India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 26 Jun 2011 17:46

Re Peter Burleigh ^^^: His sexual orientation does NOT matter. What does matter is his influence within the SD and with the WH. Don't underestimate the power of this lobby. He is a medium to get a our message through to the US media. Rachel and others will suddenly become very +ive on the India story and ask openly whether Islamic countries would have permitted this.

It is a huge opportunity to leverage and extol the virtues of Indian 'pluralism', 'tolerance' etc. Good PR that money can't buy.

JMT

jiteshn · Post by **jiteshn** » 26 Jun 2011 17:59

@Cosmo_R
It was an interesting bit of info i wanted to share; that was about it. Sexual orientation and diplomacy are two different things.

It appears that ombaba is trying to wrap up things from this part of the world.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 26 Jun 2011 18:04

CRamS wrote: So much importance for this gay business when there are more pressing priorities.

Let us see. In just one page you have indulged in stereotypying of Hispanics/blacks, then made racial remarks about white americans, and now you are disparaging gay rights.

Anything else?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 26 Jun 2011 18:18

jiteshn wrote:Peter Burleigh is the rumoured to be the next US ambassador to India but pending Senate confirmation
He is the first US Ambassador to be fluent in Hindi

He is also one of the first open gay members of the US diplomatic corps

I belong to a group, who believes in "Don't Show, Don't See, Gay is Okay with Me"! Okay, I made it up just now!

Anyway, treatment of gays is something with which Westerners somehow judge how far up on civilizational scale a country is. Considering how many gay people are there in the media and in influential positions, and they always stick together, in a figurative sense I mean, it is indeed very positive that Peter Burleigh is being sent to India.

Considering that he looks at India in friendly terms, his access to influential circles in USA, including the media, can pay India much dividends. Also considering that the election cycle has already started in USA, gay issues become more prominent and all kind of gays and gay supporters come out of the woodwork. This could give Peter Burleigh even more influence with the Obama campaign and with the Obama Presidency.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 26 Jun 2011 21:57

chetak wrote: Would they have dared to do this to any islamic country??

Another way of looking at it is that it is a vote of confidence of the Indian pluralism. Wasn't a law passed in India decriminalizing LGBT recently? This is could be a recognition of that fact. If he is good for India, what matter his esxual orientation?

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 26 Jun 2011 22:36

GuruPrabhu wrote:Let us see. In just one page you have indulged in stereotypying of Hispanics/blacks, then made racial remarks about white americans, and now you are disparaging gay rights.

Anything else?

Boss, I am staright-talking guy, I don't disparage anybody miodlesssly, just stating facts. I did not stereotype blacks/hispanics, thats what you hear on US media. I did not steroyype Hindus with caste BS ad nauseum, thats what the US media does. And on my remark on O so poor "oppressed wite Americans", I am sure they can dimiss any finger pointed at them like I did with contempt and disdain; and then give a few more F-solas to TSP so they can put me and my SDRE compatriots on a tight leash. SDREs like me don't have the luxury of doing anything in return, we can only blow hot air with impotent rage which you consider "racist". Don't make me laugh.

On gays, all I said was that I respect Peter Bulreigh or Rachel Maddow to enjoy their kinky pleasures in the privacy of their homes, I don't want them focusing exclusively on that while he in Delhi to the exclusion of many, many, many more important issues that plauge India US relations. For example, just as so called "Hindu extremism" is equated with TSP LeT, I don't want Talibanization in TSP equated with some gay discrimination occurance in India and this Peter dude and his media friends like Rachel Maddow in US do an equal equal. And you know India TSP equal equal is at the core of US consciouscness when it comes to "South Asia".

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 26 Jun 2011 23:45

CRamS wrote: On gays, all I said was that I respect Peter Bulreigh or Rachel Maddow to enjoy their kinky pleasures in the privacy of their homes ...

Hmm. This is the clarification? First rule of holes is to stop digging. Anyway, OT here so no more from me.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 26 Jun 2011 23:50

RajeshA wrote:
Anyway, treatment of gays is something with which Westerners somehow judge how far up on civilizational scale a country is. Considering how many gay people are there in the media and in influential positions, and they always stick together, in a figurative sense I mean, it is indeed very positive that Peter Burleigh is being sent to India.

This is about rebel ing against the Church and moral values of the church. That determines the degree of liberal values in the western country.

Gay movement has been created an image and they have tried to connect with Indian culture to show that India is an immoral country from a western sense. Hence this news linking with Gay should be taken with salt.
Similar news image of "new age" crazy people or "heathens/pagan" culture are of similar kind

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 27 Jun 2011 00:01

Gays are the latest weapon to break the back of the EJ movement in the US, so we should welcome it.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 27 Jun 2011 00:03

UBanerjee wrote:Gays are the latest weapon to break the back of the EJ movement in the US, so we should welcome it.

It is a socially engineered movement designed for western society and Indians should not copy that even though some fringe elements of Indian leftist try to copy that.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 27 Jun 2011 00:14

UBanerjee wrote:Gays are the latest weapon to break the back of the EJ movement in the US, so we should welcome it.

Don't be so sure. The only determining factor in US policts is RACE. And given that 99.99% of those leading this gay movement, gay acceptance, gay marriage are whites, both men & women, pretty soon mainstream Chruch will find some way to accept that but for fringe elements. I mean there are so many lifestyle preferences and congenital practices that people of all races and ethnicities have; they don't demand nor get mainstream acceptance; just tolerance for the most part, but gays its a different matter).

Plus, remember there are many, many gays who are devout Christians. Recall, former NJ governer James McGreevey is now an Episcoplinain priest. Even Faux news, Nazis they are when it comes it people of color, dare not criticize or have anything overtly negative about gays. Thats the amazing virtue of US: white Christian nationalism which binds them them like glue from Portnald to Maine, from Montana to Florida.

So when it comes to US India relations, as RajesJi pointed out, mainstream gay acceptance is the norm of civilizational evolution, and so with this Peter dude as US ambassador and his media buddies/gals like Rachel Maddow, my fear is that everything in India will be looked at from this angle; especially equal equal between Indian intolerance towards gays (which exists, lets not kid ourselves) and TSP talibanization. India TSP equal equal onlee.

raajneesh · Post by **raajneesh** » 27 Jun 2011 01:22

CRamS, very well said.

I would add one point - Most Christians in USA are fundamentalist and consider themselves as 'proud white people'. And, beautiful thing is, they don't consider this as shameful or racial. However, they don't miss pointing out castes and races in Asian countries, calling them backward and consistenly try to mock others to score political goals(gaining popularity amongst public of that country, while weakening its local Government).

We Indians, consider it disrespectful to show other countries/cultures down, or even talk bad about other cultures, pock noses into them. This is not so with Americans. They play it ruthless and merciless, with no rules.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 27 Jun 2011 01:49

CRamS wrote:
UBanerjee wrote:Gays are the latest weapon to break the back of the EJ movement in the US, so we should welcome it.
Don't be so sure. The only determining factor in US policts is RACE.

I disagree, strongly. It is as simplistic and foolish as saying all Indian politics is determined by caste.

CRamS wrote: And given that 99.99% of those leading this gay movement, gay acceptance, gay marriage are whites, both men & women, pretty soon mainstream Chruch will find some way to accept that but for fringe elements.

This sounds more like your fears than what is actually happening and what I am observing.

CRamS wrote: I mean there are so many lifestyle preferences and congenital practices that people of all races and ethnicities have; they don't demand nor get mainstream acceptance; just tolerance for the most part, but gays its a different matter).

Plus, remember there are many, many gays who are devout Christians. Recall, former NJ governer James McGreevey is now an Episcoplinain priest. Even Faux news, Nazis they are when it comes it people of color, dare not criticize or have anything overtly negative about gays. Thats the amazing virtue of US: white Christian nationalism which binds them them like glue from Portnald to Maine, from Montana to Florida.

So when it comes to US India relations, as RajesJi pointed out, mainstream gay acceptance is the norm of civilizational evolution, and so with this Peter dude as US ambassador and his media buddies/gals like Rachel Maddow, my fear is that everything in India will be looked at from this angle; especially equal equal between Indian intolerance towards gays (which exists, lets not kid ourselves) and TSP talibanization. India TSP equal equal onlee.

It is difficult to have a conversation when you are so convinced about your particular racial hobbyhorse. I will just point out that within 40-50 years, whites will be a minority in the US, so really, chill out and enjoy the ride. Politics directed towards older white voters (the current Republican party) has a very limited shelf life with massive influxes of brown voters added to the existing brown and black and yellow voters. The Tea Party is like the last gasp of this increasingly marginalized population.

And yes, the gay movement is fundamentally incompatible with the EJ style Christianity. It is a real culture war, not a facade- ultimately EJ style is about controlling people's behavior after all. It is only compatible with the pluralistic, defanged Unitarian style movements. Your statements about Fox are actually just wrong, they have as much homophobia as racism in their programmings.

raajneesh · Post by **raajneesh** » 27 Jun 2011 06:59

@UBanerjee, I don't think anyone is criticizing USA or showing them in bad light here, its just that depictions are very close to reality.

However, comparing caste system in India with fundamentalist Church system(where others' religious holybook is burnt in a Church) of USA, sounds too much. India and USA are nowhere comparable. One is a majority white country(with a deep sense of arrogance over their superiority over their own neighbours in particular & world in general), and another is a culturally diverse civilization with very complex history.

Also, first Constitution of USA was inspired from Bible and it still derives a lot from it. This is not the case with Indian system. Here, people are not arrested because they stout beard or appear middle-eastern. Media image of "secular USA" is a sham. It doesn't exist.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 27 Jun 2011 08:32

raajneesh wrote:
Also, first Constitution of USA was inspired from Bible and it still derives a lot from it. This is not the case with Indian system. Here, people are not arrested because they stout beard or appear middle-eastern. Media image of "secular USA" is a sham. It doesn't exist.

The American Constitution has nothing, Absolutely nothing to do with the Bible. The Bible was not even used as a remote inspiration for the constiutution. Sheesh!

The US constitution is derived from John Locke's "second treatise of civil governments". John Locke was the political philosopher who initially coined the term "Life, Liberty and the right to property". It was Jefferson who in his genius made the change to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The bill of Rights was inspired from Thomas Paine's "The Rights of Man". These political philosophies and others from the likes of John Stewart Mill,,,and prior to that goes all the way back to Aristotle and Plato. This is the true western contribution to man. Not the middle eastern alleged "revelations" and the Bible. Albeit they did have a big impact on the west.. many are not for the better, and it certainly did not have anything to contribute to the American constitution or Bill of Rights. In fact the "Divine rights of Kings" that was abolished by the American revolution, declaration of independence, and the eventual constitution was the rejection of that Biblcal inspired "Divine rights of Kings".

You can read Thomas Paine's "The Common Sense" which was the pamphlet that lit the fire of the American revolution articulating precisely why divine rights was evil and that only Man can rule themselves with consent of the governed. You can also read his "Age of Reason" and what this father of the American revolution had to say on the Bible and religion in general.

An excerpt.

Quote

“EVERY national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.

Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by God to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some observations on the word ‘revelation.’ Revelation when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.”

"

end Quote.

BTW..what is the first constitution? Is this different from the second one? When did the second one come to be?

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 27 Jun 2011 08:57

Manny:

Boss, cut the crap. Lets not nit pick on constutional nuances. Do you deny that as it is today, in practice, in the conduct of domestic policies, especially foreign policy, USA is a white western Christian nationalist country? (And BTW, I have absolutely no issue with this. Its got a soul unlike India where there is some rudderless pseudo secularisy mumbo jumbo). Of course, I agree that pragmatism is USA's hallmark when it comes to day to day life, rule of law, rational approach to problems etc.This is what makes US a united and super successful country.

Enough said. All this started when I cautioned against excessive euphorial on this Peter dude's appointment as US ambassador to India just because he is some kind of an Indo-phile. His personal predilections may have a bearing on USA's hectoring of India on gay rights and the like and equating that with TSP extremism.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 27 Jun 2011 09:26

Perhaps good ol' Peter can join up on "Koffee with Karan" and have a gay time?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Jun 2011 09:33

Mort Walker wrote:Perhaps good ol' Peter can join up on "Koffee with Karan" and have a gay time?

There should be a BRF Lokpal against bad jokes. Cant trust mods to do that, since they are hand in glove with the bad joke making too....

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 27 Jun 2011 09:52

raajneesh wrote:@UBanerjee, I don't think anyone is criticizing USA or showing them in bad light here, its just that depictions are very close to reality.

That's not what my post is about, I just have the opinion that CRamS posted a fairly one-dimensional idea of how the USA works. It seems more of

than anything which will be useful to shape Indo-US relations.

raajneesh wrote: However, comparing caste system in India with fundamentalist Church system(where others' religious holybook is burnt in a Church) of USA, sounds too much.

Once again, that is not what I was comparing. I'm merely saying that US politics is a lot more complicated than race, just as Indian politics is a lot more complicated than caste. Incorrect analysis leads to incorrect actions.

BTW, less than half the babies born last year in the US were white- and that's not including immigration of course. Watch this space.

raajneesh · Post by **raajneesh** » 27 Jun 2011 10:34

@Manny,

matter of a nation's history is matter of a political correction over a period, specially during founding decades. This is true in every nation. Even in India, you will find that Congress party has tried to cover up many things about founding father(you know what I mean), but that didn't succeed due to new-age media revolutions of later half 20th Century.

When you say that USA constitution wasn't based on Bible, you are politically correct but that's not truth. That's not how american history has been. For example, Jefferson himself kept slaves, while he was proponent of demolition of slavery.

There is more negative stuff in American history than any other country. That's natural because 2.5 centuries back, it was a far more Wild west and slavery was very common. Women were seen in negative ways. Only difference is, others came later, while americans cleaned up their acts(and books). There is a born-early, come-first advantage here which USA reaped by denouncing(cleaning up) its figures/history/faces a century earlier, before modern media came into existence. Just like any other country would-do/has-done with less success, since most of them were born when media had opened very much. British took similar advantage like americans and cleaned up a huge history records of plunder, loot, rapes of its Colonies and succeeded in cleaning up its face in a major way, though not completely. No wonder then, few people who believe that British rule was a Golden rule for India and it was a mistake to kick them out, are those who were born in Independent India and haven't lived in slavery.

After 100 years, I am sure there will be Indian chatters online who will get enraged if they found someone speaking up something uncomfortable about their "legends" about whom they learnt from textbooks(refined over centuries). Who knows, they will regard Sonia Gandhi as some kind of Messiah, for envisioning schemes like NREGA which had collossal effects in lifting up millions of Indian poor from 2010 to 2040 periods and she would be regarded as a visionary from history, a role model for them.

The problem is the american belief of believing the founders were moralistic super-men & Constitution made 2.5 centuries back was perfect and had no Bible influences(when people were extreme-religious and slave-culture was common), the myth has turned into legend and this legend is confusing everyone.

The same will happen centuries from now, our desendents will probably believe Goerge Bush junior or Tony Blair were the founders of some moralistic paradise and on forums like this is whatever technopunk 3d world they are on. The arguments will rage.

Myths and legends are always insane, a simple man with weird beliefs can through time, be made into a God.

By the way, one more gem for you - There were many guys before Wright brothers who actually MADE and tried to fly their own planes. One of the most successful was a German Gustave Whitehead. He made flight TWO years before Wright brothers. However, local authorities "covered up" his claims. Read fully.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Whitehead

Whitehead's work remained almost completely unknown to the public and aeronautical community until a 1935 article in Popular Aviation magazine co-authored by Stella Randolph, an aspiring writer, and aviation history buff Harvey Phillips.[6] Randolph expanded the article into a book, "Lost Flights of Gustave Whitehead," published in 1937. Randolph sought out people who had known Whitehead and had seen his flying machines and engines. She obtained 16 affidavits from 14 people and included the text of their statements in the book. Four people said they did not see flights, while the others said they saw flights of various types, ranging from a few dozen to hundreds of feet to more than a mile.

Harvard University economics professor John B. Crane wrote an article published in National Aeronautic Magazine in December 1936, disputing claims and reports that Whitehead flew. The following year, after further research, Crane adopted a different tone. He told reporters, "There are several people still living in Bridgeport who testified to me under oath they had seen Whitehead make flights along the streets of Bridgeport in the early 1900s."[16] Crane repeated Harworth's claim of having witnessed a 1½ mile airplane flight made by Whitehead on August 14, 1901.[16] He suggested a Congressional investigation to consider the claims.[16] In 1949 Crane published a new article in Air Affairs magazine that supported claims that Whitehead flew.[17]

In 1963 William O'Dwyer, a reserve U.S. Air Force major, accidentally discovered photographs of a 1910 Whitehead "Large Albatross"-type biplane aircraft shown at rest on the ground, the collection found in the attic of a Connecticut house. He then devoted himself to researching Whitehead and became convinced he had made powered flights before the Wright brothers. O'Dwyer contributed to a second book by Stella Randolph, The Story of Gustave Whitehead, Before the Wrights Flew, published in 1966. They co-authored another book, History by Contract, published in 1978, which criticized the Smithsonian Institution for inadequately investigating claims that Whitehead flew.

In 1968, Connecticut officially recognized Whitehead as "Father of Connecticut Aviation".[18] Seventeen years later, the North Carolina General Assembly passed a resolution which repudiated the Connecticut statement and gave "no credence" to the assertion that Whitehead was first to fly, citing "leading aviation historians and the world's largest aviation museum" who determined there was "no historic fact, documentation, record or research to support the claim".

Now its funny isn't it, that a local governing assembly of USA, had to pass a law to save American pride(Wright brothers)? So much for great America and their virtues to mankind.

anjan · Post by **anjan** » 27 Jun 2011 10:42

Acharya wrote: Gay movement has been created an image and they have tried to connect with Indian culture to show that India is an immoral country from a western sense. Hence this news linking with Gay should be taken with salt.
Similar news image of "new age" crazy people or "heathens/pagan" culture are of similar kind

We should be worying about our "image" in the western world while determining how we act?

Acharya wrote:
UBanerjee wrote:Gays are the latest weapon to break the back of the EJ movement in the US, so we should welcome it.
It is a socially engineered movement designed for western society and Indians should not copy that even though some fringe elements of Indian leftist try to copy that.

Odd. For someone apparently so against the loony EJs you do a very good job of imitating them. Seems to me a lot of homophobia is primarily a vestige of the imprint of Victorian morality.

Who cares what his orientation is if he can do his job fine. Anyway veering truly OT here.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 27 Jun 2011 10:46

raajneesh wrote: There is more negative stuff in American history than any other country.

Eh, that's not true. We can easily look at Russia, "Great" Britain, Spain, the Golden Horde, Japan, Germany and the Caliphate to see there is plenty of company.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 27 Jun 2011 11:05

On the issue of whether Peter Burleigh is an "Indophile" or not, actually that isnt a question at all...Cant think of a single US ambassador who was NOT favourably inclined towards India...People like John Galbraith and Pat Moynihan were not just indophiles, but heavyweight intellectual policy makers as well...The Ambassador does not make policy (in most parts)..Policy is made by the establishments back home, and driven by perception of national interests...So really, beyond a point it really matters little...

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Jun 2011 13:49

The big Q is whether Peter B has been chosen because of his wide, personal experience of this part of the globe ,which will provide the State Dept. with insightful reports of India's stand on many issues including Indo-US relations,so that it can understand the Indian viewpoint better,especially its security concerns and work out a suitable "architecture" for Indo-US diplomacy to flourish,or whether Peter has been chosen as a "smooth operator",familiar with the psyche of the political classes ,bureaucracy and corporate world of the sub-continent,so that he can bend,armtwist,grease,oil,stroke,massage,and manipulate Indian minds ,so that its interests change shape thanks to the Potter's...sorry,Peter's hand,and transform themselves into serving US interests first! There is a huge difference between the two.Peter B is Uncle Sam's "India-rubber man".We now have to see whether he will be remembered as a man who accurately presented India's interests to his country for favour,or curried favour with the Indian establishment to make them serve Uncle Sam's interests first!

The fact that he bats "differently" is of little consequence.Different strokes for different folks what?!

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 27 Jun 2011 17:46

UBanerjee wrote:
raajneesh wrote:@UBanerjee, I don't think anyone is criticizing USA or showing them in bad light here, its just that depictions are very close to reality.
That's not what my post is about, I just have the opinion that CRamS posted a fairly one-dimensional idea of how the USA works. It seems more of than anything which will be useful to shape Indo-US relations.

raajneesh wrote: However, comparing caste system in India with fundamentalist Church system(where others' religious holybook is burnt in a Church) of USA, sounds too much.
Once again, that is not what I was comparing. I'm merely saying that US politics is a lot more complicated than race, just as Indian politics is a lot more complicated than caste. Incorrect analysis leads to incorrect actions.

BTW, less than half the babies born last year in the US were white- and that's not including immigration of course. Watch this space.

+1. But we are up against 'vast knowledge', 'plain speaking' etc.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 27 Jun 2011 18:56

CRamS wrote:Don't be so sure. The only determining factor in US policts is RACE. .

Come on CRS - you keep harping on this single point but repetition does not make it true. US politics, as in other parts of the world, is all local. I live in Atlanta, where African-American people control every major political position in the area. Similarly in LA, Mexican origin people dominate. Given that the US is majority white - it is no surprise that a majority of national offices are also held by White politicians. Your posts make the US look like British India or Apartheid South Africa. Just use some perspective please.

As far as gay rights go, it is not surprising that economically advanced societies (i.e. "white" lands in your view) are the ones leading on the liberal trend. As India advances more and more, expect similar efforts, just like we have seen an increase in live-in relationships, divorces, etc. among the upper income, former middle class types in the recent past.

There is nothing sinister here and this cannot be compared to the mass evangelization efforts by US-based Christian groups in Andhra, TN etc.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Jun 2011 19:10

Rangudu wrote:As India advances more and more, expect similar efforts, just like we have seen an increase in live-in relationships, divorces, etc. among the upper income, former middle class types in the recent past.

Everything aside I hope Bharat Rakshaks could come up with a little more foresight and world view for Indian future after further economic growth than me a silly pale "me too" version of the west. (Its triggered by the post but not restricted to it)

I will quite happily go to nearest church and be bapitized and run for the president of US (in India) if this is all that we can come up with.

===========

For the record, NO I do NOT think that particularly western fascinations will be our guiding light in future or now. The soft power of US and the culture it spreads, should be distinctly on the wane in next 20 years.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 27 Jun 2011 20:38

>>I would add one point - Most Christians in USA are fundamentalist and consider themselves as 'proud white people'.

What is the basis of this claim? Personal observation or is there some survey or something like that?

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 27 Jun 2011 20:41

Sanku,

Do please READ what I've posted. I've said two things:

(a) With more affluence spreading in Indian urban middle class, it is inevitable that previously taboo moral lines will be crossed. You and I may not like it, but it is hard to stop. The good news is that this trend is limited to a miniscule (but growing) segment of Indians, regardless of the publicity this may generate

(b) Efforts to spread liberal Western views, e.g. Gay rights etc. should be distinguished from Western-funded proselytization of Indian masses. This is a threat to India and unlike the above, this is NOT inevitable as long as some actions are taken.

Collating and confusing all Western-origin influences as "white man's culture" etc. is both pathetic and dangerous.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Jun 2011 20:45

JEM, In South which is on the rise after WWII, the majority are Baptists and they have the most vocal voice. Just a data point. After WWII, the motto "In God We Trust" was made official.
---

Also gay rights, feminst discourse all are protest movements agaisnt J-C traditions.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 27 Jun 2011 20:49

anjan wrote:Gays are the latest weapon to break the back of the EJ movement in the US, so we should welcome it.
It is a socially engineered movement designed for western society and Indians should not copy that even though some fringe elements of Indian leftist try to copy that.
--------
Odd. For someone apparently so against the loony EJs you do a very good job of imitating them. Seems to me a lot of homophobia is primarily a vestige of the imprint of Victorian morality.

Who cares what his orientation is if he can do his job fine. Anyway veering truly OT here.

What is your point. I dont get it.
Indians in India dont have to get involved in other countries politics. Internal politics of other countries dont matter inside India. India is a Hindu country with its long history of traditions. Why bring the debates of the west inside India. What is the reason for the leftist to bring western dialectic debates inside India.

What is wrong in opposing loony EJs in India. Why bring western religious debates inside India.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 27 Jun 2011 20:51

For some of you Same-sex love in India: readings from literature and history By Ruth Vanita, Saleem Kidwai

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 27 Jun 2011 20:55

ramana wrote:JEM, In South which is on the rise after WWII, the majority are Baptists and they have the most vocal voice. Just a data point. After WWII, the motto "In God We Trust" was made official.

Ramana - the question is not whether the US has a more Christian (Protestant/Evangelical) identity than the nominally Christian European countries. The answer is an obvious yes. But to say that most US policies, especially foreign related, are permeated with a "We are Christian, We are White" mentality is just as poor a stereotype as to say that India=Caste etc.

Using crass stereotypes for every topic under the sun undermines the quality of discussion and stunts the development of conclusions.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 27 Jun 2011 20:59

Rangudu wrote:
Collating and confusing all Western-origin influences as "white man's culture" etc. is both pathetic and dangerous.

This may be necessary to defend India.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Jun 2011 21:03

Can't we see from when people drive out of churches, largely they belong one particular sect or caste, in addition color and race... from euro white cheese to american cheddar, brown ale hispanics to black stout khans, and the asiatic variety adds all the flavor and color.

There is nothing like anyone can go any church they want.. at least I have not heard that so. America is highly segregated society... only the commerce brings them together.

raajneesh · Post by **raajneesh** » 27 Jun 2011 21:04

UBanerjee wrote:Eh, that's not true. We can easily look at Russia, "Great" Britain, Spain, the Golden Horde, Japan, Germany and the Caliphate to see there is plenty of company.

I haven't excluded any country. In fact, I gave example of India too. Only difference is, USA came far earlier and had longer time to cover-up/clean-up its acts/faces from history.

One more gem for you - 40 years from now, our future generations will regard and worship Henry Kissinger/Christine-Fair as a Messiah's and peace heros. While we at BRF know this is not the truth. But you can't prove that because you don't write/control history.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 27 Jun 2011 21:06

Rangudu wrote:As India advances more and more, expect similar efforts, just like we have seen an increase in live-in relationships, divorces, etc. among the upper income, former middle class types in the recent past.

Advancement has nothing to do with such things. This is all bull crap

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 27 Jun 2011 21:07

JEM, UBannerjee, Rangudu,

you guys seriously underestimate the fervor of fundamentalist Christian assertiveness in America. "in your face" attitude of christian conservatism is very active. back in the day, I lived in Kentucky and went to high school there and I assure you, if you happen to be a brown guy, especially a Hindu, there are certain lines you don't cross. you don't dare get into any debates that veer into "religious" territory, b/c you risk being ridiculed ruthlessly as a pagan. I've personally witnessed some "debates" like that between friends, and was amazed to hear the white guy basically say something on the lines of "you are a heathen." the SDRE that was arguing was shocked that his "friend" would go to such levels. after that, he stopped arguing and I got the feeling that exchange shocked and "hurt" him more than he ever thought possible.

during GWB's hey-day immediately after 9/11, it was a crazed atmosphere in that part of the country. up until Iraq started going off the rocker, anybody who spoke against GWB, "conservatives," or Republican policies was met with hostile treatment. It was personally shocking for me to witness this behavior in a high school....the idea of teenagers being so *serious* was outright new to me. needless to say, it changed my own thinking.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 27 Jun 2011 21:18

Acharya wrote:
UBanerjee wrote:Gays are the latest weapon to break the back of the EJ movement in the US, so we should welcome it.
It is a socially engineered movement designed for western society and Indians should not copy that even though some fringe elements of Indian leftist try to copy that.

It is a non issue for India-US strategic relations.

raajneesh · Post by **raajneesh** » 27 Jun 2011 21:23

devesh wrote:JEM, UBannerjee, Rangudu,

you guys seriously underestimate the fervor of fundamentalist Christian assertiveness in America. "in your face" attitude of christian conservatism is very active. back in the day, I lived in Kentucky and went to high school there and I assure you, if you happen to be a brown guy, especially a Hindu, there are certain lines you don't cross. you don't dare get into any debates that veer into "religious" territory, b/c you risk being ridiculed ruthlessly as a pagan. I've personally witnessed some "debates" like that between friends, and was amazed to hear the white guy basically say something on the lines of "you are a heathen." the SDRE that was arguing was shocked that his "friend" would go to such levels. after that, he stopped arguing and I got the feeling that exchange shocked and "hurt" him more than he ever thought possible.

+1.

I am glad that you are brave enough to say the way it is. We Indians are quite week, at speaking tit as tit. I have seen this often, during interactions with foreigners from US, UK. They are quite arrogant and reckless. Its pathetic actually that we endorse such attitude, under the name of their "graceful history". I often wonder what was graceful about colonial period? Well, its typical version of our dhimmi-ness(don't speak loudly or argue) I guess. We have this pseudo-Dharmic attitude of not confronting others and being soft.

A few months back, I saw Goswami arguing with Christine Fair on news channel and he was quite speechless at her arrogance and apathy towards lives lost in 26/11.

On other note, why I am getting feeling that people are overreacting here over remarks on US history? Is it my country? Hain jee? I thought this forum is for Indians.