My quote:
“Should it matter that although Indians participate in steel-pan, carnival and calypso, frontline Indian spokesmen continually call these art forms degrading. Should it matter that most Indians do not play football.”

I asked if it should matter and I deliberately said MOST Indians do not play football and not ALL Indians. I know a few Indians who play the game, but on the wider social level most don't get involved.

I used the example of football to later develop the point about what can happen when things are not placed in their historical context.
An example of this is the popular claim that the Police service and Army discriminates against Indians to which Raffique Shah responded repeatedly. Very few admit that they did not get involved for social considerations but these bogus claims are tossed around.
(I guess I will not be able to develop that point in this discussion as you already addressed it.)

Your quote:
“We cannot censure Indo-Trinidadians for another left-over colonial, nationally held bias towards the only musical instrument invented in the 20th century.”

I was quite specific in stating, “Frontline Indian spokesmen continually call these art forms degrading”. I had no intention of attempting to censure Indo-Trinidadians in general.

Most Indians DO NOT call these art forms degrading. So if you interpreted a censure in my comment it should be directed to the frontline activists as I mentioned.

Although you gave a good response I was very particular in qualifying my statements.