Shouldn't this be in the history books?

[aneeshm]

Those figures are ones given by Annie Besant, who can be taken to be pretty unbiased.

My point is that this is not even mentioned in passing. Even a single mention in a long list of massacres perpetrated by the British would have been enough, I don't care, but simply cutting it out as if it never happened smacks of bias. Specially when the Khilafat movement is covered in great detail.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Can we please have a separate forum to discuss the origins of Hindu "civilisation"?

That's not the proper spelling of the word.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Those figures are ones given by Annie Besant, who can be taken to be pretty unbiased.

I've never heard of the woman, but this quote (from the same article) tells me everything I need to know:

Annie Besant stated: "They [Moplahs] murdered and plundered abundantly, and killed or drove away all Hindus who would not apostatise. Somewhere about a lakh (100,000) of people were driven from their homes with nothing but their clothes they had on, stripped of everything...Malabar has taught us what Islamic rule still means, and we do not want to see another specimen of the Khilafat Raj in India."

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


But there was no great civilization in Central Africa. It was just a tribal area. Pre-Colonia India had an advanced, extensive civilization.

Now you've just insulted all those studying the Empires of Mali and Songhai.

[Last Conformist]

Mali and Songhai weren't exactly in Central Africa as that term is typically used ....

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse




I've never heard of the woman, but this quote (from the same article) tells me everything I need to know:

Annie Besant stated: "They [Moplahs] murdered and plundered abundantly, and killed or drove away all Hindus who would not apostatise. Somewhere about a lakh (100,000) of people were driven from their homes with nothing but their clothes they had on, stripped of everything...Malabar has taught us what Islamic rule still means, and we do not want to see another specimen of the Khilafat Raj in India."

To be frank, I think you're an idiot. You don't know anything about the woman, yet you make a judgement on a whim. Look up the wiki article about her if you're serious.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Mali and Songhai weren't exactly in Central Africa as that term is typically used ....

Well it isn't like they were studied in "World History" classes in the US either.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by aneeshm


To be frank, I think you're an idiot. You don't know anything about the woman, yet you make a judgement on a whim. Look up the wiki article about her if you're serious.

The only idiot here is the person who doesn't realise that somebody who makes unabashed value judgments about one side in a conflict cannot be assumed to be "unbiased" regarding that conflict.

You ****ing imbecile.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


The only idiot here is the person who doesn't realise that somebody who makes unabashed value judgments about one side in a conflict cannot be assumed to be "unbiased" regarding that conflict.

It can be a conflict when there are two sides who are fighting. It is a genocide when one side simply massacres the other, encountering no opposition and no retaliation. Learn the difference.

[Lorizael]

So let's review: When KH debates aneeshm, is it a

(A) Conflict

or

(B) Genocide

[KrazyHorse]

Could you please explain your version of the scientific method again? I haven't laughed that hard since you first posted it.

You're not even a real person, you pathetic caricature of a poster. You're a one-dimensional propagandist, and stupid to boot. I haven't ever seen you express a single original or interesting thought.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by aneeshm


It can be a conflict when there are two sides who are fighting. It is a genocide when one side simply massacres the other, encountering no opposition and no retaliation. Learn the difference.

It is a conflict whenever the wishes of one group clash violently with the wishes of another group. Do they bother to teach you English there?

Not that this has anything to do with the matter at hand, you maroon.

An unbiased source for historical fact does not busy herself with making moral judgments.

You practice the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty. Whenever a source says something to reinforce your worldview you accept it unquestioningly. Worm.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Lorizael
So let's review: When KH debates aneeshm, is it a

(A) Conflict

or

(B) Genocide

[Kuciwalker]

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Could you please explain your version of the scientific method again? I haven't laughed that hard since you first posted it.

Observe the facts.
Try to create a hypothesis that fits them.
Test it. Test the predictions it makes.
Look for evidence for (and against) it.
If it passes the test, accept it as the current best theory.

Rinse and repeat.


WTF is your problem with it? In fact, I didn't understand your objection even then. I didn't set out with an agenda, I started out unbiased, formed my conclusions based on unbiased observation, then then tried to find evidence which supported them. Even now, if I find contrary evidence, I'm willing to alter my view.