Skip to main content

View Diary: Thoughts ahead of Independence Day: A patriot is a rebel, not a bootlicker (69 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I didn't say... (0+ / 0-)

    ... that the Tamil haven't been oppressed.  They absolutely have.  But before that, they were suckups, and they are not native to Sri Lanka.

    What happens after oppressors get thrown out is that the oppressors' collaborators assume a much lower rung in society.  The Tamil didn't like that, and that's why they became terrorists.

    Behind every terrorist act are legitimate grievances.  This stuff doesn't just happen.

    In sum, the Tamil have been oppressed, but the reason they were oppressed should not be ignored if there is ever to be peace and justice.

    I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes. - Walt Whitman

    by CharlieHipHop on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 06:54:19 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  If you're going to set arguments like this forward (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Meteor Blades, for 6 too, marleycat

      you need to provide sources:

      >What happens after oppressors get thrown out is that the
      >oppressors' collaborators assume a much lower rung in
      >society.  The Tamil didn't like that, and that's why they
      >became terrorists.

      It wasn't that straightforward, and pretending it was simply propagates anti-Tamil rhetoric.  Tamils had inhabited northeastern Sri Lanka since at least the 10th C, so I'm not sure what you mean by claiming that they aren't indigenous.  The British also brought Indian Tamil laborers to work the plantations, and also used the Tamil as coolies, under extremely oppressive conditions, which accounts for the anti-British sentiment of the general Tamil population. Most of the imported Tamils were sent back to India. (They were not, as you claim, suckups, but an exploited class.)  There was also an elite class of Tamil who worked in the colonial government.

      Plenty of Sinhalese collaborated with the colonial regime -- in fact, that's what the Dutch and British colonial system was based on -- the forging of an administrative class that included Buddhist, Muslim & Tamil elites. There was no revolution in Sri Lanka -- the British handed over control in 1948. Defining the Tamils as "the oppressor's collaborators" conveniently erases the history of Tamil resistance to colonial rule -- they formed the first organizations that agitated for independence. In fact, the Tamil-dominated Jaffna peninsula was the heart of anti-British activity. So one can hardly call them British collaborators.

      Remember that national boundaries were drawn by the British, not the native peoples, and the Tamil regions of Ceylon considered themselves separate from the Sinhalese regions from the beginning.  When the nation of Sri Lanka was formed, the Tamil were a minority, and they naturally didn't like it when, in 1972, the Sinhalese institutionalized Buddhism as the state religion in the Constitution and declared the official language to be Sinhala. It's a lot more complicated than you make out.

      So your simplification is simply incorrect.  I suggest you do more reading before you try pitching it elsewhere.

      "If you fake the funk, your nose will grow." -- Bootsy Collins

      by hepshiba on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:39:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site