perhaps once in a while he has a cogent thought, but luce is typical
of the white foreign correspondents who go to india, spend all their
time in the compay of third-rate delhi people who worship whites and
are in awe of china, and go back and write inane books, which
supposedly make them experts on india.
other examples include barbara crossette (her only claim to fame
before becoming an 'india expert' was a book on the 'country inns of
new england'!), william dalrymple, and the economist's james astill.
at least astill was honest -- he wrote in his blog before being posted
to india that he hated indians and loved pakistanis (he was previously
in pakistan). he demonstrates this daily with his dispatches.
the problem with these people was accurately verbalized by professor
goldman of UC, Berkeley, who wrote about crossette's idiotic book on
india;
"if you know nothing about india, you'll learn nothing from this book;
if you know something about india, you'll instantly realize this book
has nothing to tell you." (paraphrase).
an example -- crossette asserted indians didn't like sports because
nobody played american baseball or football in india!
the british play a nice game. they know, as a fading power, the only
thing they have to sell is their verbiage and their accents. therefore
they sell their services to the highest bidder. they used to suck up
to the americans, but now they are very busy sucking up to the
chinese. i noticed that the economist also said that india shouldn't
make noises about chinese mischief in the himalayas, and instead
should accept chinese browbeating. it is a pattern. banyan, a
columnist in the economist, who is probably james astill himself,
calls india 'rabid'. http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14744905
begin quote
As for whether India and China can bury the hatchet over the border:
that depends as much on China's understanding of its internal threats
as on its robust, sometimes rabid, southern neighbour.
end quote
you think people like these are neutral? for instance, the bbc is very
clearly anti-india.
it is only in india that foreigners who despise and put down india are
considered insightful scholars. they should be treated with the
disdain they deserve, and their visas should be withdrawn (again as
china does). they will quickly become more cooperative. but alas,
there is this tendency to worship whites and chinese. (i suspect there
may also be money changing hands).
luce does say a couple of things that are true, even though not in the
way he intended them.
1. the chinese severely under-report their military spending. it is
believed china's actual military spending is upwards of $80 billion
even though they only talk of about $20 billion. this should be
causing alarm bells to ring like mad in india, but of course some
indians are saying, "china? our friend china, our bhai china? we have
nothing to fear from china".
2. china has to make propaganda about "peaceful rise" because it is
clear to everybody that it ain't going to be peaceful. it's much like
imperial japan's "greater east asian co-prosperity sphere", meaning
china wants to create an empire with all its neighbors as vassals. in
india's case, nobody is worried because they know india's strategy-
less planners can't even fend off a failed state like pakistan, so how
on earth is india going to be a threat to anybody else?
3. clearly luce is impressed with china because of its economic and
military power. this should be a lesson to all indians who believe
moralizing is what impresses people. no, it is money and military
power. india should, like china, learn to just shut up and pursue its
interests vigorously. for instance, no bleating about human rights or
democracy unless it suits india's interests (eg china is happily
supporting genocide in darfur, sudan so that it can get oil from
sudan. india should similarly not have alienated burmese generals, and
not driven them into china's ready embrace). instead, keep very quiet
about things that don't concern india directly (eg. israel/palestine
-- not india's problem, and it is intractable anyway). but make huge
noises about tibet and xinjiang because they do directly concern us
and it makes china uncomfortable.
On Dec 31 2009, 10:58 pm,
wrote:
> Do The Adagio <http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?263511>
> India's ruction, on superpowerdom and China, needs to be hushed
> Edward Luce<http://www.outlookindia.com/peoplefnl.aspx?pid=4482&author=Edward+Luce>
3 comments:
Westerners, especially Western women tend to be very materialistic. Just look at how they are kowtowing to China now. The fact of the matter is that India does not have the same "status" or power as China and has not gained any since independence. Whereas China post-kmt has advanced tremendously.
So in reality these Westerners have no respect for India and therefore treat India with contempt. They treated China the same way a few decades ago by the way.
Notice how nussbaum claimed to be a materialistic WASP (aka BRITISH, no surprise there). However she then married a jew and converted to judaism. The jews worked hard and gained status which allowed them to obtain power, then they were integrated into the American political establishment. Initially the jews also experienced heavy discrimination.
So the bottom line is that when western materialistic women see movies about India such as "Slumdog millionaire" they immediately think of India and Indians as being mere rogue servants to the greater imperial order.
hey, do you have a link to where james astill hates on indians in his blog?
thanks!
(trying to collate quotes from these bigots)
astill posted this on the economist's blog on asia in 2006. i wasn't clever enough to keep a copy of it. subsequently they took this down quietly.
what he said, more or less verbatim, was:
he preferred pakistanis, who he could he could sit around with and wonder what the heck was going on. (i don't think he said "sit around and have a drink with").
on the other hand, he said, indians were "prickly nationalists".
Post a Comment