|
|
Post by Tautalos on Feb 9, 2004 7:31:52 GMT -5
I am Portuguese and honour the history of my Nation, but that does not mean that I am unable to understand the points of view of those who rejected the Portuguese colonialism. If the hindus changed some names in their own homeland, well, I would gladly do the same if the hindus dominated Portugal, or against muslim names imposed in Portugal.
The hindu fundamentalists were not specially anti-portuguese. They were and are for the preservation of their own culture, specially against Islam. In that guise, they are a brilliant example of real Aryan nationalism, for they preserve their own national religion, their ethnic identity and their folk.
|
|
|
|
Post by Silveira on Feb 9, 2004 10:51:28 GMT -5
I think this thread is getting slightly off topic...
In my opinion, one is either with Portugal or against Portugal. Since independance, India´s policies have been consistently anti-Portuguese, both under the Congress party as under the BJP. I find it uncautionable that any Portuguese would take sides with the likes of Pandilha Nehru and others of his ilk over the five centuries old historical rights of Portugal over Goa, Damão and Díu. Normalization of ties with India was the policy of the communists and other formerly-Portuguese traitors who, after gaining the levers of power, illegaly granted formal recognition to the Indian usurpation in 1975. Compare the Timorese cause with that of Portuguese India and the difference in treatment between the two. Portuguese India was Portuguese for 5 centuries, maintaining a legal status which granted it equality with metropolitan Portugal. Goa, Damão and Díu had no historical ties to the artificial "Union of India", which was formed from the former British territories in India.
Hindu fanatics hate the Portuguese presence in India because, whther we like it or not, anyone with knowledge of universal history knows that Portugal = Roman Catholic religion and its expansion in Asia and elsewhere. The Portuguese will always be identified with the Evangelization of India becuase that is our history.
In my humble opinion, any Portuguese who is against Portugal is either a communist or a traitor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Feb 9, 2004 13:23:34 GMT -5
Ethnically, Damão, Diu, Goa, belong to India. It is a matter of justice. The Portuguese Empire was great, and a motive of proud, in a time when everybody had empires, or, at least, conquered their neighbours, and every national citizen haves to duty to fight for his/her nation until the end, for there is nothing higher than loyalty to one's folk; notwithstanding, empires should not exist.
All the nations have the right to be fully independent.
Not to recognize this, is to open the door to a future legitimation of an empire that, hipothetically, seizes Portugal, as, for instances, a return of nortern African muslims, or a complete domination of Portugal by the hand of the Castillans. And that would be high treason. Because one can not claim that «our empire is good because it is ours, while other empires are bad because their religion and freedom are like this and like that, etc.». <br>
And, if Portugal was a vehicle of Roman Catholicism, that is just another reason why the hindus would refuse the Portuguese presence. Again, it is not a matter of being anti-portuguese, but anti- any religion that wants to convert the people and destroy the ancient beliefs. The Romans were too naif to face such an opponent and fell under the power of the dead jew, but that is no reason why the Hindus would accept the same fate. That is why they resisted to both Christianity and, specially, Islam.
|
|
|
|
Post by Silveira on Feb 9, 2004 13:33:20 GMT -5
I respect your point of view and understand your beliefs, I hope you did not interpret my message as an attack against you. On this topic as well as other matters we will probably never agree. It is always good to see another Portuguese (other than me and Alex) here at Dodona.
(Remember, never post really big pictures on this forum because Dienekes said so.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Feb 10, 2004 5:54:21 GMT -5
That is all right, Silveira, we agree to disagree. And thank you for that information about Alex. Like we say in Portugal, «there is no one without two, and there is no two without three» ;D in a «very free»  translation: here, at Dodona, there is a need for Portuguese intervention, for this is, I believe, «our» (southern European) forum, equivalent to the nordicist «Skadi». <br> Saudações Patrióticas e Viva Portugal. |
|
|
|
Post by CaraCicatriz on Feb 10, 2004 22:16:09 GMT -5
It is akward being the child of colonialism, in that I acknowledge the Spanish ruined a people who otherwise prolly would be on top of the world today with their encomienda and colonialism but on the otherhand I am part Spanish so I can't quite help to acknowledge with that. In the case of the Hindus taking down portuguese place names it is prolly because the mesticos their aren't really all that large a populous so the ethnic hindus feel it was opression rather than meshing together.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Feb 12, 2004 13:36:57 GMT -5
Whatever happened with Portugal and Castilla has to be taken within a context of hegemonical internal strifes between the Hispanic nations. I don't see how simplifications may help in any way.
Later events have more to do with dinastic interests than with internal strifes. To say that Portugal suffered from the policies of certain kings, who happened to be kings of all other Hispanic kingdoms, is alright. But so did other Hispanic kingdoms... included Castilla which was financially dried off to support the dinastic interests of our kings in Central Europe.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Feb 12, 2004 13:44:20 GMT -5
Punishment should never be used to train a dog or any animal for that matter. Well, don't tell me, tell God  |
|
|
|
Post by Kukul-Kan on Feb 12, 2004 13:51:09 GMT -5
It is akward being the child of colonialism, in that I acknowledge the Spanish ruined a people who otherwise prolly would be on top of the world today with their encomienda and colonialism but on the otherhand I am part Spanish so I can't quite help to acknowledge with that. In the case of the Hindus taking down portuguese place names it is prolly because the mesticos their aren't really all that large a populous so the ethnic hindus feel it was opression rather than meshing together. If the Spaniards had not conquered and colonized most of the Americas other European sates would have done it. There’s not really a “what if hypothesis” in the case of the Americas which sooner or later would have been discovered and colonized by stronger and technologically more advanced societies. |
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Feb 12, 2004 13:55:49 GMT -5
«I don't see how pre-determinism can be good for any society or individual.»<br> It can be good when it gives to someone a sense of duty and destiny. Or to have people starving to death without having to hear their complaints. Anyone which goes beyond kneeling before a natural element. I don't want to sound like a religious supremacist, so I'll leave it there. Nothing to do with what ones and others have, but with a difference of class between NEs and SEs. Nothing really, it goes with the basic version of the human kit ;D Hippies...  |
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Feb 13, 2004 11:51:00 GMT -5
It can be good when it gives to someone a sense of duty and destiny.
There are people starving to death in non hindu countries, who, actually, are dominated either by Christianity or Islam. And let's not forget the words of Paulus, who said that everybody should remain in it's own social situation, without any revolt.
Which «higher» conceptions of spirituality?
It is perhaps a demonstration of spiritual superiority to kneel before the image of a dead jew, or to feel guilty and at the same time redeemed because that dead jew, who lived in a land miles and miles away from ours, said that he was dying for everybody.
Meanwhile, (at least) some worshippers of the ancient Aryan Deities, in India, do not kneel before Them, but do stand solidly on their feet, honouring the greatness of the Gods that lives in the elements.
Why, if the nordics also have some Gods very connected with specific functions?
Yes... different latitudes... I still do not see why is that important for this issue, but nevermind.
«Umh.. a god that controls war, a goddess that controls fertility, ...»<br>
What's wrong about that?
?....
Actually, it is a highly metaphysic vision of reality: the perception of the Divine dimension of each thing, being it the sky, the thunder, a woman's beaty or a man's courage.
I doubt that Homer, Plato, Julian, the ancient Celts, Romans, Vikings, as well as, for instances, the contemporary Asatruars - can be considered as «hippies».<br>Such qualification would better suit that Jewish prophet that, two thousand years ago, promoted a religious moral of non-violence, of internacionalist and borderless love and who lived in community, without working, with his disciples.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Feb 15, 2004 6:24:41 GMT -5
It can be good when it gives to someone a sense of duty and destiny. Said... destined to starve to death. There is a difference between early Christianism, Pauline Christianism, and Christianism adapted and modified by Western societies. Yes, if you limit your views only to the symbolic, and less important, part of Christianism. Perhaps if you cared to broaden your views... And I'm sure that others sit in front of them or cross their legs. Not really important. Only because you asked. I won't give further details which could be taken as racist or politically incorrect. The implications are too clear for whoever wishes to understand it. Do you really need that I explain it to you? Sure, whatever you say. They couldn't be classified as hippies at the time when they lived. But since I'm not speaking of pagans who lived in ancient times... what's the point of that comment other than using their names to make your answer sound as cultish? Yes, of course. And not just him but also early Christianism followers. |
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Feb 16, 2004 7:38:49 GMT -5
Said... destined to starve to death. Yes. Like the millions and millions of African blacks who live under the yoke of either Christianity or Islam. Also, India is a super-power, with a powerful army, nuclear weapons and even astronauts. It does not happen the same with any African country. All of them accept the words of Paul as a dogma. There is nothing to do about that. Well, it is the part that all the Christians know (?...). If is there any further «iniciatic» aspect, that is another subject. But I doubt that such «iniciatic» way includes the respect for ethnic identities, for instances. Perhaps you should do the same about the Paganisms. You were the one who brought that subject. Actually, it is important. The position of the body is highly symbolic of it's spirituality. Islam's total surrender haves nothing to do with the proud standing up of the Asatruars. It is quite sad, and dangerous, that so many southern European nationalists adopt the same divisionist tendency of the worst nordicists. Indeed. If you can. Thank you for admitting that I am correct. Wait, wait... is that the only reason why they were not hippies?... The point is to show that to consider the pagans as hippies is absolutely ridiculous and baseless. And, if my answer sounded cultish, that's good. This is a forum for learning and people who study. That's right. |
|
|
|
Post by Stahler on Feb 27, 2004 8:21:36 GMT -5
I am an heathen/pagan European.
I study, as historian, the different pagan religions in Europe (and also else, egyptian, semitic, indo-iranian, armenian).
|
|
|
|
Post by rusalka on Feb 27, 2004 15:04:23 GMT -5
I am an heathen/pagan European. I study, as historian, the different pagan religions in Europe (and also else, egyptian, semitic, indo-iranian, armenian). My congratulations to you Stahler!  I think the subject needs more people who study it seriously. |
|
translation: here, at Dodona, there is a need for Portuguese intervention, for this is, I believe, «our» (southern European) forum, equivalent to the nordicist «Skadi». <br>
I think the subject needs more people who study it seriously.