More should be done in Guyana to get Afro-Guyanese and Amerindian Guyanese to embrace the religion of Hinduism(the oldest religion on Earth) instead of the religions of invaders,Conquerors and white racism. 

ress yuhself bai . . . you're not even being clever

Cyar you rass! First, Hindus do not proselytize. Secondly, saanthan Dharm as practiced in india is not the reformed form one sees in Guyana, and lastly it would be an imposition of the kind Hindus in Guyana still resist in their own communities.  Also, being the oldest religion does not make it right or superior.

For clarity, since you do not like the ideas of invadors you need to cast aside the term Hindu since it is about peoples believing a variety of things. There is no authentic Hinduism.

Stormborn, are you a promotor of White supremacy?.  Keep spreading the religions of white racist invaders and see what happens. 

You do not know what you are talking about.  I hope you are not aiding the spread of the religions of merciless invaders and slave owners.

Afro and Amerindian Guyanese should know more about making the Hindu religion a part of their lives.  The religion has been in Guyana for about 150 years and not many Afro Guyanese and Amerindian Guyanese have been a part of it. 

HARI BOL HARI BOL. PREM BOLO BHAGWAN KI JAI!!!

Caribj is a hindu?

Al Yuh betta keep Malation far from dat Chap.

 On what account you leaped from my objection ( to precisely what Hindus object to, proselytizeing in their communities) to white supremacy? And on what line of argumentation are you separating the teaching of Christianity to natives from Hinduism to the natives?  Whites invasion is no less to native peoples  than Indians or any other and what ever presumption of necessity to teach them a religion is no less a superior view to their own native entelechy

Note it is on white claims that Indians and Africans are leverage citizenship in  Guyana  and to which they presently seek equivalences with respect to native homelands on native soil  so quit the bull shit of arguing from a position of colonialism.

Freddi has a piece in todays paper. Check it out. Bring it here and lets discuss it rationally.

Your presumption that they do not is a presumption. I am sure I know more of it than you do since I took the time to study it critically and comparatively.  Why should you measure the depth of knowledge of a religion by those who becomes disciples of it? Such facile argumentation can be easily pivoted to the equally facile position to assert that it is because of their grasp of what it entails that they resist it.

I presume you have something against Christianity and by extension, Islam and Judaism?

All Hindu Gurus, Pandits and Teachers of Guyana need to bypass people like Stormborn and Redux (who it seems may be promoting the religious interests of their white Masters) and go directly to the Afro Guyanese and Amerindian Guyanese and welcome them to Hinduism.

 I am an atheist and that much was proclaimed from the point of my appearance here. I do not promote religion. I actually think to be religious is to be deluded.

Amerindians already have their religion and if you were up on what is the true nature of their religion you would see it no less than as Brahmanism. Actually, many traditional religion came to no less a conclusion than Brahmanism as well.

But you are  fool and this yapping about white man's religion is no less your ignorance writ large. Brahmanism is henotheistic ie god comes from many equally valid sources. Jesus is no less a manifestation of god than Vishnu.

All is Atman, the animation of energy in the one eternal soul.  How the hell can it not be if Brahma is the oneness behind, above within and outside of the illusion of the many? Get to know your damn religion.

Why should they embrace a religion that Indians are fleeing from.

There has been a significant increase in Christianity among Guyanese Indians.

Christianity arrived in Africa BEFORE it did in Europe and indeed at the first synod a black man was despicted as one of the bishops.  The Christians had no ability to conquer any one at the time.

India also purchased slaves from Africa and their descendants have been made to suffer tremendously.  So what makes them any better than the Europeans?  

CaribNY I agree with you that a black man was one of the first Christian Bishops and Christianity was in Africa first. But you better not say that to those white guys in the White Christian Identity Movement. They may grab you and throw you back into slavery.

Many East Indian Hindus would not think twice about discriminating and fighting against other East Indian Hindus. Example: the untouchables of India and their experience of discrimination.  It is time other peoples pick up the mantle of hinduism and take it into the future.

Elements of Hinduism could serve Africa and other part of the world well.  However, hinduism has a lot of backward attributes and does not serve humanity well.

I agree Baseman it has to be reformed to take it into the 21th century.  With the exception of sects like the Hare Krishnas and the Maharishi Movement, many East Indian Hindus have no sense of unity and helping each other out.  Its good to see the African Brothers and Sisters adopt Hinduism into their lives maybe they will be able to reform it and save it from its self- destruction.

If white men wish to fool themselves that Christianity is a religion of Europe they are wrong.  Just like Indo Nazi racists who repeat the same nonsense.

Indeed Christianity probably became established in INDIA before it did in Britain.

Do you know that the first slaves into North America and Barbados were WHITE English, scottish and Irish?  Their inability to work in the hot Caribbean as well as the even hotter summers of the southern US are largely responsible for this source of slaves becoming less important.

CaribNY, christianity is an invader religion brought to Africa by military force. It also put millions of black Africans into industrial Slavery and eventual horrible death. So stop fooling yourself with these talks of Christianity's place in Africa. It is not an ancient natural African religion but the religion of an invader.

 Quit the bull and read and become informed. Many of the early church fathers came from Africa. Athanasius is is a native Alexandrian and was instrumental in debating Arias at Nicene at the first Counsel. Undoubtedly  St  Clement was and so was Augustine. He give us the basis for modern Christian apologetics.  Others include Tertullian and Origen.

Yes Christian Europe invented Slavery in the worse way but the trade was well established by the Arabs in by the end of the 6th century. Christianity is as natural as religion goes. If you mean nature religions then indeed you make a distinction.

In any event, you are presuming that there is nothing like Hinduism in Africa and the Yoruba will tell you in straight terms conclusions no different. The amazing thing about ignorance is that it presumes that ones viewpoint is all there is. Well, native Africans and native Americans have very profound world views and to say that a religion from somewhere else be it Christianity or Hinduism or Taoism or Buddhism will help them rather than their own is a presumption. It is a bias based on ignorance.

Sound advice, Stormborn.

 Hope you take it to heart. At this point as you traverse  the in between spaces of life and death you ought to have had that down pat.

Not at all Stormborn. I like your one-in-a-thousand good advice. 

Stormborn you are not addressing the racism of christianity against the black man and woman.  Those people that you mention such as St Clement.  Those were black men yes but they were also soldiers of the faith who took the sword to the black man.  There is nothing African about Christianity.

I have no desire to investigate racism in any religion. In Christianity there is no imperative to discriminate one can lay a finger upon. If others interpret it as such that is their problem not a problem with the faith. Also, none of these early church fathers were soldiers. They were exiles from persecution and because of their faith.

Some 30 years after Jesus died Vespasian chased every Jew out of Israel. Early Christians or the Jerusalem church did not break with Judaism and they were driven out too

Christianity did not develop white etc. I doubt Paul who give it its sea legs by his obsessive proselytizing ever cared for the subject matter or saw the people before him in that light.

Further, it is facile to locate Christianity in Europe despite the urgings of our experience of it. Actually, one has to go back to Ur and its vacinity to find its origins in covenants god made with  Adam and Eve and then with Abraham. That Covenant was reaffirmed  again  with  Moses and he wrote the first laws detailed to us in the the Pentateuch.

The covenant with Moses happened between Egypt and the river Jordan, According to the bible some 60 or 70 went Hebrews went into Egypt and a million and a quarter came back after a sojourn of 4  centuries. These people seeded the Christ some one thousand three hundred years later. Christ is the line of David. There is a lot African about Christianity since it seeded the religion.

Hindus and Muslims also eagerly bought slaves from Africa.  And they did so LONG AFTER the Christians had determined that slavery was a bad thing.  Also I am not aware of any moves for the abolition of slavery within either the Hindu or Muslims worlds. Indeed the Indian Ocean slave trade ended because the BRITISH and other Europeans stopped it.

What you need to admit to is that Muslims were involved in buying slaves from Africa long before the Europeans and continued to buy long after the Europeans ceased.  Hindus were willing buyers of these slaves from Arab merchants.

You know little about African history so it will help you look less ridiculous if you ceased your incoherent babble.

Then neither is it European.  Christianity arose out of Judaism and reached north East Africa at around the same time as it did Europe.  Clearly you do not know of the Coptic Church of North Africa (this before Muslim Arabs took over that region) nor do you know about The Ethiopian Orthodox church.  Both churches were well established while the inhabitants of Britain were still worshippiong stones and eating each other.

So the Europeans who engaged in slavery brought Christianity to subSaharan Africa, sometimes violently.  Well the Muslim Arabs also enagged in slavery and also were quite violent.  Their colonial domination of coastal East Africa closely paralells what the Europeans did in the Caribbean.

Why your one sidedness against Christians when the Muslims were as bad.

And as for racism.  Europeans clearly discriminated against blacks as did Arabs and Indians so what is your point.  Note that today the Siddis of India and many similar groups in the Arab world are agood deal worse off, even relative to other groups within their countries, than are blacks in the USA.

Here is something for you to think about.  The Christians of Europe perpetuated great wrongs against those within their midst and against non Europeans.  So did the Arab Muslims and the Indian Hindus. 

However emerging in the 19th century a liberal ideology grew in Europe, which attempted to mitigate those wrongs.

I remain unaware of any similar liberal ideology emerging in Muslim or Hindu spheres.  The wholesale trade of slaves across borders ended because of CHRISTIANS. Muslims continued to trade slaves long after Christians did and only stopped when Christians forced them to stop.

Stormy and Caribny, I have to echo what you guys have posted. I am happy that Hiduism is able to transcend borders and other languages. It's ancient practices have morphed.

................................................................

India

I have only recently come to know of slavery in the Indian Subcontinent, a fact that appalls me as I have lived in this region for the larger part of my life. While volunteering for the nonprofit organization, Free the Slaves, I got the chance to look at results of surveys conducted by the organization in regions where slavery is prevalent. Free the Slave’s method of intervention is a long process and seeks to end slavery in a sustainable manner. It seeks to educate the villagers about their rights, informs the enforcement authorities of any violation of law, provides schooling for the children and also creates opportunities so that the families can pull themselves out of poverty.  

Children born in Slavery

There are around 18 million people in India who in some way or the other are enslaved. In spite of the shear immensity of that number, the enslaved represent only a tiny fraction of the population of India. Unlike Haiti where the Restavek system is a part of the culture, slavery in India is well hidden. It is a phenomenon that remains unknown to most Indians and gets a blind eye from the Indian government. India is really proud in its claim of being the biggest republic and a long-standing defender of human rights. Indeed slavery is outlawed in India, and the constitution grants equal rights to all human beings. Ranking at number 95 in Transparency International’s Worldwide Corruption Perceptions Rankings, means that most laws protecting minorities, are not enforced by the administration. India is also a country with a vast income disparity, something that gives rise to the violation of human rights and loss of human dignity.

Indian slave labor

Unlike the case in Haiti, where children are inducted into slavery due to economic reasons and the hope of a better life, most of the slavery in India is debt-induced. The slaves are not only children but families and often times entire villages. Most of these families belong to a lower caste (Scheduled caste/Harijans/Backward caste) or other religious minority groups. These groups have been historically marginalized and lack the education or professional skills to overcome the abject poverty they were born in. Most live in extremely rural areas where the only governing body is a village council. Like most of India, their main source of livelihood is agriculture, although they do not own their own land. The landowners, who are also the loan sharks, pay them a miniscule amount of money for their labor. The women, who are paid less than the men, usually get only a small ration of food for their labor. No one is spared by this system, with children as young as five having to pick up farming tools instead of books every morning. At the end of the day, they have little left over to save. The children grow up malnourished, and when sickness befalls the family, it has little choice but to take out a loan from their landlord. The landlord gladly hands out money, knowing that this will only lengthen the period of serfdom for the family. The loans accrue at exorbitant interest rates, and the family falls deeper into debt.  Children inherit the debt accumulated by their parents, never experiencing a life without bondage. The cycle continues – permeating the lives of generations of unfortunate villagers.

Stormborn and CaribNY, the two of you should start your own party in Guyana "The United Royal Crusaders Force Party".  The two of you may soon be claiming that the people who brought Apartide to Southern Africa were not Christians but Muslims and Hindus. I hope the two of you are not two Mimic Men left over from the British Guiana Colonial period.

 You are one confused person. The OP makes an ought statement. you have to back it up. I simply said you do no less than Christians did when they proselytize so why would you want to follow that mode of action. Suddenly you went scatter brained into all sorts of wrong headed  and false claims about Christianity and are angered when corrected.

Again, why should West Africans be inculcated in Hinduism as a creed? Do you not think you should know first if their native beliefs fails? You do not even know what they believe. And like Christians before did, you think you have the moral authority to impose on them your alien faith. Get real.

I have no investment in religions. I simply am entertaining you with how false are your beliefs and how like a barnacle you cling to them.

Stormborn answer this question. What was the religion of the people who did the Herero and Namaqua Genocide in Namibia?  Also, what was the religion of the people who did the Rwandian genocide? 

 What does that has to do with the cost of tea in china? Religion are never the cause or evil. It is secondary to the motivations of men to so what they will. If you think religion was the motivations for the genocide then your thinking is more pedestrian than I previously thought.I did not ask you why Brahmins kept Sudras in abject destitution as non persons for 6000 years. No other religion has so systematically prosecuted its own so injuriously as this. So lets get off the crap of your religion is better than mine. I have none.

The matter before us is why Hinduism in West Aftica? You ought to be telling me of its merit

It brings peace to the mind and society.  That is why it is needed.  It is not about squeezing every Calvinist dollar or Vatican donation out of another human being.

Christians and Muslims say the same things about their religions. Hinduism does no good in bringing peace to its backward masses who are kept in deliberate backwardness by a parasitic class.

And what of the native African religions? Why would a Yoruba man give up his philosophical leanings simply because you tell him he is in need of peace? I do not trust any who tells me that through religion he will change the state of man. In fact if you show me such a man I will advice you be wary of him.

And who brought in the caste system and wife burning into India and were quite happy to purchase African slaves from the Arabs?