I'm not going to respond to your whole post, hopefully thirusuj will as I don't have the personal experience to draw from, I will respond to this however,
Everyone has their own version of history. Everyone has their own pantheon of martyrs.
This is true. Funny how everyone DOESN'T have their own self-determined country as well though...
Are you now going to start singing the praises of those crackpots in the Basque region of Spain and their endless bombingsetc... and what about people in resource rich low lands of Bolivia that want their own country separate from Evo Morales's control ---ooops! i guess you don't want to include them because they want to secede from a country with a leftwing gov't and that doesn't count!
The Chechens want their own country too. Does that justify them blowing up apartment buildings in Moscow and hijacking planes and blowing them up?
Violence settles nothing.
Stockholm,
Please do list the discrimination that they claim during the British rule and disproportionate powers by the British .
Apparently during the British era, Tamils were 15% of the population of Sri Lanka and were 40% of the civil service. It was the usual British pattern of picking a minority group in each country they colonized and favouring it over the majority as part of a "divide and conquer" strategy.
Not long after Ceylon became independent the government declared Sinhalese to be the only official language (how different is that from the Government of Quebec making French the only official language even though the proportion of Quebecers who speak English is similar to the proportion of Sri Lankans who speak Tamil). Fortunately Anglo-Quebecers didn't respond by having suicide bombers attack Quebec government offices.
The British never favored the Tamils; it was the setting up of the American Mission in Jaffna and its success that gave the Tamils access to English education. The Tamils who excelled in education not only had they taken up the jobs in British Ceylon, but also widely in the British Empire. Many Elam Tamils went on to Malaysia, Singapore, India, Fiji, Guyana, Trinidad, Mauritius, Africa etc. as the British required people with good understanding of English to administer the empire. Sadly this educational advance of the Tamil people is being repeatedly used to justify the discrimination that they face after independence from British.
.
Extract from: http://www.tamilnation.org/books/Eelam/sanmugathasan.htm
It is just as well, at this point to study the communal problem as it arose at that time.
One of the main reasons why the Tamils occupied a better place in the government service and the professions under British rule than the Sinhalese did was due to the head start they had in the sphere of learning English although this was by accident and not design.
The American Ceylon Mission was started in the Jaffna peninsula by the American Methodist Missionaries in 1816. In her very recent book, "Communal politics under the Donoughmore Constitution" Jane Russell gives a good account of the services rendered by these missionaries to education in Jaffna.
According to her, the reason why the Mission chose Jaffna as the focus of its activities was because "the colonial government was anxious to avoid a clash with the English Missions and partly because its strategic position was the key to India which was the Mission's main target".
By 1822, 42 schools staffed by Americans who were fluent in Tamil, had been established in the peninsula. In 1823, was set up the Batticotta (not to be confused with Batticaloa) Seminary at Vaddukoddai. This was the first English school in Asia. It was a free boarding school whose standard has been compared to that of a University, It taught English, Tamil prose, Mathematics, Greek, Latin History, Geography and. Philosophy.
In 1833, a professor of Medicine arrived and thereafter the Seminary turned out medical students and potential doctors. The methods of the American Ceylon Mission was reported to be infinitely more advanced and the missionaries more dedicated than those in the English Mission Schools in the rest of Ceylon.
Having learnt Tamil thoroughly, the Americans translated English text books into Tamil and compiled comprehensive English-Tamil dictionaries. As Colebrooke pointed out in 1830, the level of English education imparted in Jaffna was much higher than elsewhere in Ceylon as a result of the Americans asserting the importance of teaching English (unlike other missions).
Due to a financial crisis, the colonial government cut down expenditure on education by half during the end of 1847. This did not affect the American Ceylon Mission. The effect was that the governments schools in the South-West were outclassed completely. In 1929 there existed in the Jaffna peninsula 65 English schools, 10 of them being first/class Collegiate Schools, and 426 Vernacular schools. In that year, the Northern province had 6 out of 7 children attending some form schools.
As K. Balasingam said in a speech in 1913, we have cultivated the only thing that could have been cultivated with profit despite the aridity of our soil. We 'have attempted to cultivate men'.
The Americans were followed by Catholic and Protestant Missionaries who all proceeded to set up schools as part of their aim of proselytising. When Hindu revivalism started, there was formed the Hindu Board of Education which, in turn, opened up its schools. Thus, Jaffna became blessed with many schools. It was said that, at one stage, Jaffna had more schools per square mile than anywhere else in the world.
This gave a great impetus to the study of the English, a language which was the language of administration of the British Colonialists. Naturally, the Tamils obtained more posts in the governments service and the professions, like law and medicine, out of proportion to their numbers. But, they were obtained in open competition and not through the back door. According to Jane Russel, the Ceylon Tamils constituted over 40 percent of the franchise for the Educated Members seat in 1918.
A particular reason as to, why the Tamil felt the urgent need for better and higher education, particularly in English, was his consciousness that he lived in the most barren and uneconomic part of Sri Lanka which did not boast of a river, a mountain or forest. Education was the only passport to a better life. So he studied hard.
It was a slightly different picture with the Sinhalese in the South. They were blessed with a more fertile land where literally anything grew. Sustenance was easy. But, the educational facilities available to them were less than those available to the Tamils. Besides, till the economic crisis of 1929-1931, the Sinhala middle classes were not that keen to join government service or the professions as their lands could sustain them. It was in the years just before and just after the Second World War that the competition for jobs between the Sinhala and Tamil middle classes grew.
According to the Soulbury Commission report, in the year 1938, out of 6002 pensionable officers, 3236 were Sinhalese and 1164 were Ceylon Tamils. Much of the friction between the two communities arose over the disputes about the social proportions in certain departments in the public service. The communal problem, therefore, is at bottom a competition between the respective middle classes for entry into government service and the professions and for trade opportunities.
According to Jane Russel, the "golden age" of the Ceylon Tamils can be approximately ascribed to the 50 years between 1870 and 1920. In this period. the excellence of the English school system in the Jaffna peninsula enabled large numbers of the Jaffnese to find lucrative employment in the civil and clerical services of Malaya, India and Ceylon. Economically wealthy, the Jaffna Tamils had become politically powerful. The Coomaraswamy - Ponnambalam dynasty had been able to dominate the other communal representatives in the Legislative Council in the 19th century, and had therefore become the acknowledged leaders of the English - educated elite of both communities.
Canada is a federation and Sri Lankan is not even though it should be a federation of two nations.......again you are comparing circle and a square.
“ ["I prefer peace and non-violence and not thse sadistic "warrior cultures"." You should have been born as a Tamil in Sri Lanka or Palestinian in Gaza and other occupied territories to understand the non-existence respect for non-violence.
Your novel idea of non-violence is great for fiction stories but not for reality. Especially when a community tried so hard with non-violence/ peaceful methods only to end up getting slaughtered mercilessly.]”
I don't think it helps to dismiss a belief in passive or peaceful resistance. There are plenty of Palestinians working in peaceful means to resist and/or build a civil society. Plenty more who don't support the terrorist tactics of militant groups and oppressive means of control. The issue isn't whether one is a suicide bomber or not as there have always been suicide missions in wars. The issue is the target of the suicide. Terrorism is not a legitimate tactic for resistance or revolution. If state sponsored terrorism is wrong then revolutionary sponsored terrorism is as well. Both should always be condemned. Targeting civilians is not acceptable regardless of whether you believe financial centres and other non military 'symbols of power' are legitimate targets. Recruiting child soldiers is not acceptable which the LTTE has admitted to and break away Tamil militia groups have as well. UNICEF documents has documented this.
Sri Lankan soldiers have demonstrated vile behaviour in the past in other conflicts and the incident referred to in this thread is abhorrent and still a war crime regardless. I don't think you can spread that behaviour throughout the Sinhalese population though. To that end I also found the title of the thread unnecessary when other options for titling are always available.
“Britain thought that the rights of the Tamils in particular would be safeguarded by these arrangements. However history has proved otherwise that these safeguards were inadequate and not robust enough. I regret that Britain’s policies have to such an extent been the cause for the problems,” the High Commissioner said.
It's obvious from a reading of history that the island was never inhabited by one culture or nation. The British recognised this immediately. Regardless that doesn't remove the difficulty of the present situation. In a historical context this can't be termed a civil war unless you legitimize British colonialism. It is obvious though that the Sri Lankan government has planned and practiced assimilation by eliminating the relevance of Tamil culture and language. Just as the British and later Canadian governments did here with both First Nations and Quebec. The same is also true for black history in the U.S. In all three of these examples the mechanism was there in the government system of democracy to allow for gradual, passive change through civil society and political action. Although Quebec seems to have found the answer through the Canadian federation model but it still took over a century to achieve. First Nations are still struggling against assimulation. Sri Lanka though doesn't have the same system of democracy and the same is true for many former European colonies. This is an interesting article discussing the concept of ethnic democracy vs. a purely political model of democracy. Its relevant to the discussion.
http://tinyurl.com/bgd55z
Dr J Powers (1996),
Proceedings of the International Conference on the Conflict in Sri Lanka:
The LTTE surrendered the independent state option for one of autonomy or federation model I believe during the peace process which promised to come close to workable solution. There's dispute over whether it was the Sri Lankan government which walked out unilaterally or whether both parties walked away from the solution. Ultimately only the Tamils and the Sri Lankan government can find the solution but I think it is important which point of reference is used in the process. If pre-colonial history is used then it seems pretty clear that the Tamils should have an independent state. (Although I've read that there is also tension between northern Tamils and eastern Tamils so are we talking about one independent nation or are we eventually going to see a split between the Tamils as well.) If post colonial history is used, (old kingdom/national borders eliminated), as a reference then it seems obvious that some form of autonomous power sharing must take place and/or the Sri Lankan government must surrender it's campaign of ethnic dominance and assimilation and create a single equal society. I think this is what scares the crap out of countries like Canada and others. To accept pre-colonial borders as a legitimate reference then we open up ethnic and civil conflict throughout the world more than what we have now. I'm not saying this is right or wrong it just presents a conflict. Canada should recognise the struggle and injustice on both sides of a conflict and use diplomacy to offer help but it can't do much more than this.
Welcome to the thread mimeguy, I'm glad that while you've set out to associate yourself with some of Stockholm's statements you've also gone far enough to demnstrate that unlike Stockholm you're actually interested in the well being of the Sri Lankan Tamils.
That said you've also managed to write a lot without saying much of anything...
Targeting civilians is not acceptable regardless of whether you believe financial centres and other non military 'symbols of power' are legitimate targets.
Sure, and the vast majority of the "targetting civilians" which takes place in Sri Lanka, like in Gaza, is the oppressive occupying regime targeting the minority population's civilians (Tamils); as one would expect there is a little blow-back in return and a few Sinhala civilians are also killed and injured... its a sad situation to be sure, and one which would be easily remedied by the Sri Lankan regime ending its campaign against the Tamils. This isn't a two-way conflict. It is like the analogy someone used in one of the Gaza threads, more like an adult strangling an infant, the infant will still struggle and kick but they cannot win the fight and all they want is for the assault to stop... an assault you've recognized in your post and described well:
Sri Lankan soldiers have demonstrated vile behaviour in the past in other conflicts and the incident referred to in this thread is abhorrent and still a war crime regardless.
It is obvious though that the Sri Lankan government has planned and practiced assimilation by eliminating the relevance of Tamil culture and language.
Given this, the only solution comes from the Sri Lankan regime halting its campaign against the Tamils and recognizing their right to self-determination, however they choose to go about it; that recognition could end the violence.
I think this is what scares the crap out of countries like Canada and others. To accept pre-colonial borders as a legitimate reference then we open up ethnic and civil conflict throughout the world more than what we have now.
I agree that it scares Western elites although I disagree with the reason you've given. It scares them out of concern for their power over exploited peoples' worldwide, not out of concern for those peoples and the violence they'd have to endure. In fact violence would be reduced by such a precedent, as most liberation movements are struggling against states and borders imposed in the past by colonialism. "Canada" is scared of the Sri Lankan Tamils, just like we are scared of all the "terrorist" ethnicities out there, because they threaten the sense of superiority held by our elites (hopefully not the average Canadian), that they can dictate the terms of reference under which all the world's people must live (and Sri Lanka's Tamils are essentially fighting to escape these Western applied terms of reference).
Canada should recognise the struggle and injustice on both sides of a conflict and use diplomacy to offer help but it can't do much more than this.
After some interesting thinking in your post its a pity this is the conclusion you've come to... Canada must condemn the Sri Lankan regime and cut off all support for this regime until they agree to return to the table and achieve a diplomatic agreement with the Tamils. We have no place is setting the solution (thats for the participants), but right now we are a big part of the problem, interfering to assist the Sinhala regime. If the regime won't listen we use all our usual embargos etc... The point is to at least stop being a part of the problem.
"Stockholm you're actually interested in the well being of the Sri Lankan Tamils."
I care just as much about the well-being of Sri Lankan Tamils as I do about Sri Lankan Sinhala - I also care about the thousands of Sri Lankan Tamils that have been murdered by the Tamil Tigers because they were too moderate and didn't want to let their children be suicide bombers.
Just because the Tamils are suddenly the new "flavour of the month" on babble doesn't mean that I have to go along with this simplistic Tamil = Good, Sinhala = Bad dichotomy that some want to reduce everything to.
I care just as much about the well-being of Sri Lankan Tamils as I do about Sri Lankan Sinhala - I also care about the thousands of Sri Lankan Tamils that have been murdered by the Tamil Tigers because they were too moderate and didn't want to let their children be suicide bombers.
Your blame the victims approach and promotion of peace through oppression demonstrate quite clearly where your concern lies...
Just because the Tamils are suddenly the new "flavour of the month" on babble doesn't mean that I have to go along with this simplistic Tamil = Good, Sinhala = Bad dichotomy that some want to reduce everything to.
I'm sure that in your opinion Babble's discussions on the recent massacre in Gaza also reflected that simplistic dichotomy. You were wrong there too; in both cases the identity aggressor party (which prevents a long-term solution to the violence) is clear.
Also, discussing Sri Lanka might just be a "flavour of the month" to you but I assure you that isn't the case for me (as a review of the archived old Babble would easily demonstrate... I'm the one whose been starting threads about Sri Lanka since I arrived here); it obviously isn't the case for thirusuj who cannot just forget about the plight of Sri Lanka's Tamils when participating in this discussion goes out of style... he actually has to grapple with these problems and work for a solution while you can return to pretending to care about some other group in some other discussion in order to push your imperialistic agenda.
Thank you for bringing these articles into rabble mimeguy. Peaceful methods are tried in Sri Lanka only to meet with violence. However Tamils all around the world are lobbying and trying to bring this conflict to the attention of the world in a very peaceful manner.
The title is defiantly causing some stir, I wonder if the Title could be reedited.
One of the reasons the Tamil people's struggle is not recognized is because of India (particularly because of the state of Tamil Nadu with the population of 70 million Tamils).
India with its population and economy has a huge influence regarding this issue around the world. It is in the geo-political interest of India to crush any movement that thrives to create Independent Tamil Eelam. But in doing so they have to crush the Tamils and that is another potentially dangerous situation as the 70 million Tamils will not accept the subjection of the Tamil people on the island.
Why does India wants to crush it? India does not want its Tamil Nadu state becoming rebellious and demanding for secession as it did in the 1960's. Tamil Nadu is one of the economically powerful states of India and also a rebellious and very defensive about the Tamil culture and its history which has always been a collision course with the central government that wants to extend the influence of Hindi domination. When India tried to implement Hindi as the official language of India in the 1960's Indian government meet with a huge threat from the Tamil Nadu state, west Bengal and many other states and Tamil Nadu of course was driven by Tamil Nationalism and threatened to free itself from India if Hindi is forced upon them. India had wise leadership and allowed all of it states to choose the language, making English as the link language and officially recognizing many of the languages within India's border. It was also due to the China-India war that Tamil Nadu felt that they must stand together with India and defends what they have fought hard with the British and scarified so much. DMK the ruling party of that time in the state of Tamil Nadu later dropped its separatism campaign and launched for greater autonomy. At the moment, with the Tamils being killed in the island India is back to the square one of dealing with Tamil nationalism. This time, the Tamil nationalism is stronger and getting stronger as Indian government is financing, supplying and training the Sri Lankan armed forces along with Pakistan, China, US etc...The Tamil people of Tamil Nadu are starting to ask, "if you are not going to protect our interest and not get a dignified solution to Tamil people in the Island they why are we even part of India?".
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=28308
Recently India has woken up again to the new wave of Tamil Nationalism, with Tamils getting fired up as their brother and sisters are being slaughtered by the Sri Lankan government.
I would say the protest and peoples emotions are running extremely high in the state of Tamil Nadu. As Sri Lankan Brodcasting Corparation Chariman Hudson Samaraesinghe (I might not his last name right) "In the event of Tamil Nadu becoming independent, there is no doubt that she will invade Sri Lanka over the Tamil issue". Sorry as I couldn't find his exact quote at the moment. If that happens, the tables would turn as the 80 million Tamils around the world will only want to crush the Sinhalese and pay back with interest.
I think Sinhala Sri Lankans would be surprised to see their side of the conflict dismissed as "imperialism". The only imperialists in this part of the world were the British. You have two indigenous people fighting over a piece of land. So what else is new, we see this all the time. Maybe we should also decide who is good and who is bad in Kashmir and then in Bosnia. If the Sinhala are "evil imperialists" in Sri Lanka, then I guess you could describe Serbs in Kosovo the same way etc...etc...etc... Then we see the conflict in Tibet where people here seem oh so reluctant to point a finger at China because as long as there are a few dog-eared icons of Mao Tse Tung left in Tien An Mein Square - people don't want to criticize China. Its a fact that Mugabe in Zimbabwe killed hundreds of thousands of Ndebele people who didn't feel like being oppressed by the Shona tribe - but of course no one on bable is going to call a sacred cow like Robert Mugabe an "imperialist practitioner of genocide". When Russia invaded Georgia and started massacring Georgians - most people on babble were busy being apologists for Putin.
There is a conflict in Sri Lanka that goes back generations and I'mnot going to start mindlessly chanting "Tamil = Good, Sinhala = Bad", just because one or two babblers who are pro-Tamil want to monopolize the thread with the Tamil perspective. There are two sides to every story.
The only imperialists in this part of the world were the British.
And they'd be the imperialists to whom I was referring, the one's who combined the Tamil and Sinhala kingdoms of Sri Lanka which remain combined in the modern state of Sri Lanka against the will of the Tamils. I don't know how you missed this or what your latest rant has to do with it.
There are also a number of outright lies in your rant such as:
When Russia invaded Georgia and started massacring Georgians - most people on babble were busy being apologists for Putin.
And finally this little pearl of wisdom:
There are two sides to every story.
Is there a justification for every act? Thats what you're really saying and you wouldn't rationalize away crimes committed against yourself, you're just happy to do it to others.
"Is there a justification for every act?"
Sometimes there is and sometimes there isn't. Do you feel that there is justification for the Tamil Tigers using child soldiers, encouraging feeble minded people to commit suicide and to take as many people down with them as they can, targetting civilians when they launch terrorist attacks, having their thugs in Canada commit extortion by threatening and in many cases beating up Tamils who don't feel like "donating" their hard earned money to the Tamil Tigers.
I'm not excusing what the Sinhala have done in Sri Lanka either - they undoubtedly deserve at least half the blame for the way this conflict has gotten out of hand - but that doesn't mean that we need to start uncritically hailing every Tamil Tiger atrocity as if this was Che Guevara leading his ragtag band of rebels singing "Rebels are we, born to be free, just like the fish in the sea!!"
Both sides deserve our contempt.
"Both sides deserve our contempt. "
If the Tamil Tigers earned the terrorist title then the Sri Lankan government earned it 30+ years before the Tamil Tigers were born. Yet the one who was and still practicing terrorism for a long time is not on the list and still gets money from the Canadian government in the form of aid for development.
Child Soldiers? I have friends who just walked into the LTTE camps at their tender age of 11, 12, 13, 14 and so on only to get a hard slap and told to go home. Another friend who went and lied his age only to be caught later on. I remember seeing a girl in her teenage year crying her eyes out on the street because her family who left her home so that she can write her exam and they had to travel the Jaffna lagoon where they were attacked by the Sri Lankan Navy and sunk to the bottom of the lagoon. She went to the LTTE camp near our house to join, but they contacted her relative and told them to come pick her up. The government has created so many orphans who have no choice but the LTTE, what have you done to stop the government from creating these orphans? Continuing to support a terrorist state and questioning an oppressed people their right to self-determination surely shows your moral standing to brag about Child Soldiers.
Here is the Child soldiers the government does not want you to know about:
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=27856
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=27758
These things don't come to public or to the Human Rights group as Sri Lanka does not allow monitoring of its armed forces, nor do they allow the Human Rights to examine bodies handed over to the ICRC by the Tigers to be examined and publicly identified.
"cases beating up Tamils who don't feel like "donating""
Cases where no individual was charged or arrested but using this as one of the reason to ban LTTE due to the pressure of the Sri Lankan government during the ceasefire time.
Stockholm,
Now we are back to the blame game, where one accuses the other and forgets the root cause that stated this mess as well as the desperate situation of the Tamil people at the current moment.
You are one person who wants the oppressed to stay oppressed and die as an oppressed and not fight back and accept the reality that is forced uo on them. Is there something wrong with you or there is there something wrong with the rest of us.
I believe in non-violence and turning the other cheek. If there has to be a war, my only hope is that one side or the other scores a decisive victory as quickly as possible so that the bloodshed will come to an end.
It appears that the Sri Lankan government is winning big - I hope that they will be magnanimous in victory and learn from the mistakes they made in the past that caused this conflict to get out of hand in the first place.
"That said you've also managed to write a lot without saying much of anything...“mimeguy wrote:Targeting civilians is not acceptable regardless of whether you believe financial centres and other non military 'symbols of power' are legitimate targets. Sure, and the vast majority of the "targetting civilians" which takes place in Sri Lanka, like in Gaza, is the oppressive occupying regime targeting the minority population's civilians (Tamils); as one would expect there is a little blow-back in return and a few Sinhala civilians are also killed and injured... its a sad situation to be sure, and one which would be easily remedied by the Sri Lankan regime ending its campaign against the Tamils. This isn't a two-way conflict. It is like the analogy someone used in one of the Gaza threads, more like an adult strangling an infant, the infant will still struggle and kick but they cannot win the fight and all they want is for the assault to stop... an assault you've recognized in your post and described well:
”This is where I respectfully disagree with you D. The analogy given here is completely false. Fatah and Hamas are not ‘infants’ and neither are the LTTE. They are disciplined armed forces/militias whichever term you want to use. In recognizing this, the intentional targeting of civilians, (I’m not sure why you put it into quotes as it is a well documented tactic), is a deliberate undertaking and not the ‘flailings’ of an infant fighting back. There is no excuse for a well disciplined resistance movement to indulge terrorist tactics. Military targets are legitimate as are symbols of power such as financial centres but these, when worked by, stationed by, civilians requires them to be targeted when civilian employees are not present.
“…as one would expect there is a little blow-back in return and a few Sinhala civilians are also killed and injured…”
This is very disingenuous. Civilians killed in crossfire during a clash between military and or police is unfortunate yes. Civilians killed as the result of a targeted terrorist action is a war crime. Full stop. Abducting children, recruiting children as child soldiers is a war crime. Full stop. Both the LTTE and its breakaway factions have admitted to this. They cannot be excused from these actions because they are the ‘underdog’ in the war.
“…the only solution comes from the Sri Lankan regime halting its campaign against the Tamils and recognizing their right to self-determination, however they choose to go about it; that recognition could end the violence.”
We may disagree on what is acceptable in terms of resistance but we are in complete agreement on this. However it works both ways in conflict. The LTTE and resistance movements like it can gain not only sympathy but diplomatic backing if they in turn agree to end terrorist tactics and use of child soldiers. Doing this will hasten the support they want and need. The solution is to negotiate either constitutional protection of minorities and their culture including Muslims living there. Barring that an autonomous relationship or independence.
“I agree that it scares Western elites although I disagree with the reason you've given. It scares them out of concern for their power over exploited peoples' worldwide, not out of concern for those peoples and the violence they'd have to endure. In fact violence would be reduced by such a precedent, as most liberation movements are struggling against states and borders imposed in the past by colonialism. "Canada" is scared of the Sri Lankan Tamils, just like we are scared of all the "terrorist" ethnicities out there, because they threaten the sense of superiority held by our elites (hopefully not the average Canadian), that they can dictate the terms of reference under which all the world's people must live (and Sri Lanka's Tamils are essentially fighting to escape these Western applied terms of reference).”
I think it goes deeper than that and does include the average Canadian. Going back two and three hundred years to establish borders in conflict does resonate with Canadians. We’re not prepared to do this in Canada no matter how sympathetic we are to First Nations suffering. We’re also not prepared to do this even recognizing the legal claim. Instead we need to find another solution incorporating equal rights, cultural recognition and compensation for lost land. To endorse in other parts of the world the legitimacy of pre-colonial borders does invite further conflicts, not reduce them. Colonialism remains a very insidious part of history but there are nations which have come to grips with the results and established new borders or have found ways of incorporating under a common government.
“After some interesting thinking in your post its a pity this is the conclusion you've come to... Canada must condemn the Sri Lankan regime and cut off all support for this regime until they agree to return to the table and achieve a diplomatic agreement with the Tamils. We have no place is setting the solution (that’s for the participants), but right now we are a big part of the problem, interfering to assist the Sinhala regime. If the regime won't listen we use all our usual embargos etc... The point is to at least stop being a part of the problem.”
I agree with your assessment that Canada needs to condemn the actions of Sri Lanka. Cutting off all support is something we’re not quite in agreement with. Targeted areas need to be severed but not ‘all’ support. Military support, certain programs of exchange that can add pressure yes. Development programs servicing both Tamil and Sri Lankan communities doesn’t help pressure the government and only hurts the targeted groups of these programs. I don’t think the LTTE would want this or the Tamil Diaspora. In terms of negotiations it is common for warring parties to invite or accept third party negotiators. Canada has played this role in other conflicts and Norway has played this role in Sri Lanka. So it is relevant for Canada to offer diplomatic assistance to conflict zones where it is not a party to the violence. If your definition of interference and support of the regime includes our ‘fake’ war on terror then I would agree. If your definition of condemning Sri Lanka but endorsing the tactics to the LTTE then we are in disagreement again. It’s a pity that you think the world is so simplistic as to deal with only the concept of ‘good’ guy ‘bad’ guy. This only leads to further conflict because my ‘good’ guys get to do whatever they want regardless and your ‘bad’ guy doesn’t. In this limited sense I find agreement with Stockholm if not agreement on the situation in Sri Lanka specifically.
Thirusuj - Thanks for the info on India and I would like to read a bit more before commenting on it. By the way I am recieving your alert emails at my main address. I sent you replies but didn't hear back but maybe that address is not for responses. If your in Toronto it would be good to meet in person to learn more. You can contact me at the website in my babble profile.
So should we also be saluting the "heroism" (sic.) of the Sikh terrorists/freedom fighters who blew up the Air India flight and killed over 300 Canadians - after - they too were just fighting for the independence of their homeland....
"There is no excuse for a well disciplined resistance movement to indulge terrorist tactics."
It is also unfair for a resistance movement to be sidelined. How do you justify the International community picking one side (most cases, it is the government side) and financing it, supplying arms, training it, giving it diplomatic power while the other side is totally ignored. The other side is going to have to find new and deadlier method of warfare to match the warships, fighter jets, state of the art guns and so on........
Don't you agree?
Coming back to the Sri Lankan-Tamil issue. The Tamil people in Canada would have been happier when the LTTE was listed as a terrorist if that same listing was applied to the Sri Lankan government. That would have reduced both of them gaining capabilities, instead Canada and other western governments decided to weaken the LTTE and strengthen the Sri Lankan government. Which was definitely counter productive.
How was it fair that before the 2002 CFA agreement to stop the Tigers? They were regaining all their lost land and were slaughtering the Sri Lankan Armed Forces and was at the door step of Jaffa peninsula where 40 000 Sri Lankan troops been occupying the peninsula with its 600 000 + Tamil inhabitants (second last territory and a vital part of the Tamil Eelam that the Tamil people want/require to complete Tamil Eelam). Panicking that Tigers have the 40 000 troops at their mercy (slaughtering the 40 000 would have made Sri Lanka fall to its knee and collapse), the President of Sri Lanka sent her officials to India to save the troops. India refused to help publically but knowing that if they don't do something about it there is no stopping the Tigers from creating Tamil Eelam, and fearing the anger from Tamil Nadu if did help Sri Lanka, India just asked the USA, EU, Japan, Norway to find away. Tigers being pressured (and the clear sign and threat that if they don't, India will use its entire force) they unilaterally declared a ceasefire in December 2001. A mistake they are now regretting and the Tamil Diaspora is blaming themselves as we should have pressured the Tigers to go ahead with the slaughtering of the 40 000 troops in Jaffna peninsula..
As a Tamil I have been following on the political development (just like the rest of the community) and I am very saddened by the way everyone has played a game with the Tamil people's freedom.
Again LTTE has repeatedly asked for a referendum (under UN supervision) for the Tamil people to decide if they wanted to separate or stay united. If the International Community would have listened to that, right now there wouldn't be a tragedy. Also the Tigers proposed the ISGA (Interim Self-Governing Authority) during the 2002 CFA peace talks which was rejected by the Sri Lankan government and offered no alternatives to that proposal as well.
Stockholm,
Here is something for you:
Michael Tomasky asks Hillary Clinton about Iraq, the legacy of the Cold War, Mukasey and ceding executive powers - October 23, 2007
Q. Yeah. Do you think that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms, or do you think they have specific geopolitical objectives?
Well, I believe that terrorism is a tool that has been utilized throughout history to achieve certain objectives. Some have been ideological, others territorial. There are personality-driven terroristic objectives. The bottom line is, you can't lump all terrorists together. And I think we've got to do a much better job of clarifying what are the motivations, the raisons d'être of terrorists. I mean, what the Tamil Tigers are fighting for in Sri Lanka, or the Basque separatists in Spain, or the insurgents in al-Anbar province may only be connected by tactics. They may not share all that much in terms of what is the philosophical or ideological underpinning. And I think one of our mistakes has been painting with such a broad brush, which has not been particularly helpful in understanding what it is we were up against when it comes to those who pursue terrorism for whichever ends they're seeking.
Of course they have objective and they may even have legitimate grievances. But, just because I might object to the tactics of the Sri Lankan government - it doesn't mean that I have to embrace the tactics of the Tamil Tigers. An eye for an eye just leaves everyone blind!
There are two sides to every story.
Both sides deserve our contempt.
I believe in non-violence and turning the other cheek. If there has to be a war, my only hope is that one side or the other scores a decisive victory as quickly as possible so that the bloodshed will come to an end.
That's quite the political philosophy!
There are two despicable sides to every story: the weak side-who should embrace non-violence, take what they get and turn the other cheek and the strong side who should dish out their violence rapidly and effectively. 
“It is also unfair for a resistance movement to be sidelined. How do you justify the International community picking one side (most cases, it is the government side) and financing it, supplying arms, training it, giving it diplomatic power while the other side is totally ignored. The other side is going to have to find new and deadlier method of warfare to match the warships, fighter jets, state of the art guns and so on........ Don't you agree?”
This is where I have trouble with your reply. In fact I have agreed that Canadian support of the Sri Lankan government and hiding behind the fake war on terror as the sole reason is wrong. Yet you are using this argument to either avoid agreeing with the statement from me you quote or unequivocally stating that you believe terrorist tactics are legitimate. I will make myself clear again. State sponsored terrorism is wrong and cannot be defended. Neither is sponsored terrorism on the side of the resistance. Canada should condemn both and bring pressure on the Sri Lankan government to comply. Your statement below though would appear to state clearly that you agree and you project that the Tamil Diaspora agrees.
“Coming back to the Sri Lankan-Tamil issue. The Tamil people in Canada would have been happier when the LTTE was listed as a terrorist if that same listing was applied to the Sri Lankan government. That would have reduced both of them gaining capabilities, instead Canada and other western governments decided to weaken the LTTE and strengthen the Sri Lankan government. Which was definitely counter productive.”
Check your inbox mimeguy, I sent you a message.
"Yet you are using this argument to either avoid agreeing with the statement from me you quote or unequivocally stating that you believe terrorist tactics are legitimate. "
Let me tell you something about the Tamil Diaspora, Tamil people on the island and the Tamil people of Tamil Nadu; there is overwhelming support for the Tigers goal to restore the sovereignty of the Tamil people on that island. The methods are not agreed upon by many of us and the rest of us see it as a necessary evil that we need to bury once the sovereignty of the Tamil people is restored.
I hope I made my stand point clear on this issue.
We are definately not happy about us being pushed to the corner and forced to adopt Terrorist methods to gain what is rightfully ours.
"We are definately not happy about us being pushed to the corner and forced to adopt Terrorist methods to gain what is rightfully ours.
In other words - the devil made me do it.
In other words - the devil made me do it.
To be less sophisticated, that is one way to put it.
Maybe you could tell us why your beloved Tamil Tigers had no choice but to do the following:
"On June 2, 1987 33 Sinhalese Buddhist novice monks were dragged out of a bus at Aranthalawa and shot dead at close range. What when the Tamil Tigers took away 700 policemen in relays, who had surrendered as ordered by President Premadasa of Sri Lanka with a promise by the Tamil Tigers to send them south unharmed, and shot dead with their hands tied at their backs and having asked them to kneel in front of a ditch."
I guess they just had no choice but to commit these atrocities.
Do you also think that the people battling for an independent Sikh homeland were "forced" into blowing up the Air India plane with 300 Canadians aboard.
Poor things. It must be so tough to be "forced" to do things like this.
First of all, for the Sikh militancy, I responded by posting an answer to a question from Hillary Clintons interview. Second, don't jump into conclusion that what those few individuals did was an order from the Sikh militant movement or the Sikh people. Your lack of understanding of it just demonizes the Sikh people in general, which needs to stop.
Second of all, the quote about the Sri Lankan police and the monk, can you please provide the source. Hope fully you will be able to give me an independent and reliable source, so that I don't waste my time.
Again, we can go on accusing each other and forget the root cause of this problem. Not going to solve the issue. You seem to have a problem in understanding that when there is a fire; the source of the fire needs to be targeted instead of targeting the outer flames. Especially when the source of the fire is right in front of you and the water is in your hand.
I don't give a damn what the "source" of the problem is. Ther can NEVER EVER EVER EVER be any excuse for things like dragging 33 Buddhist moks off a bus and murdering them all at point blank range.
If someone started a thread that referred to Tamils as "sub-human necrophiliacs" and tried to justify atrocities against Tamils as being "necessary". I would denounce those people in the same terms.
An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. Why don't you Tamils and Sinhala just all learn Esperanto and live together as one big happy family instead of massacring each other. Sri Lanka is a beautiful place. Too its being destroyed by people on both sides who hate their enemies more than they love their own children.
An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. Why don't you Tamils and Sinhala just all learn Esperanto and live together as one big happy family instead of massacring each other. Sri Lanka is a beautiful place. Too its being destroyed by people on both sides who hate their enemies more than they love their own children.
We all tried living together. We all know the island is a beautiful place. If the International community had treated the both side equally or responded with effective measure at the time required this would not have happened. It is late, but not too late.
I don't give a damn what the "source" of the problem is. Ther can NEVER EVER EVER EVER be any excuse for things like dragging 33 Buddhist moks off a bus and murdering them all at point blank range.
First of all I asked you for the source to know where you got this from because fabricated stories are all over the place. And you not wanting to understand the root cause of the problem shows your arrogance toward/over an oppressed community and your unwillingness to drag the players of the conflict to a non-violence format (yet, you sure act like you are adamant follower of non-violence).
Here is a quote:
The government delayed bringing in emergency rule until 2 June [1981], by which time key targets had been destroyed. On 4 June, emergency rule was extended throughout the country, and lifted five days later. Meanwhile, the government had no intention of postponing elections, despite the fact that the signs were hardly auspicious. It was determined to win at least one seat in Tamil territory. On the morning of polling day, TULF leaders were arrested: they were later released, with no explanation given. After the elections, several of the ballot boxes were tampered with, and some were never produced for counting. But, in spite of this, TULF won all the seats in Tamil areas.
After the elections were over, there was no respite for the Tamil people. While Sinhalese MPs fulminated against opposition colleagues, and discussed in parliament how to best kill them, Tamil peasants were actually being murdered by organised gangs in the border areas of Batticaloa and Amparai. During July and August, Tamils in the East and South, including the hill country plantation workers, were terrorised and made homeless. Women were raped, and at least twenty-five people perished. The attacks, many by well-organised goon squads, were widely believed to be directed by members of the ruling UNP, among them close friends of the President.
-- "The state against Tamils." Nancy Murray. Race & Class, XXVI, 1 (1984). pp.100-1
Here is another quote:
" A tourist told yesterday how she watched in horror as a Sinhala mob deliberately burned alive a bus load of Tamils... Mrs.Eli Skarstein, back home in Stavanger, Norway, told how she and her 15 year old daughter, Kristin, witnessed one massacre. 'A mini bus full of Tamils were forced to stop in front of us in Colombo' she said. A Sinhalese mob poured petrol over the bus and set it on fire. They blocked the car door and prevented the Tamils from leaving the vehicle. 'Hundreds of spectators watched as about 20 Tamils were burned to death'. Mrs. Skarstein added: 'We can't believe the official casualty figures. Hundreds may be thousands must have been killed already."
- London Daily Express, 29th August 1983
If someone started a thread that referred to Tamils as "sub-human necrophiliacs" and tried to justify atrocities against Tamils as being "necessary". I would denounce those people in the same terms.
That’s very nice of you and that’s what I would expect from a sensible person. I and others are not here demonizing the Sinhalese people, we are here to understand the root cause and the development of the conflict to the deadly stage right now. Pointing fingers were not part of it until you came along.
Thats some endurance thirusuj, pity it never pays off with stockholm. He obviously still isn't listening at all. He did sum up why he should be ignored quite nicely in his latest post however,
I don't give a damn what the "source" of the problem is.
Bravo. A simply stunning admission. Then go away.
Atrocities against innocent civilians can never be justified. PERIOD.
Instead of wasting everyone's time being an apologist for the Tamil Tigers and their inhumane tactics - why don't you instead try to build the case for why the Tamil people as a whole have a legitimate grievance against the Sri Lankan government. Instead all you're doing is implying that acknowledging the grievances of the tamil community in Sri Lanka means that we're supposed to applaud the Tamil Tigers massacring busloads of Buddhist monks.
This is no different from having a Serbian-Canadian trying to explain why Katadzic had "no choice" but to murder 8,000 Bosnian civilians at Srebenica.
If you go back to the above posts, you would find that we were discussing the Tamil people's grievance, example post #54 from you and the answer to that in post #55 and #57 and mimeguy contributed to it more in the post #59 by expressing the fear of the world in recognizing the borders before colonialism.
If you stop pointing fingers and asked constructive question about the Tamil people's grievance then we can build on it further.
"Tamil Tigers massacring busloads of Buddhist monks."
I asked you to provide the source and you still have not done so and you are acting very childish.
If your stomach is strong enough - you can look at this website that describes a litany of Tamil Tiger atrocities and wanton disregard for the lives of civilians.
http://www.spur.asn.au/ltteatrp.htm
I was so waiting for this....
This is why I was hoping for you would provide a "creditable source". SPUR is not a creditable source and most of the atrocities are not investigated but directly blamed on the LTTE and half the incidents are done by the Sri Lankan home guards, pro-government paramilitaries, and the Sri Lankan Armed forces itself. SPUR is operated by a group of Sinhalese from Australia, New Zealand etc.
I am sure you browsed through the website and guaranteed that you would not have found one incident in relation to the Sri Lankan government atrocities. I can also give you websites where all the things done by the government is highlighted and none by the Tamil Tigers.
I feel pity that you been exposed to the propaganda of one side and your judgment has no balance.
You might as well read defence.lk, it's the Sri Lankan government defense ministry website.
If you are going to pull something like this in the future, please don't waste my time. Next time provide independent and international sources.
Oh, I forgot to mention that SPUR has affiliation with the Sinhalese nationalist party JHU which is exclusively for monks.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSCOL68571
Here is something for you in response. Hope you have Adobe Acrobat installed.
Here are some of the recorded atrocities by the Sri Lankan government which they have affidavits and so on...
"SPUR is not a creditable source"
...and what makes you a credible source? You seem to be just as biased on the Tamil side as they are on the Sinhalese side.
Obviously you seem to have a problem even though I try my best to provide credible source with my arguments.
I will let others decide and question my point of view and the credible source I provide.
tomtoronto
tomtoronto
Asian Human Rights Commission:SRI LANKA: The Exhibitionism of Necrophilia: The Subhuman in the Sinhala-Buddhist PsycheRights Commission: SRI LANKA:
I have read an interesting discussion that has been produced by an article which I find very questionable. I was initially shocked by the title of the article. So I watched the video. The video introduced more questions, but did not offer answers. In the video there is unquestionably a naked dead woman. The body is dragged a few feet along the ground. There is a frankly pornographic camera zoom to focus on the sex of the body. There is a focus in close-up on the face of a young man in camouflage clothing, who (from his expression) is weirded out by (A) the sight of a dead naked woman, (B) the conflict situation in which he finds himself, i.e, the death, the sexual element or - (C) the making of the video itself; to me it looks like the face of a young man who is so overwhelmed by what he is experiencing that he does not know how to react. Nasty, ugly stuff. Yet, there is no telling if it has not been staged for propagandistic purposes.
Then there is that title. To charge a people and a religion with subhuman necrophilia is hateful. Even following the exposure of the massacre at My Lai, South VietNam in which an entire village of three hundred people was destroyed - women were raped and killed, animals killed, buildings burned - no one thought to blame the christians, though many, if not all, of the perpetrators were at least nominally of that faith. And the fact that the title begins with the words, "Asian Human Rights Commission," perhaps to suggest that the article is a report made to or by them in order to add to the credibility of the charges made in the article - really stinks! I question the decision of rabble editors to run it with that title that includes the broad brushing of an ethnic group and a religion with the words subhuman and necrophilia. That rabble members have managed a discussion despite the title speaks well for them, but as for what has actually been accomplished -?- If one now Google's the articles title, or the url of the article's title, http://www.ahrchk.net/ahrc-in-news/mainfile.php/2009ahrcinnews/, one finds rabble.ca listed under the article's title: Asian Human Rights Commission: SRI LANKA: The Exhibitionism of ...
http://www.ahrchk.net/ahrc-in-news/mainfile.php/2009ahrcinnews/2399/. Here is the video of the curel treatment of the dead bodies: ...
www.rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/asian-human-rights- commission-sri-lanka-exhibitionism-necroph - 284k - Cached - Similar pages
The question here is: Has rabble.ca been used to confer credibility to propaganda involving racist hate literature?
I haven't known what to make of this thread since it was started. The article in the OP uses the term 'necrophilia' in an clinically incorrect and probably intentionally inflammatory way. The article makes a valid point about how the bodies of casualties should be treated, and that the sexualized display of the dead women combatants, suggesting that they may have also been raped, either before or after they were killed, is abhorrent. It's also, sickeningly, par for the course in violent military conflicts. That doesn't make it any less repulsive or saddening, and attention should still be drawn to it. But this is not necrophilia. Why is this term being repeated sensationalistically in the thread title ?
That would be a question for the newspaper that wrote the headline, the thread title merely repeats it. I do wish it could be changed, though. Sadly the opening poster is not able to edit it.
Meanwhile, here's a press release from the Asian Human Rights Commission web site that criticizes the LTTE on human rights grounds -- http://www.ahrchk.net/pr/mainfile.php/2008mr/583/
Ok, this comes under the heading of better late than never. I'm inclined to agree with those who have some discomfort with the thread title. The authors own the report cited, but thread titles reflect on rabble. It would appear to say that being subhuman is a characteristic of Sinhalese Bhuddists. That's like failing to make the distinction between say the IDF and Jews worldwide, so I've changed it.
Now, about the video which was linked in the OP. when it was first posted, I started to open it, but just got as far as a bit of sound and lights. I was at work, and a Tamil colleague was just feet away from me. She's already upset enough about this stuff. I just got back to it now.
Whoever this woman was, and whatever horrors she or her remains suffered will not be further seen on this site. Thirusuj, don't link to stuff like that again.
Thirusuj, you are clearly an active partisan in this cause. That's not against policy, but I'm stating the obvious for those who haven't figured it out. I've stated my own opinion on the overall conflict elsewhere, and from whence I am informed on the subject. I am supportive of Tamil self determination. I also have on my teams caseload a Tamil kid who was tortured by the LTTE, and is pretty badly damaged. I know Tamils who have emigrated to escape the LTTE as well as the general poverty and oppression. In my opinion both sides are badly led.
tomtoronto
Thank you Jas and Ze for your posts. Oldgoat, thank you for taking some action to clear this up. However, what I feared is still happening: The article, connected to the offensive (thread) title, is NOT an Asian Human Rights Commission Report as stated in the renamed thread. It is an online newspaper article by LankanNewspaper.com (about which my short search yielded nothing). The title of that article was listed as a link on the webpage: Asian Human Rights Commission in the News, http://www.ahrchk.net/ahrc-in-news/mainfile.php/2009ahrcinnews/. The url for Asian Human Rights Commission Report is different, and is titled differently. I urge members to check out the url given above in this paragraph: One can see that all the articles listed at Asian Human Rights Commission in the News have simple, straightforward titles, except the one in question. (I am tempted to believe that it is titled specifically for this page). Secondly, while you are there, read the article that precedes it (is lower down) in the queue. There you will find an article that reports of the discussion between the Asian Human Rights Commission and the SRI LANKAN Gov't: SRI LANKA: Govt. probing controversial video [Daily Mirror]. Reading both articles it is plain to see that the article of which (thread) title is the centre of this present discussion actually borrows from the facts reported in the previous article (Gov't probing...video), but develops its own inflammatory interpretation primarily in the title and the first lines of the article, and then speaks about well-known human rights materials.
BTW, at the very bottom of this page is the url for South Asian Media...which set off a malware and spyware warning screen on my computer, and which I left alone.
Oldgoat,
I have copied the article and its straight from the AHRC, little did I know that it would create a controversy which became to be seen as generalizing the entire Sinhalese population. There is clear distinction from the Sri Lankan governments along with its extremist supporters and state institutions which is world apart from the poor Sinhalese who have no choice but fall to the dirty politics of Sri Lanka. Thank you for changing the title.
The attachment of the link also created a negative stir, which could have been avoided if I had kept the video out of this thread. Since the evidence was available for the article I tagged it without thinking deeper and made it worst by not giving viewer discretion.
Yes, I am an active partisan and very supportive of the Tamils external self-determination. I am certainly not here to make LTTE look like they are the good guys, as a Tamil I am well aware that LTTE is not an angel. I have disagreement about their decision on the Tamil speaking Muslims of Jaffna (an issue they handled irresponsibly), the failure to discipline their cadres in the 80's and 90's for doing revenge killings which has caused many of the Tamil people to be disgusted and stained the earlier struggle of non-violence.
Like I stated before, their tactics are not agreed by many while some decided to overlook until external self-determination is achieved. Amazingly the support for them to restore the sovereignty of the Tamil people is overwhelming and growing.
I am looking forward to continue on this thread and look into the past that got everything to the current stage.
Its nice to see that people read the thread. Its rather sad that for many their only comments were to ask that the thread title be changed so they can return to ignoring the thread's contents and the situation in Sri Lanka. This is the first thread on Sri Lanka to get anywhere near this number of posts in Babble's history; obviously the title was doing something right. That is afterall why people give editorials (such as the one referenced in the title) "controversial" titles that catch the eye. But perhaps one can hope that those who took the time to complain about this title of this thread will be keeping their eyes open for chances to participate in discussion on the subject of Sri Lanka in future threads with less "controversial" titles.
So tomtoronto, were you attracted to join babble just to complain about the title of this thread or did you have anything to add? I'd be interested to hear your opinion on the contents of the thread's discussion; whats your view on the conflict in Sri Lanka? I appreciate the value in lurking and learning about a subject, which is why I keep posting on this subject when (prior to thirusuj's arrival) noone else here showed much of an interest, but now that you've taken the plunge and signed up (and proven you can be quite articulate in your posts so far) how about joinning in to the discussion?
Gee, maybe now you can attract attention to the conflict in Tibet by starting a thread that calls Tibetan Buddhists sub-human necrophiliacs or whatever. I'm sure you could also get a juicy thread going that says that Jews kill Christian babies and use their blood to make matzoh. Is that your idea of drawing attention to a conflict?
Stockholm,
The title has been changed as the majority of the participants requested for it. Do you want to continue this thread as being productive participant or be a nescience?
