Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (85179)	8/9/2000 8:57:15 PM
From: jbe	Respond to of 108807

You've lost me again, Cosmo. What I wrote was this: Yet it is my impression that ethnic conflict has always taken a back seat to religious (Hindu/Moslem) conflict. Your response: If you are going to identify division between Muslim and Hindu in India as only religious and not call that ethnic division, I would say that is a stretch. Is that because some conversion has gone on and that there are some "racial" overlap? I am no expert on India (which is why I said the above was "my impression," not the Word of God). But again, IT IS MY IMPRESSION that religious affiliation there is not necessarily tied to ethnicity. The Pakistanis claim Kashmir because the majority of the population there is Muslim, not because it is "ethnically related" to other Pakistanis. Not that there are not ethnic separatist groups in India. There are. But such movements certainly SEEM to have "taken the back seat" to the fundamental Hindu/Muslim conflict. And why use the term "racial"? I don't see its applicability here.