|
|
|
|
|
|
by pasabagi
919 days ago
|
|
|
Calling the European conquest of the Americas 'immigration' is kind of like calling operation Barbarossa 'tourism'. I also think the anecdote is kind of ridiculous. There was no India when the Parsis arrived. There was no India for a millennia after the Parsis arrived. The whole concept of assimilation to 'Indian culture' is even more ridiculous than it is to vastly more uniform (and vastly smaller) european cultures, because India, to its credit, is composed of hundreds of distinct cultures. Especially if you are going to backproject India (a country founded in 1947) to 700 ad. |
|
|
Ah, the idea that a nation couldn't possibly exist until it got modern statehood (as opposed to being "a country founded in 1947") or is just a perfectly homogeneous blob (as opposed to "composed of hundreds of distinct cultures".)
Sorry, but neither are requirements for there to have been an India - or China, or any other such examples, for millenia. They first is just the modern form of statehood that emerged after the era of nationalist.
India was a nation way before 1947 and before the brits got the fuck out. And I'd argue was also a country, just one under occupation, as opposed to a sovereign one with externally recognized statehood status.
So there's that.
And if "the European conquest of the Americas" isn't exactly immigration, the European settlements in the country we now call US were called and described as exactly that, of innocent "pilgrims" and "persecuted minorities" too. Still they didn't do the native "indian" populations any favor.