You seem to have a great deal trouble in remembering what you wrote. On top of that you lie - for you have not provided any explanation about where the goat you found tone of superiority etc.KrishnaK wrote: You have trouble understanding what you write. I'm not fudging anything, but accepting openly and then providing an explanation for the same.
Does a comparison really make US attitudes so different from the past? Since there is talk of feverish imagination, I wonder whether you have a deeper commitment somewhere to bolster US image? Russia was and is no threat - yet Serbs had to be destroyed by the formation of Islamist states, Poland had to be seduced to try and install missiles to which Putin is still responding, Georgia had to be induced into civil war, and the Chechen jihadis had to be backed up by the US. None of this the USA even tried when according to you it saw USSR/Russia as a much bigger threat. When as per your dogma, Russia is weak and no longer a threat - yet all of this has to be done. I anticipate it will be your bullshit now about how in your divine and superior opinion none of this counts because the "fear" is not so obviously declared from the rooftops.Yes, a comparison of US military presence in Europe today makes that very clear. No bomber sorties, no fear of Russian first strike. Nobody thinks that Russia today is about to make a dash to the atlantic. There's no particular image of the USA that I'm trying to project other than in your feverish imagination.I do understand you will simply dismiss any and all fact on the ground to try and say that Russia is seen as far less a threat by the USA than the USSR. Hence of course the continued attempt to militarize the zone. I am amused at your denial mode in favour of a particular image of the USA that it itself does not always cultivate.
No you will do so because you will push for a mythology. You are propagandizing a lie that law is unbiased in its formation, interpretation and application. Discrimination at the society or the state level has nothing much always to do with the formal concise statements of the law. As is being discussed on other threads on this forum, the same law which was used to enjoy a cavity search of the Indian foreign service officer, was not to be applied for a whole bunch of Russian foreign service officers - also not having the benefits of full diplomatic immunity - for fraud amounting to criminal offence by US laws worthy of arrest and similar cavity searches. Similarly, discrimination even within the law still apparently exists in discrimination against Indian immigration dating from a long dated racist law.Yes I will do so, because it's nonsense. That you make the claimYou will consistently refuse to see your claim about domestic tolerance for an identity necessarily implies similar tolerance for that identity outside the country in foreign policy context - is false. Actually, contrary to mythology with which you are more familiar with - Jews, especially the more enterprising ones among them were treated surprisingly well for very long periods of time in Europe.is telling. That implies that there was discrimination against the jews fostered by the state. And that selective sections of jews, during selective periods of time were treated differently from the rest. It implies that selective here was interpreted solely by whosoever was in power and was subject to change. In the US, Indians, whether on work visas, permanent residents or citizens have all recourse to law. Exactly the same as people of any other identity, religious or ethnic, simply because the law does not allow for any distinction on those factors.Jews, especially the more enterprising ones among them were treated surprisingly well for very long periods of time in Europe.
In your determined defence of the US record, you are trying to distort the history of the Jews in Europe, and comparing the overt forms and intensity of different periods of history in the formal quantum of violence perhaps. Your are deliberately ignoring the fact that Indians have been in the USA for a much shorter period of time compared to the Jews in Europe to apply your frivolous argument that "attitudes will be reflected in persecution over long periods of times". Relatively - the periods of "persecution" of Jews from the state side can be narrowed down to much smaller periods than they weren't- in your terms of violence.
Again it is complete bullshit to deny that state can carry on a policy - especially in foreign affairs - that is driven by ideological biases reflected within the society, but controlled in manifestation internally if it is advantageous for the state to maintain such pretensions.
I do not think you even do your homework before you take up your banner for white-Christian-fundamentalist spectrum of the USA whose apologetics for US reality also similarly hides behind a bluster of shouts of legal pretensions.
Here is a good anecdote that should illustrate some aspects of reality : [to which you will bring counter anecdotes of divine bliss of Hindus and Indians in USA no doubt - because it is your agenda to deny any bias on the US side]
http://thoughtcatalog.com/m-saccaro/201 ... -isnt-new/
There is a catch. I know your love for the word "bullshit" will probably prompt you to draw the straw - lookee lookee - they hated her for being a "Muslim" not a "Hindu" or "Indian". Well, the girl apparently very calmly repeatedly told her unbiased societal tormentors that she was a Hindu and Indian. With your penchant for explanation would you explain as to why they refused to listen to her explanation? I will tell you without any "bullshit" as to why they refused - because it was convenient for them to ignore her explanation, because they wanted to bash her anyway - knowing fully well her Hindu and Indian identity. It was a hidden hatred of the Hindu and the Indian, imbibed from their elders, and their families and friends and wider social circles that manifested under a convenient issue.I thought about those victims, and I still do each year on and around 9/11. The word “hellish” is an understatement for what they endured. But, as I’ve gotten older, I consider people who were victims of this tragedy in other ways. One of them was a girl who was in my class in 7th grade.
She was Indian.
But to Americans—especially 7th graders who were raised in a conservative area by conservative parents who couldn’t locate India, Afghanistan, or Iraq on a map, let alone spell Al-Qaeda—can’t make such nuanced distinctions at a glance. She spoke with an accent, she wore different clothes, she was born in another country, and she had brown skin. All of those things made her an “Afghani,” a “Muslim,” and a “terrorist” in the eyes of my classmates, even though she had been born in India, was a Hindu, and didn’t have a mean bone in her body.
“Why did your family destroy the twin towers?”
“I’m glad we’re bombing your country during Ramadan.”
And on. And on.
One kid even made a song about this girl smelling “like a Muslim” that contained other insults as well as japes at her foreign-sounding name. The abuse got so bad that she had to transfer schools. What hurts the most is that throughout all of the name-calling, the girl stayed calm and never retaliated. She tried to reason with her tormentors, and explain that she was a Hindu and not a Muslim. But there’s no reasoning with American nationalism, the same phenomenon that brought us “Freedom Fries”. The white-bread community in which we lived ostracized the girl’s siblings and parents too. They returned to India, no doubt with thousands of tales about the brutal truths of American racism (although the girl and her family returned about a year or two later, after the patriotic fervor died down).
Now, 12 years after 9/11, and only days after an “un-American” Miss America, I can’t help but wonder about how many other innocent Indian people were bullied, beaten up, or otherwise harmed because some misguided “patriot” thought they were a Muslim, because a red, white, and blue George Zimmerman thought hurting brown people was his duty to America.
As you can see societal hatred can still express themselves, may not be in Spanish or Goan Inquisition time fashion now, but within the limits of "modernity" - it still can very much be there, and the state can pretend otherwise for policy and strategy - but the dichotomy can very much prevail.
And your claim, like most of your arguments - is false. You have a very primitive and conveniently simple view of history and role of the state as consistent with formal legal pretensions.The tolerance isn't apparent. The only person who has a bias in this argument is you. The rest of your claim is a rehash. So let me do the same. Any religious bias against some identity harboured and encouraged over a long period of time will show up in all actions of the state.Apparent tolerance of "Hindus", Indians and India in the USA does not in anyway restrict US from pushing any agenda aimed at harming Hindu, Indian or India's interests. And NO, ideological bias does not always have to show up in state behaviour towards a community that has transnational presence while it may show up very well in other regions.
Yes, just as it doesn't in most European countries, and especially USA. With the suspicion of gross underreporting or even mis-reporting of religious hatred cases in the USA, apparently 2/3rds of the reported cases are against the Jews. We now have people shoved out in front of an incoming subway train because they are Hindu-looking, etc. We will have to wait until 2015 to get the first glimpses of the results of the tracking by the FBI that will now include Hindus as a category among others.Huh ! You're pretty misinformed about what Hussain Haqqani is saying currently. I suggest you spend some time catching up. The Paki case is very relevant to the discussion at hand. Fostering bias (hatred really) against a religious identity once started, can't be restricted in time, space or by department of affairs of the state.Do not see the point. I thought you believed in the sanity of hussein haqqani? So you must have a great deal of faith in what the Pakis say. Are you denying now those you believe in? I am fascinated by how your logic flies. How is what you say Pakis say about secular-hatred-of-Hindus relevant to the current discussion?
The Paki case is not relevant - and not comparable. Pakis were formed with a specific hatred for a specific religion. USA was formed with tolerance for alternate versions of Christianity onlee in mind, and not religious tolerance per se. One of the reasons, that people are still feeling the need to formally organize into a body to push for separation of the religion from the state - which obviously they feel is yet to be achieved.
Do not see much positives in that relationship either. If you can see all positives in that and sort of try to shove this wonderful opinion of yours as self-evident truth down out throats, I think we have the right too, to deny any positives for the "long term".Bullshit. The only example you've pointed out is that of the jews. There is no comparison with the American Indian relationship.History shows that a great deal of tolerance is shown to productive elements in an identity even if that identity is hated or not preferred, and that hatred does affect external or foreign policy in apparent contradiction to domestic tolerance.
Naturally - they go against your dogma.Haven't gotten time to go through those. The only care involved in ignoring them is the call of liquour waiting for me in the balmy shores of brazil. Very little inclination too, I'll agree.I have quoted two rather populist representations of the studies on religious motivation underlying US foreign policy. You have chosen very carefully to ignore them. The religious motivation, preference patterns, ideological biases driving FP in contrast to more economically pragmatic domestic scenario - all are so well studied and acknowledged by scholars, that I do find it surprising but perhaps not unexpected from you to be denied blankly.
Oh - these are your "long term mutually beneficial and overlapping national interests"? Have you had the opportunity to think in liquor-less state as to how many of them are subject to the US need to keep Pakistani state alive and kicking? Through all historical excuses like USSR, then no reason, then Taleb, then, AQ, then again Taleb, and through it all bolster the state which is one of the great facilitators of China in IOR - and that China which according to you is an enemy and target of the USA?Done that on the previous page.By the way, would you choose to clarify your much touted "long term mutually beneficial overlapping national interests" between the USA and India? I am still waiting.
USA was the one that brought China out of its isolation, and strengthened it against Russia, effectively dumped Taiwan, and is one of the biggest trading partners of China - with ties that are changing fast in their nature. And you are selling the snake-oil that USA will be the onlee effective leadership with serious intent to go against China?!!! USA will be the first to dump its "allies" in any such anti-China front and "trade" these allies off for "mutual" advantages. That is the historical trajectory of USA. It always was right from the days of the founding fathers.
By the way - selective highlighting of Roosevelt's role for a brief period - in standing up to Churchill, should not be a propaganda feed as representing US "support" and "recognition" of the legitimacy of Indian freedom movement. If Roosevelt and a few Americans showed some sympathy for the Indian cause, they also showed equal if not more non-chalance and support behind the British position on the subcontinent.
