BNP trying to get suport from Hindus and Sikhs Watch

aaronc2
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#101
Report 12 years ago
#101
(Original post by oink)
a)Stalin was part jew, the holocaust is one of the worst things to ever happen, I was just pointing out the gullags cost even more lives.
b)yes
c)I am going to be an electrician, that is contribution, I would not like to live in Britain without electricity. Besides it's well-paid/skilled and I don't have to get into stupid amounts of debt. There are plenty of asians smarter than me who will certainly contribute more tax, there are also plenty of asians who will contribute less/nothing, race has nothing to do with IQ levels or jobs(unless you want to be a policeman in which case race does matter since ethnic minorities are fast-tracked)
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Stalin was not part-Jew get it into ur head
0
reply
oink
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#102
Report 12 years ago
#102
(Original post by aaronc2)
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Stalin was not part-Jew get it into ur head
Actually you might be right, it's just that his origanal name was Joseph David Djugashvili, which is a typical jewish name but it does not prove he was ethnically jewish.
0
reply
aaronc2
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#103
Report 12 years ago
#103
(Original post by oink)
Actually you might be right, it's just that his origanal name was Joseph David Djugashvili, which is a typical jewish name but it does not prove he was ethnically jewish.
he was from Georgia and defintely wasnt part Jewish - the reason its a typical Jewish name is because a lot of Jews are from the Russian empire in origin and so have that sort of name :confused:
0
reply
oink
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#104
Report 12 years ago
#104
(Original post by aaronc2)
he was from Georgia and defintely wasnt part Jewish - the reason its a typical Jewish name is because a lot of Jews are from the Russian empire in origin and so have that sort of name :confused:
But "Djuga" means jew and "shvili" means son, so his name was joe jewson.
0
reply
aaronc2
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#105
Report 12 years ago
#105
(Original post by oink)
But "Djuga" means jew and "shvili" means son, so his name was joe jewson.
really? where did you get that information from? link?
0
reply
papad
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#106
Report 12 years ago
#106
Oink, you're trying so hard to deny the crimes of Britain against India, but you're failing. Anyone who knows anything about Indian history will know that Britain did steal from India whether it was rediculously high tax or illegitamate, and then left the country in a state.
0
reply
oink
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#107
Report 12 years ago
#107
(Original post by papad)
Oink, you're trying so hard to deny the crimes of Britain against India, but you're failing. Anyone who knows anything about Indian history will know that Britain did steal from India whether it was rediculously high tax or illegitamate, and then left the country in a state.
Left the country in a state! we left after WW2 because before WW2 we made a deal with the india independence movement. It was not left in a state, we did however divide it up in order to make sure all the religions in the area had self determination, it's not our fault it ended up in civil-war that's multi-culturism for you, or would you have prefered it to be under minority muslim control like it was before the British? There was British crime against india(mainly the whole pig bullet thing) but that was an accident(which lead to a brutal war). I have denied nothing ,I was mearly pointing out that Britain has had a mixed past not the vicous past that you claim. I find it quite funny that you did not even know who the thuggee's were, they killed more indians than the British ever did.
0
reply
brimstone
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#108
Report 12 years ago
#108
(Original post by oink)
But "Djuga" means jew and "shvili" means son, so his name was joe jewson.
Just because someone has a name that sounds Jewish, it doesn't mean they are Jewish. Get in in your head - he wasn't Jewish. His mother did do laundry for a Jew though.
0
reply
papad
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#109
Report 12 years ago
#109
I never said I don't know who thuggees were. I do know who thugees were, I have read that article on Wikipedia about the thuggees before you put up the website. Hindus overthrew the mughals in the 1700's. So by the time the British came to India the country was under Hindu control. Hindus were in control just before the British came. The Thuggee was around for about 530 years before the British elminated it. Thats about 3700 deaths a year. Further more that figure is possibly exagurated

'In her book The Strangled Traveler: Colonial Imaginings and the Thugs of India (2002), Martine van Woerkens suggests that evidence for the existence of a Thuggee 'cult' in the 19th century was in part the product of "colonial imaginings"—British fear of the little-known interior of India and limited understanding of the religious and social practices of its inhabitants.'

Of course the British are going to propagate the Indian culture to be barbaric.
I'm not denying there was Thuggee. There was, but the figures may be exagurated. Its good that it was ridden of.
Ignore all of that because that is just background knowledge. I don't want to argue about background knowledge and British crimes as its not relevant to the debate. My original point was that;-

British took alot from India and oter countries. So why are you opposed to natives of those countries come over here and use the wealth which is effectivly there's? Isn't it just give and take?

-This is the question which I want you to answer.
0
reply
Akhoza
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#110
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#110
(Original post by papad)
I never said I don't know who thuggees were. I do know who thugees were, I have read that article on Wikipedia about the thuggees before you put up the website. Hindus overthrew the mughals in the 1700's. So by the time the British came to India the country was under Hindu control. Hindus were in control just before the British came. The Thuggee was around for about 530 years before the British elminated it. Thats about 3700 deaths a year. Further more that figure is possibly exagurated

'In her book The Strangled Traveler: Colonial Imaginings and the Thugs of India (2002), Martine van Woerkens suggests that evidence for the existence of a Thuggee 'cult' in the 19th century was in part the product of "colonial imaginings"—British fear of the little-known interior of India and limited understanding of the religious and social practices of its inhabitants.'

Of course the British are going to propagate the Indian culture to be barbaric.
I'm not denying there was Thuggee. There was, but the figures may be exagurated. Its good that it was ridden of.
Ignore all of that because that is just background knowledge. I don't want to argue about background knowledge and British crimes as its not relevant to the debate. My original point was that;-

British took alot from India and oter countries. So why are you opposed to natives of those countries come over here and use the wealth which is effectivly there's? Isn't it just give and take?

-This is the question which I want you to answer.
I agree and i would like to say that the Punjab region was ruled by a mighty Sikh maharaja and it was until after his death that the British dared to invade Punjab.
0
reply
oink
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#111
Report 12 years ago
#111
(Original post by papad)
I never said I don't know who thuggees were. I do know who thugees were, I have read that article on Wikipedia about the thuggees before you put up the website. Hindus overthrew the mughals in the 1700's. So by the time the British came to India the country was under Hindu control. Hindus were in control just before the British came. The Thuggee was around for about 530 years before the British elminated it. Thats about 3700 deaths a year. Further more that figure is possibly exagurated

'In her book The Strangled Traveler: Colonial Imaginings and the Thugs of India (2002), Martine van Woerkens suggests that evidence for the existence of a Thuggee 'cult' in the 19th century was in part the product of "colonial imaginings"—British fear of the little-known interior of India and limited understanding of the religious and social practices of its inhabitants.'

Of course the British are going to propagate the Indian culture to be barbaric.
I'm not denying there was Thuggee. There was, but the figures may be exagurated. Its good that it was ridden of.
Ignore all of that because that is just background knowledge. I don't want to argue about background knowledge and British crimes as its not relevant to the debate. My original point was that;-

British took alot from India and oter countries. So why are you opposed to natives of those countries come over here and use the wealth which is effectivly there's? Isn't it just give and take?

-This is the question which I want you to answer.
British took alot from India and oter countries. So why are you opposed to natives of those countries come over here and use the wealth which is effectivly there's? Isn't it just give and take?
-We gave a lot to india
-Its not wealth which is "effectivly there's"
-I dont want them in my country because it weakens Britiash culture and reduces our self determination.
0
reply
papad
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#112
Report 12 years ago
#112
-We gave a lot to india


Britain took more then they gave BY FAR!

-Its not wealth which is "effectivly there's"


Part of the luxury which Britain enjoys today is due India. You cannot deny that. So I feel that it is fair for Indian immagrants to come here and enjoy that part of wealth which was slaved for by their ancestors.

-I dont want them in my country because it weakens Britiash culture and reduces our self determination.


Oh, and how would the Indians have felt when the British came overnight in their red uniforms pointing guns down their snouts?
0
reply
j4mes_bond25
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#113
Report 12 years ago
#113
(Original post by oink)
-We gave a lot to india
-Its not wealth which is "effectivly there's"
-I dont want them in my country because it weakens Britiash culture and reduces our self determination.
Hey Oink, I wonder HOW OLD are you mentally ??? Since, if you've the right calibre, along with someone sharing your views, then I wonder why couldn't you possibly replace THEM. Guess, if the natives had right calibre, we wouldn't have needed Blacks & Asians in this country in 60s

Surely, British government weren't by any means idiot enough to have Johny Foreigners in first place, but I guess, natives must've disappointed them, making them rely on these "foreigners"
0
reply
papad
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#114
Report 12 years ago
#114
What does British culture comprise of?
0
reply
oink
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#115
Report 12 years ago
#115
(Original post by papad)
What does British culture comprise of?
I could come up with many weak examples but in reality you cant describe it, although I will let you have a go since you are apprantly just as British as me.
(or dont you think Britain has a culture? how about india?)
0
reply
j4mes_bond25
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#116
Report 12 years ago
#116
(Original post by oink)
I could come up with many weak examples but in reality you cant describe it, although I will let you have a go since you are apprantly just as British as me.
(or dont you think Britain has a culture? how about india?)
Well EVERY country has its culture, be it be Britain, America or India.

Britain has a culture of sophisticated manners, politeness, tolerance & equality
American has a culture of friendliness & patriotism
India has a culture of respecting their elders & care for people around them.

Problem is NOT with the culture itself, but how others perceive it:

For others, British manners could be seen as snobbery
For others, American friendliness could be seen as invading other's private space
For others, Indians caring for others could be seen as being a nosey parker in other's affair.
0
reply
papad
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#117
Report 12 years ago
#117
Britain does have a culture. Whether its shakespere, Blake or classical music. However its being undermimed by weaker aspects such as binge drinking, football etc. It's unfortunate really
The same goes for India. Traditional culture is being swamped by Western aspects- by this i mean things like clothes, music, attitude, materialism.
It's quite sad, because you can only appreciate your own culture when you are not in that country to which that culture is of. To see it dissapearing is sad
0
reply
Akhoza
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#118
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#118
(Original post by j4mes_bond25)
Well EVERY country has its culture, be it be Britain, America or India.

Britain has a culture of sophisticated manners, politeness, tolerance & equality
American has a culture of friendliness & patriotism
India has a culture of respecting their elders & care for people around them.

Problem is NOT with the culture itself, but how others perceive it:

For others, British manners could be seen as snobbery
For others, American friendliness could be seen as invading other's private space
For others, Indians caring for others could be seen as being a nosey parker in other's affair.
Ooo well said, couldnt have put it better:yy:
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1111)
79.07%
Leave (294)
20.93%

Watched Threads

View All