

Māori are over-represented in New Zealand’s welfare system, making up 36% of benefit recipients despite being just 15% of the total population, according to 2022 figures from the Government’s Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG).

While Duff’s novel Once Were Warriors and its film version received critical acclaim when they were released, they were also criticised for leaning on unflattering stereotypes of Māori.

Duff admits he still doesn’t know if that critique is fair or not, but says he loves being Māori and is grateful for that aspect of his identity. However, he bristles at “cultural Taliban-like Māori” who try to dictate what it means to be Māori.

“I’ll effing well decide that for myself,” he told Cowan. “If you don’t tick the boxes, then they don’t consider you one of them. How dare they?”

Duff believes the key for Māori experiencing hardship lies not in receiving welfare assistance but in education, which he says is “the enemy of poverty”. His solution back in 1994 was to launch Duffy Books in Homes, a programme designed to “break the cycle of booklessness in NZ homes”.

The initiative celebrated its 30-year anniversary on Monday, and Duff says it’s had a massive impact, with well over 14 million books being gifted to young children across the country in its history.

He said there are “countless stories” of how it’s changed the course of people’s lives.

“I had dinner with [Sole Mio] a couple of years ago. It was just the most emotional time.

“We were all a bit tearful because they said it was Duffy Books that had inspired them and made them realise there’s a bigger world out there and [question] why should they grow up to work in a factory or something when they knew they could all sing.

“The original school that we started the programme in, they had no university graduates, nobody with a tertiary education – zero. And then we were using graduates from university and from the teacher’s training college to go back to that school as role models. So it has made a difference.”

Duff says the books given out are brand-new – a crucial element because so many of the recipients are used to receiving items second or third-hand – and the kids get to choose which one they want and put their own name inside it.

Even so, he recognises reading alone doesn’t address all the issues the kids face.

“The message that we give the kids on the Duffy Books program is that it’s cool to aspire, it’s cool to read, and all these positive things. [But] it’s cool to love, because children need, before anything else, to be loved and encouraged and not hit, not put down, not discouraged.

“You’ve got a little potential sitting there… that life needs to be nourished. It’s not nourished if you’re going to be violent or verbally abusive.”

Real Life is a weekly interview show where John Cowan speaks with prominent guests about their life, upbringing, and the way they see the world. Tune in Sundays from 7.30pm on Newstalk ZB or listen to the latest full interview here.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I got to meet Ian before he died. He was loved by all in Zimbabwe and allowed to live in peace there until he died.

He was a fine gentleman and hero of WWII. His book “The Great Betrayal” is also a must read.

Ian Smith is one of the men of history that I really look up to. He was truly a great man.

quote:

ledvm:
A very good thread on Rhodesia’s story.

I encourage all to read this thread in entirety.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Ian Smith was treasonous war criminal. He was responsible for the torture and the war that destroyed millions of lives among Zimbabweans.

He was a totalitarian tyrant who was against the freedom of citizens and a bigoted racist who wanted to preserve white supremacy.

History will remember him as the short sighted tyrant who failed to do his job of ruling the country for the benefit of all people.

If he had lead Zimbabwe to self rule in the 60s like all the other British colonies (Kenya, Nigeria etc.), Zimbabwe would be a leading economy in Africa today. Mugabe and the communists could have been sidelined and a moderate coalition would have taken over.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I got to meet Ian before he died. He was loved by all in Zimbabwe and allowed to live in peace there until he died.

He was a fine gentleman and hero of WWII. His book “The Great Betrayal” is also a must read.

Ian Smith is one of the men of history that I really look up to. He was truly a great man.