I suppose it may come as a shock to you that you show little if any cultural sensitivity. You have a nice Western PC point of view which you insist that others be judged by.
As an example your initial premise seems to be stated here:
"one of the very first decisions Sri Lanka’s new leaders made was rooted in racism; and this pertained to not conferring citizenship on hundreds of thousands of Indian Tamils born and raised in the country (with many being fourth and fifth generation denizens)."
So why should a country confer citizenship to those dumped on its shores by an occupying force?
You no doubt have an implicit theory of the conditions by which citizenship Needs be granted.
From where does that come from? Is it the only theory fo citizenship used in the world etc, etc etc.
Secondly, your use of the term "racism" strongly suggests you are motivated by the American relationship between blacks and whites.
Are the two situations comparable?
Finally, because I am time pressed, you really leave out what is bound to be a long and involved history between the Buddhists and the Tamils who had lived on the Island for centuries. Trying to define such long standing conflicts by citing what is happening presently is at best lazy.
You might want to look into the Systemic theories of families. And their extension into political arenas.
But for now I find you a rather self-inflated armchair General.
PLSchwartz,
The quote that seems to have upset you is not my writing. I am quoting an author and his opinion - and that opinion is not based on one incident but based on a review of the history of the Sri Lankan government's actions over a period of a few decades.
Incidentally, if you actually read that sentence carefully, you would realize the author is discussing denial of citizenship to Tamils born in Sri Lanka.
Posted by eriposte at February 6, 2009 11:46 AM