Kamikaze Pilot
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2013
- Messages
- 5,241
- Reaction score
- -66
- Country
- Location
It maybe true that Pakistan is being used as a common foreign threat to unite Indians. But it is conveniently ignored that USA played dirtier in this game.
A dirty secret undocumented in USA history is that they conjured up an external enemy to preserve unity. The bogeyman in USA's case was the native American (Red Indian). The dissent in USA didn't end with the end of civil War. The rebellion was simmering and looked dangerous even after civil War was over. Remember Abraham Lincoln was assassinated after the war.
So USA came up with this idea to divert attention of all Whites. They basically said, "Look! There's a jackpot up for grabs. Why are we fighting among ourselves? Let's go get the wealth by taking the land of native Americans."
India is merely maligning Pakistan and poisoning the ears of people. India is just exaggerating the doings of Pakistan. There's a germ of truth in Indian allegations of Pakistani hand in attempts of destabilisation.
USA, on the other hand, exterminated entire population of natives.
Which case is more unethical?
USA had to unite a fairly homogenous population viz Whites. They never needed to bother about black population because blacks could be easily controlled.
Whereas India has to unite various states that are ethnically, racially, linguistically, culturally and economically different and dislike each other.
In the exercise of nation building, USA had negligible problems of foreign interference. They were a separate continent. So meddling by foreign countries was difficult.
On the other hand, India has to contend with interference of several formidable countries - Pakistan, China, Bangladesh, many Western countries (links needed for the unacquainted) etc.
Given all factors, India has been a saint. USA wiped out entire indigenous population.
- PRTP GWD
A dirty secret undocumented in USA history is that they conjured up an external enemy to preserve unity. The bogeyman in USA's case was the native American (Red Indian). The dissent in USA didn't end with the end of civil War. The rebellion was simmering and looked dangerous even after civil War was over. Remember Abraham Lincoln was assassinated after the war.
So USA came up with this idea to divert attention of all Whites. They basically said, "Look! There's a jackpot up for grabs. Why are we fighting among ourselves? Let's go get the wealth by taking the land of native Americans."
India is merely maligning Pakistan and poisoning the ears of people. India is just exaggerating the doings of Pakistan. There's a germ of truth in Indian allegations of Pakistani hand in attempts of destabilisation.
USA, on the other hand, exterminated entire population of natives.
Which case is more unethical?
USA had to unite a fairly homogenous population viz Whites. They never needed to bother about black population because blacks could be easily controlled.
Whereas India has to unite various states that are ethnically, racially, linguistically, culturally and economically different and dislike each other.
In the exercise of nation building, USA had negligible problems of foreign interference. They were a separate continent. So meddling by foreign countries was difficult.
On the other hand, India has to contend with interference of several formidable countries - Pakistan, China, Bangladesh, many Western countries (links needed for the unacquainted) etc.
Given all factors, India has been a saint. USA wiped out entire indigenous population.
- PRTP GWD