Re: [A-List] Re: A reformulation (only five?)

["Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

hari.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> I was flagging quite distinctly, that I will not engage in this manner of switching arguments away from a distinct matter, to my racial background

Racial background?  I was referring to your political/ideological root.
I am not aware being Indian is a racial matter unless you want to get
into the argument why many Indians are quite vocal about themselves
being Aryans in the fascist meaning of the term.  The political
perspective of Indian political scientists is colored by the historical
fact that the concept of an Indian nation was not indigenous but created
by the British. Victoria was the first Empress of India, supported quite
willingly by the native Brahmans and Maharajahs. Indian nationalism was
a mentality learned by the Indian elite at Oxbridge, not a genetic
given. Thus the Indian attitude toward imperialism is quite different
than other Asian nationalists.  The British created the Indian Empire
and gave the Indian elite the gift of a free ride on anti-imperialism.

Many Indian intellectuals, in fact the majority, admire the British and
accept British superior complex as a reality.  The official language in
India is English. It is a well known fact, that if you speak their
language not as a foreign language, you become the captive in their
culture. Indian anti-imperialism take the form of a dissident movement
based on British conscience within the British Empire of which the
Empire of India wa a component, rather than a national liberation
movement. That is what lies behind Ghandi's pacifism which is only
logical if the opponent is not the enemy, but a fellow member of the
same society that need to win over with their own values. The India
experience in fact is the triumph of British imperialism, not its
demise.  Indians did not fight a war of national liberation.

It is not your race, despite the controversy if you ever consider
yourself a member of the colored, different from those of us who face no
ambiguity on the issue, but your lack of nationalistic root that renders
your theoretical anti-imperialism suspect.  Melvin needs no verification
as a bone fide proletariat, and as such he is more often speaking truth
than falsehood as long as he speaks from his heart and soul, even if he
speak on matters that he may not be intellectually an expert. His life
experience makes him right.  This is why I find it insulting that you
assume the gall to criticize Mao as a revisionist. And it is more
pathetic on account that you based on conclusion on faulty material out
of context.

It is not the lack of eloquence that is your weakness. It is the lack of
content in your pronouncements.

Henry C.K. Liu

>