INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#21 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » October 25th, 2010, 3:29 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Nirvanam wrote:Also, suppose you were to become interested in Indian History, how would you take the information you read in History text books that Indian civilizational great creations like the Vedas, their sciences, etc were caused by a tribe of people who invaded India from the West and North-West...essentially that Indian civilizational development was not indigenous?
I would agree that such ideas should not be taught as fact when there is not sufficient evidence to support them, and it should be made clear that the whole thing is uncertain and controversial. I also agree that ideas like this have been, and perhaps still are, exploited by people with particular political agendas.

But I think the question of whether a group of people is indigenous or not rather unimportant. We're all from East Africa, ultimately. We all have ancestors who were a bunch of migrants, 60,000 years ago or so. And the vast majority of us have loads of more recent ancestors who were migrants from somewhere or other, and brought with them all sorts of things that have contributed in some way to our cultures and civilisations. Britain has undoubtedly benefited from various waves of migration and invasion. No doubt the same is true of India, whatever happens to be the truth about the Aryans.

Emma

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#22 Post by Nick » October 25th, 2010, 3:35 pm

Nirvanam wrote:
Nick wrote:I never believed in the concept of a master-race, so I have never given Aryan (which I previously misspelt. Oops!) theories a moment's thought. Nor does my knowledge of history (such as it is) extend to Indian history. Sorry!
How do you feel about such racially prejudiced theories being taught to children in school? Do you have children, Nick?
Sadly, I don't have children. I would object to racially prejudiced theories being taught in school. As to what the theories are that you refer to, I'm not familiar with them, so can't comment, though for the moment I'm inclined to accept your view of them.
Also, suppose you were to become interested in Indian History, how would you take the information you read in History text books that Indian civilizational great creations like the Vedas, their sciences, etc were caused by a tribe of people who invaded India from the West and North-West...essentially that Indian civilizational development was not indigenous?
I don't know. When/if I become interested in Indian history, I'll let you know. :)

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#23 Post by Nirvanam » October 25th, 2010, 3:44 pm

Emma Woolgatherer wrote:
Nirvanam wrote:Also, suppose you were to become interested in Indian History, how would you take the information you read in History text books that Indian civilizational great creations like the Vedas, their sciences, etc were caused by a tribe of people who invaded India from the West and North-West...essentially that Indian civilizational development was not indigenous?
I would agree that such ideas should not be taught as fact when there is not sufficient evidence to support them, and it should be made clear that the whole thing is uncertain and controversial. I also agree that ideas like this have been, and perhaps still are, exploited by people with particular political agendas.
Why should any theory even be mentioned in a school text? Why can't the indigenous account of History be presented instead of some racially prejudiced theory? What is the need?
Emma Woolgatherer wrote:But I think the question of whether a group of people is indigenous or not rather unimportant. We're all from East Africa, ultimately. We all have ancestors who were a bunch of migrants, 60,000 years ago or so. And the vast majority of us have loads of more recent ancestors who were migrants from somewhere or other, and brought with them all sorts of things that have contributed in some way to our cultures and civilisations. Britain has undoubtedly benefited from various waves of migration and invasion. No doubt the same is true of India, whatever happens to be the truth about the Aryans.

Emma
Irrelevant that is. We may have all come from one African woman but the fact is that each of our civilizations are way different, and the uniqueness of our civilizations although may not have anything to do with skin color, it has to be recognized and studied that way. My civilization and traditions are way different from yours. Recognizing this does not make me discriminate against you...it only makes me understand your reasons for behaving the way you do and rationalize them.

The land called Bharatvarsha is perhaps the oldest continuous civilization that Humanity has (just behind the Aborigenes but that has been questioned). I am proud and feel extremely lucky to be born in this land, as are you people about your lands. Because of a thousand years of loot and rape of our culture, first by Islamic barbarians then by European barbarians, I do not want the world to forget the 20,000 years of advanced culture that this land produced. Aryan theory is what led to a Hitler and it was poetic justice in a way that he screwed the Brits royally. If it wasn't for Hitler the Brits would have never questioned their bastardly practice of imperialism and colonizing of different lands that invited them over for trading not for turning them into slaves. Now, unless you uproot this crap called Aryan race from our civilizational consciousness you will have more Nazis turning up.

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#24 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » October 25th, 2010, 3:56 pm

Nirvanam wrote:Like I have always maintained here, we choose to believe based on the faith we put on who, where, and how it comes from.
I know. I was very aware of that when I commented about the various people involved.
For any "rational" person the moment he learns that these Indologist idiots came up with their racially prejudiced theories based on their belief that the Earth was 6000 years old, would invalidate the theory without any second doubts.
But Nirvanam, I haven't learned anything. The subject is too big. I don't see you as an authority on this. You are not an expert. Koenraad Elst does seem to be an expert, and he has a wonderful beard. He thinks the matter is undecided, although I think he leans towards your point of view.
Nirvanam wrote:I fail to see how people can know this fact and yet believe them...maybe it has to do with the fact that we don't want to see our ancestors as being so bastardly as to have concocted such racially prejudiced theories about the History of various lands...that they were so ridiculously wretched that they could not fathom that a non-white race was capable of a civilization advanced far beyond their own.
No, it's not that at all. I'm well aware of the appalling things that British people have been capable of believing and doing in the past, and are still capable of today. I doubt that any of my own ancestors were directly involved, because they were mostly a bunch of peasants. (Quite a few of them were bastards, too, but that's another matter ...) Still, the white racists weren't the only ones with an axe to grind. As Elst says, "One of the reasons for the absolutist rhetoric bedevilling the Aryan invasion debate is the enormous investment of various political messages in the competing theories." And in any case, just because the Aryan Invasion Theory was wrong doesn't mean that the Indigenous Aryan Theory is right.
Nirvanam wrote:Undecided, Emma? I mean seriously what is there to be undecided? Give me one reason why you are undecided...what does it take for you to put your foot down and say this Aryan Invasion/Migration/Trickle down myth has no bloody logic or rationality in it, or that it is total bullshit? What does it take...I'll try my best to help you unlock it for you.
What does it take? It takes a thorough investigation of the issue. It takes reading a few more articles, and perhaps a book or two. You've looked into this, Nirvanam. You have an advantage over us. It's familiar to you. It's not familiar to most of us. And since there are lots of issues competing for our attention and investigation, you might consider forgiving us if we are not willing to put in the time and effort required to become familiar with this particular issue.

Emma

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#25 Post by Nirvanam » October 25th, 2010, 4:13 pm

Emma Woolgatherer wrote:But Nirvanam, I haven't learned anything. The subject is too big. I don't see you as an authority on this. You are not an expert. Koenraad Elst does seem to be an expert, and he has a wonderful beard. He thinks the matter is undecided, although I think he leans towards your point of view.
Who is an expert according to you? What letters do I need next to my name to make me an expert? I sure am not an expert like Max Mueller. History is my second love in life behind cricket...cricket I was hooked on to at the age of 9 and History at the age of 10. I taught my own History Teachers at school at the age of 12-13. Indian History to be precise. Agreed that doesn't make me an expert. But seriously who is an expert, again?
Emma Woolgatherer wrote:No, it's not that at all. I'm well aware of the appalling things that British people have been capable of believing and doing in the past, and are still capable of today. I doubt that any of my own ancestors were directly involved, because they were mostly a bunch of peasants. (Quite a few of them were bastards, too, but that's another matter ...) Still, the white racists weren't the only ones with an axe to grind.
Of course these theories have given sustenance to many people like the Dravida Munnetra Kazhargam, the Dalits, the Marxist Historians of India. But the creators of this venom were the British. And because people like Gandhi and Nehru licked their ass and believed in AIT amongst other Colonial craps, they were given more mindspace by the British. So you see a regular home grown Indian had no chance to make his views heard thru out the 20th century. But that is our karma and we deserve it.
Emma Woolgatherer wrote: As Elst says, "One of the reasons for the absolutist rhetoric bedevilling the Aryan invasion debate is the enormous investment of various political messages in the competing theories." And in any case, just because the Aryan Invasion Theory was wrong doesn't mean that the Indigenous Aryan Theory is right.
Indigenous Aryan Theory? lol when was there an indigenous Aryan theory? And by the way, according to the process of History recording, the first source f History is the indigenous source. Can you or anyone else present a theory that can question this account...show it to be wrong, and show how your theory is right? No!
Emma Woolgatherer wrote:What does it take? It takes a thorough investigation of the issue. It takes reading a few more articles, and perhaps a book or two. You've looked into this, Nirvanam. You have an advantage over us. It's familiar to you. It's not familiar to most of us. And since there are lots of issues competing for our attention and investigation, you might consider forgiving us if we are not willing to put in the time and effort required to become familiar with this particular issue.

Emma
No, you need not investigate it but just do this for a Human Being you happen to know...the next time you notice your children being taught this crap, question their Teacher. That will be more than enough.

Also, please note that (now I wanna pull your leg) this is just one instance of showing that we choose to believe based on the faith we place in who, where, and how it comes from. :wink:

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#26 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » October 25th, 2010, 4:19 pm

Nirvanam wrote:I am proud and feel extremely lucky to be born in this land, as are you people about your lands.
I do not feel proud to be born in the UK. I feel lucky about all sorts of things, but I do not feel proud in any way of my nationality.
Nirvanam wrote:Aryan theory is what led to a Hitler and it was poetic justice in a way that he screwed the Brits royally.
So you think the British people who suffered as a consequence of Hitler were responsible for the theories of a group of 19th-century historians and philologists and anthropologists (not all of them British, in any case) who contributed to the Nazis' theories about race, do you, and deserved to suffer as a consequence? is that what you're saying? What about all the Polish people and French people and Russian people and all the other people who suffered? "Poetic justice", eh? What an utterly nasty way of looking at it.
Nirvanam wrote:If it wasn't for Hitler the Brits would have never questioned their bastardly practice of imperialism and colonizing of different lands that invited them over for trading not for turning them into slaves.
Many British people already were questioning it. You talk about "the Brits" as though they were a homogeneous group. They weren't. And aren't.

Emma

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#27 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » October 25th, 2010, 4:31 pm

Nirvanam wrote:No, you need not investigate it but just do this for a Human Being you happen to know...the next time you notice your children being taught this crap, question their Teacher. That will be more than enough.
I don't have children. But I'll tell you what I'll do. Next time I go into a bookshop when I've got half an hour or so to spare, I'll go to the history section and look for school history textbooks and I'll browse the index of each one I find and see if I can see anything about Aryan invasion or Aryan migration. And if I can, and if it's an uncritical account of such theories, I'll make a note of the book's publisher and I'll go home and write a letter of complaint.

How's that?

Emma

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#28 Post by Nirvanam » October 25th, 2010, 4:36 pm

Emma Woolgatherer wrote:
Nirvanam wrote:I am proud and feel extremely lucky to be born in this land, as are you people about your lands.
I do not feel proud to be born in the UK. I feel lucky about all sorts of things, but I do not feel proud in any way of my nationality.
Nirvanam wrote:Aryan theory is what led to a Hitler and it was poetic justice in a way that he screwed the Brits royally.
So you think the British people who suffered as a consequence of Hitler were responsible for the theories of a group of 19th-century historians and philologists and anthropologists (not all of them British, in any case) who contributed to the Nazis' theories about race, do you, and deserved to suffer as a consequence? is that what you're saying? What about all the Polish people and French people and Russian people and all the other people who suffered? "Poetic justice", eh? What an utterly nasty way of looking at it.
Nirvanam wrote:If it wasn't for Hitler the Brits would have never questioned their bastardly practice of imperialism and colonizing of different lands that invited them over for trading not for turning them into slaves.
Many British people already were questioning it. You talk about "the Brits" as though they were a homogeneous group. They weren't. And aren't.

Emma
Emma, when we talk about Historical things...about events, etc we use collective terms...for example British fought the French at Waterloo...this does not mean each and every Brit fought each and every French. Please use that contextual assumption while interpreting those sentences.

About British getting it from the Germans, well your morality is yours and I view it as a necessary lesson for the British without which I don't think they would have exited my country. You see empathy does much much much more than sympathy can. The moment you empathize with the other your world view changes. No amount of Gandhian philosophy could have brought about Freedom from the British for my country...if Gandhian philosophy could have brought it, it would have happened much before 1947. The fact is that the British empathized but still what the Germans did to the British was not even one percentage of the systematic exploitation and rape of India and the other lands that the British did and what the Mutineers are doing today.

By the way, why do you put Brits in quotes...is it not an accepted way of referring to British? Is it prejudicial in any way...I mean I am not aware.

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#29 Post by Nirvanam » October 25th, 2010, 4:43 pm

Emma Woolgatherer wrote:
Nirvanam wrote:No, you need not investigate it but just do this for a Human Being you happen to know...the next time you notice your children being taught this crap, question their Teacher. That will be more than enough.
I don't have children. But I'll tell you what I'll do. Next time I go into a bookshop when I've got half an hour or so to spare, I'll go to the history section and look for school history textbooks and I'll browse the index of each one I find and see if I can see anything about Aryan invasion or Aryan migration. And if I can, and if it's an uncritical account of such theories, I'll make a note of the book's publisher and I'll go home and write a letter of complaint.

How's that?

Emma
Thank you, thank you, thank you :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D You made my day...promise you did!

I guess you can make out how much it matters to me that my ancestors were known for what they were...I seriously can't imagine my ancestral great grand mothers having anal and vaginal sex with horses helped by my ancestral great grand fathers in a grand ceremony in front of many people like those British Indologist bastards said they were.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#30 Post by Nick » October 25th, 2010, 6:30 pm

I don't agree with your analysis of the British Empire, Nirvanam. Not that I'm defending it, mind. Just sayin', that's all.

You mentioned "Mutineers". I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with them. More info, please.

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#31 Post by Nirvanam » October 25th, 2010, 6:41 pm

Nick wrote:I don't agree with your analysis of the British Empire, Nirvanam. Not that I'm defending it, mind. Just sayin', that's all.
Which part of it? Their imperial colonialism and systematic rape and exploitation of other lands?
Nick wrote:You mentioned "Mutineers". I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with them. More info, please.
Ok let me explain. There is a group of people XYZ which go on a journey of discovery. They discover a land. Their stay in the new land called "new-land" is sponsored by their brethren from their motherland. The XYZ people meet the people who had been living on "new-land" for ages. They, with the help of the support from their motherland, basically vanquish the original inhabitants of new-land. They basically annihilate them with no tolerance whatsoever. All this while they are being funded and helped and taken care of by their brethren from the motherland. One fine day when they are done with the total inhumane annihilation of new-land's original inhabitants, they suddenly turn against their brethren to cut off their brethren's claim to "new-land". What would you call XYZ? I call them Mutineers.

Marian
Posts: 3985
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 2:25 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#32 Post by Marian » October 26th, 2010, 2:09 am

Nirvanam wrote: About British getting it from the Germans, well your morality is yours and I view it as a necessary lesson for the British without which I don't think they would have exited my country. You see empathy does much much much more than sympathy can. The moment you empathize with the other your world view changes. No amount of Gandhian philosophy could have brought about Freedom from the British for my country...if Gandhian philosophy could have brought it, it would have happened much before 1947. The fact is that the British empathized but still what the Germans did to the British was not even one percentage of the systematic exploitation and rape of India and the other lands that the British did and what the Mutineers are doing today.
What utter bollocks! You think the British empathized with the Indians because of what they suffered in WWll? The British left India because they had no more economic resources or people to spare after the war. To say that because horrible things happened to the British (and the French and the Poles etc etc) in WWll, they were being repaid for the systematic exploitation of India which started when the British East India Company was invited into India by the then Moghul emperor is stretching things a bit. But let's not talk about the possibility that the British and Indian elites were in a cosy relationship. Were there not Indian landlords who exploited their charges? No, that can't be. It's so much easier to see India as a complete and total victim.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there wasn't exploitation and rape by the British but I wouldn't be surprised if the same behaviour didn't go on with the Moghuls, previous conquers of the Indian sub-continent who I understand destroyed much of that area and converted many Indians to Islam. Why is it necessary to speak to my friends here who are British as if they are responsible for India's difficulties? Why is there no mention of the Moghuls?

I wonder if all the conquerors of India (including Pakistan. Bangladesh) didn't make some positive contribution to the culture, maybe in the form of railways or architecture, for example. Oh and please don't be offended by the way I've stated things here. It's not on purpose.
Transformative fire...

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#33 Post by Nirvanam » October 26th, 2010, 10:48 am

Marian wrote:What utter bollocks! You think the British empathized with the Indians because of what they suffered in WWll? The British left India because they had no more economic resources or people to spare after the war. To say that because horrible things happened to the British (and the French and the Poles etc etc) in WWll, they were being repaid for the systematic exploitation of India which started when the British East India Company was invited into India by the then Moghul emperor is stretching things a bit. But let's not talk about the possibility that the British and Indian elites were in a cosy relationship. Were there not Indian landlords who exploited their charges? No, that can't be. It's so much easier to see India as a complete and total victim.
What utter bollocks are you on about? You have any idea of the history of the Indian Freedom movement? When Gandhi spoke to the British in the 1910s he made it clear to them by saying this, "It won't take long for 350 million Indians to chase a 100 thousand British out of this land" but Gandhi was sold on ahimsa and hence never even thought of doing good on that statement. The British were forced to question their colonialism because of the War. Germany, Italy, and Japan did the same colonial campaigns and the Brits and French were forced to look into their own morality after being forced to empathize that is why you see so many countries gaining Freedom from erstwhile colonial occupation between 1945 and 1955. It was a global phenomenon. Even the Mutineers gave up Philippines in 1947. You can believe what you want to.
Marian wrote:Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there wasn't exploitation and rape by the British but I wouldn't be surprised if the same behaviour didn't go on with the Moghuls, previous conquers of the Indian sub-continent who I understand destroyed much of that area and converted many Indians to Islam. Why is it necessary to speak to my friends here who are British as if they are responsible for India's difficulties? Why is there no mention of the Moghuls?
In case you haven't noticed I have said that Bharatvarsha has had the scars of conquest and exploitation from barbarians both Islamic and white European for the last 1000 years.

What more our Marxist Historians have actually totally re-written the History of India especially when it comes to works of construction and art to show that these barbaric Islamic sultans actually built great things in India. The one very good thing that the Brits did was to end the extreme intolerant rule of the Islamic sultanates.

Remember we spoke about the process of maintaining History...first source of evidence for an event comes from a person who experienced it. During the Mughal rule, each Emperor had a court document of his rule, called <emperor name>-e-nama. So for Akbar it would be Akbar-e-nama, Babar-e-nama for Babar, etc. Our Marxist friends tell us Akbar built the city called Fatehpur Sikri...leave alone the fact that the architecture is entirely Rajput, there is not a single mention of a construction of a city of that scale in Akbar-nama, same goes for many such buildings including the one the world adores. Carbon dating proves these buildings existed as far back as the 12th century...no mention of these buildings in the "namas", no mention of their construction happening in the records of the European travellers!!! What does our Archaelogical Survey of India(ASI) do? It locks up all the questionable stuff from these buildings in sealed rooms and does not allow access even to Historians.

It is our karma that we are going thru such times...but hey our ancients told us that our modern age is an age of such war, destruction, and general inhumanity. And Bharatvarsha's modern period started at around 3112 BC.
Marian wrote:I wonder if all the conquerors of India (including Pakistan. Bangladesh) didn't make some positive contribution to the culture, maybe in the form of railways or architecture, for example. Oh and please don't be offended by the way I've stated things here. It's not on purpose.
Of course they have but those were incidentals. The British did a lot more than the Islamic sultans...the Islamic sultans did nothing....nothing...their barbaric ways meant that they stole buildings from Hindu and Buddhist kings and scraped the surface to inscribe some stupid Quranic verses and lived in there.

Even though the Brits built rail roads, etc, it doesn't give them any reason to come here and exploit and plunder us the way they did. Who knows, if we were a free country then we could have traded and outsourced our work to the Brits and Europeans...after all we had more wealth than any other country in the world and that is why the Europeans and Islmaic fellows came here to loot us.

Anyway it doesn't matter. What is important for me is that History is presented as it is...such stupid misconceptions of Europeans conquering different lands and civilizing them should be put in the gutter where they belong. Europeans were the last of the Human groups to come out of barbarism...just coz other lands allowed them in by trusting them to be humane it doesn't mean they can go on and exploit these lands. Tell me one other civilization of man that has caused the amount of destruction and exploitation that these fellows have?

I think Westerners must stop viewing their History as one of bringing civilization to other lands. You are deluded in that...give up that delusion. The fact of the matter is that the Europeans were the last peoples to have civilized on the Earth. They are babies compared to the others when it comes to civilization. And the western idea of civilization = modern cell phones, computers is not necessarily the only way. Civilization always progresses on the path that the society chooses it to. The other places of the world had advanced in mental and spiritual areas unlike Western which is primarily material. Their technology might not resemble ours but their technology helped them lift 100 tonne stones 100 feet in the air...something our modern equipment finds difficult to do...go figure.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#34 Post by Nick » October 26th, 2010, 10:53 am

Emma Woolgatherer wrote:I do not feel proud to be born in the UK. I feel lucky about all sorts of things, but I do not feel proud in any way of my nationality.
Is that because of the UK, or because you think pride is an unsuitable thing to feel about ones place of birth?

Fia
Posts: 5480
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#35 Post by Fia » October 26th, 2010, 11:38 am

Nirvanam wrote:I am proud and feel extremely lucky to be born in this land, as are you people about your lands.
Emma wrote:I do not feel proud to be born in the UK. I feel lucky about all sorts of things, but I do not feel proud in any way of my nationality.
I agree wholeheartedly with Emma. I'm fortunate to have been be born in a country where I was educated and my health care needs taken care of. I can appreciate what my country of birth has afforded me and my family but I can't feel pride about something of which I have no control, and at times is downright embarrassing :redface: .
I think Westerners must stop viewing their History as one of bringing civilization to other lands. You are deluded in that...give up that delusion.
I really don't know where you get that idea, unless you've only read late 19th and early 20th century English history books... Empire was to do with trade, money, politics, power and probably greed, merely clothed in the overdressed Victorian "civilisation". I don't think any decent historian these days would gain credence for the idea of Empire bringing civilisation to other lands. We now see it for the excuse that it is. Good. Only some crackpot missionary types may disagree. And it is really rather rude to be told we are deluded when we are not. Why do you think you know better than us about ourselves?

I think you also really need to understand that history taught in our schools is very Eurocentric, as Emma explained to you earlier. In Scotland, in the first year of secondary school, children are encouraged to look at sources and how, if at all, they can be verified. That's a good step up from my history lessons.

Perhaps your concerns would be more usefully shared in your own country, where, you tell us, this theory is taught. How do History departments of Indian universities view this? Who sets the curriculum? Who chooses the books? You could check these things out and start an awareness raising campaign, blog, use facebook, write letters....

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#36 Post by Nirvanam » October 26th, 2010, 12:46 pm

Fia wrote:I really don't know where you get that idea, unless you've only read late 19th and early 20th century English history books... Empire was to do with trade, money, politics, power and probably greed, merely clothed in the overdressed Victorian "civilisation". I don't think any decent historian these days would gain credence for the idea of Empire bringing civilisation to other lands. We now see it for the excuse that it is. Good. Only some crackpot missionary types may disagree. And it is really rather rude to be told we are deluded when we are not. Why do you think you know better than us about ourselves?
I have my reasons to believe that a majority of Westerners continue to think their advent into places like India, Africa, america, Asia, Australia took civilization there. I have interacted with many Westerners and I come to this opinion based on my interactions with them, based on the TV programs I watch made by Westerners, based on movies made by the West, etc. I can't put my finger on one thing...it is an opinion you form based on a lot of little little things which give away one's base beliefs. For example, your continued view of there existing a third world. Your countries' view of indulging in affairs of other countries because you consider them having less moral civility than yours, the way you present information about other places and things...for example, Carl Sagan back in the late 80's did a show where he went to some temples in Hampi and with that backdrop said the ancient Indians believed in the concept of multiverse...that creation happens in cycles and also speaks about the time frame for these cycles as 8.64*2 billion years...and then he says "the ancient Indians quite accidentally came to these figures which are as accurate as modern science can be". His father told him it was accidental, is it? This is just one example...there are millions of others. Another example, I remember on this forum I was having a conversation about how the Europeans crapped all around the world and one of the guys said, if it wasn't for the Europeans those places would not have been developed at all...the Europeans brought development to those lands.

Then you must only notice how often in your documentaries you refer to America as the New World...and how often you use the term "was/were the first ones to do/discover". It's like frogs jumping in one small well suddenly see a big ocean and do something there and then believe that they are the first ones to do those things...whatever happened to the frogs who were living in those oceans all along?
Fia wrote:I think you also really need to understand that history taught in our schools is very Eurocentric, as Emma explained to you earlier. In Scotland, in the first year of secondary school, children are encouraged to look at sources and how, if at all, they can be verified. That's a good step up from my history lessons.
And I think there in lies the problem...because it is Eurocentric, the way you present the information is such that it implies Europeans came and rid the land of its uncivilized ways. Maybe if you read those Text Books with an open mind...or put yourself in the native's shoes and read the Text book you may be able to detect the implied "we brought civilization to these lands" thing in them.
Fia wrote:Perhaps your concerns would be more usefully shared in your own country, where, you tell us, this theory is taught. How do History departments of Indian universities view this? Who sets the curriculum? Who chooses the books? You could check these things out and start an awareness raising campaign, blog, use facebook, write letters....
Actually I have been planning on making a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to the courts to stop teaching this nonsense. But I haven't still gotten there...and I don't know if that is the correct way to go about it. There are enough scholars who have been challenging these stupidities but the fact is that they are immediately treated as right wingers...then of course there are political parties that survive on this separation. It is our karma that we face such hurdles. However the information is now going out to more and more people because of the internet...what was not possible for so many years is now becoming possible because of the internet. And Indians who see logic in the way History is presented are doing their bit around the world. For ex - ex pats in the USA took to court the California Education dept when they mentioned Aryan Invasion in their new syllabus for sixth grade in 2006. And then there are these interactions that many of us have over the internet which sows the seed of doubt in fellow Humans which will make you guys question what is being taught in your schools. These things need to be changed from the grassroots level...and they involve breaking down of long held prejudices and world views (not necessarily negative).

Only people who are willing to be unprejudiced can see History for what it is otherwise you will continue to use terms like "New World" and beat drums that Galileo and Copernicus discovered the Earth was spherical...come on even ancient Sumerians knew the Earth was spherical and yet our text books teach that all scientific understanding started in and around 15th century in Europe...seriously when will we learn? We expect a culture to evolve like we have evolved and use theories like we have used...for ex - Quantum to describe the illusion of reality. When other cultures who evolved in their own way describe reality as Maya, they are woo. I mean how narrow minded and stupid can we get? Do all cultures evolve the same way? Do all cultures discover science the same way? Do all cultures learn things the same way? The word atom itself comes from the Sanskrit word atma...which means essence or the basic building block of the universe...then it got into Greek as atmos(?) and from there we have it as atom today in English. Now the concept of holographic universe is very clearly defined in ancient Indian texts...the essence (structure) exists in the tiniest to the largest...our modern sciene discovers this today using Quantum theory that our universe is holographic in nature. But as Carl Sagan's father taught him...they accidentally came to that realization! Modern science tells you the body is an energetic field...in china they refer to this energetic field as 'Chi', but for the narrow minded, we are more intelligent, modern western materialistic perspective driven Humans all this is woo. Seriously, do we expect an ancient civilization to express an energy field in the same way that we express it? Are we that dumb? Anyone needs more logic on the existence of chi, I am free to discuss it

Fia
Posts: 5480
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#37 Post by Fia » October 26th, 2010, 2:14 pm

Nirvanam wrote:I have my reasons to believe that a majority of Westerners continue to think their advent into places like India, Africa, america, Asia, Australia took civilization there.
I thought I'd addressed that. I think it may well have been the case until the mid-20th century, but certainly don't think that's the case now.
I am very uncomfortable with your repetitive use of "you". I don't think you mean us personally, but it does feel like a personal attack. So I'm replying personally as I have no intention of attempting to justify what previous generations have done.
Nirvanam wrote:based on the TV programs I watch made by Westerners, based on movies made by the West, etc
As I don't have a TV or watch films, the only comment I feel I can currently make on this is that should be see India as an all-singing all-dancing nation concerned only with the proclivities of love and desire as Bollywood presents? Of course not. It's entertainment, where any semblance of reality is put on hold. Waste of time and money inho, but then I am a bit of a bah humbugger :innocence:
...it is an opinion you form based on a lot of little little things which give away one's base beliefs.
OK clever clogs. What are my base beliefs then?
Then you must only notice how often in your documentaries you refer to America as the New World...and how often you use the term "was/were the first ones to do/discover".
They're not MY documentaries, and it's perhaps a clumsy way of differentiating between European and American for us backward European folk :rolleyes: For decades I have been referring to, for instance, Native Americans not as Indians.
For example, your continued view of there existing a third world
I do not use the term third world, as I agree it can be seen as demeaning, and know many others who think likewise. I do, however, use the term undeveloped world, as it is more precise.
the Europeans brought development to those lands.
To a certain extent that's right, who built your wonderful railways? :exit: The undeveloped world needs technology, communication and infrastructure to develop. Look how parts of India have grasped that in recent decades, we in the UK now have the ubiquitous Indian help line operators with the unlikely European name regularly on our telephones :D
Maybe if you read those Text Books with an open mind...or put yourself in the native's shoes and read the Text book
What text book/s? Please be more specific. History is not teaching children here that "we brought civilization to these lands". It looks carefully at the power, cultural, political and financial aspects of Empire.
I consider walking in another's shoes a part of being a Humanist. And please don't accuse me of having a closed mind. If it was closed I would still be plodding along to church every Sunday and believing that women really are second class citizens, merely here for male gratification.
Actually I have been planning on making a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to the courts to stop teaching this nonsense. But I haven't still gotten there...and I don't know if that is the correct way to go about it. There are enough scholars who have been challenging these stupidities...
Well I seriously suggest you get in there with them as you really are not going to get very far here, as we don't teach History in the way you think we do.

I could go on, but I'm not well. I'm going for another lie down...

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#38 Post by Nirvanam » October 26th, 2010, 2:48 pm

Fia, you are right the word "you" makes it sound personal when my intention is to point to westerners in general.

As for the telling you the opinions I have formed of your base beliefs...well they are difficult to express and no amount of words can express them clearly. However, these opinions are generic to westerners not to you personally. Like I said many times before, we cannot function without prejudice...these opinions are prejudices which are necessary for us to begin communication...the more we communicate the individual identities keep getting formed away from the collective. So, now I view you as an individual but before I got to know you better, you were part of the westerner collective in my mind.

Prejudices or pre-judgments or presumptive opinions change based on experience. Some changes have happened whereas some opinions have been reinforced.
Fia wrote:
the Europeans brought development to those lands.
To a certain extent that's right, who built your wonderful railways? :exit: The undeveloped world needs technology, communication and infrastructure to develop. Look how parts of India have grasped that in recent decades, we in the UK now have the ubiquitous Indian help line operators with the unlikely European name regularly on our telephones :D
See...this is a perfect example. You assume that had the British not invaded India, India would never have got rail roads. Did you consider that the path taken by Human civilization itself would've changed if British did not invade India? Did you consider that had British not exploited India but had only traded with us, then the money we had we would've worked together to achieve technological advancement (like how it is happening today) back in the 19th century itself? This is where your beliefs that Europeans brought development to other places is coming forth. When you imagine a History where Europe did not go to Australia, you forget to then establish a new path for Australia or India or America or Africa. Suppose Indians were barbarians like Europeans and invaded them and colonized them because Indians' civility was as barbaric as Europeans' then we would have had a different History. Then could India claim that they brought civilization to Europe? No. Because if India hadn't been so barbaric then the world would have taken a different path...a path of co-operation where technology was shared for each others' benefit.

Don't even think of suggesting that all these technological achievements came from Europe...they came because there were different people from all across the world working on them. For every Einstein there is a Chandrashekhar. Why is there such a huge difference in technological innovations made by USA and Australia...Australia was primarily British right...if British brought all such civilizational developments then Australia should have been at the forefront of technological advancement. But USA is. Why? Because USA is a cauldron of different peoples...chinese built the rail roads in the US...NASA is a mini-India...look at software in the USA...more than 50% could be Indians. Look at sport achievement in track and field events in USA - Africans are there. Look at inventors in USA...Jews, Arabs, Indians, Chinese, and Europeans.

So this thing that British brought development to India is crap. They built rail roads because they needed it. It was incidental. had they not crapped here and instead traded like Human Beings, the progress of Humanity would have been different.
Fia wrote:
Maybe if you read those Text Books with an open mind...or put yourself in the native's shoes and read the Text book
What text book/s? Please be more specific. History is not teaching children here that "we brought civilization to these lands". It looks carefully at the power, cultural, political and financial aspects of Empire.
I consider walking in another's shoes a part of being a Humanist. And please don't accuse me of having a closed mind. If it was closed I would still be plodding along to church every Sunday and believing that women really are second class citizens, merely here for male gratification.
I meant they imply in text books. If you want to observe this phenomenon...just open a few text books and read passages that refer to Europeans going to different parts of the world and what happened there, etc. Just read them and you will detect the underlying implications.
Fia wrote:
Actually I have been planning on making a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to the courts to stop teaching this nonsense. But I haven't still gotten there...and I don't know if that is the correct way to go about it. There are enough scholars who have been challenging these stupidities...
Well I seriously suggest you get in there with them as you really are not going to get very far here, as we don't teach History in the way you think we do.
I am not sure how your countries' teach History but the prevalent opinion in the world about Humanity's History is a decent enough indication to me that your countries surely do not teach the right History.

Here's a simple question...in the Vedas there are many verses that talk about grand sacrifices. Now that I have made you aware of this information, do you believe the ancient Indians sacrificed things? (just imagine that instead of me saying it you read that in your text book)

Marian
Posts: 3985
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 2:25 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#39 Post by Marian » October 26th, 2010, 3:17 pm

Nirvanam wrote:What utter bollocks are you on about? You have any idea of the history of the Indian Freedom movement? When Gandhi spoke to the British in the 1910s he made it clear to them by saying this, "It won't take long for 350 million Indians to chase a 100 thousand British out of this land" but Gandhi was sold on ahimsa and hence never even thought of doing good on that statement. The British were forced to question their colonialism because of the War. Germany, Italy, and Japan did the same colonial campaigns and the Brits and French were forced to look into their own morality after being forced to empathize that is why you see so many countries gaining Freedom from erstwhile colonial occupation between 1945 and 1955. It was a global phenomenon. Even the Mutineers gave up Philippines in 1947. You can believe what you want to.
Yes, I'm quite aware of the Freedom movement and even Gandhi's name strikes a bell. You cannot force someone to be empathetic. That's just laughable. Empathy is not why countries leave other places; there are a great many other reasons mostly having to do with economics. Apparantly, I can't believe what I want to because you are here to tell me otherwise.
Nirvanam wrote:In case you haven't noticed I have said that Bharatvarsha has had the scars of conquest and exploitation from barbarians both Islamic and white European for the last 1000 years.
No, in this conversation, I have not noticed you mentioning anything about the Moghuls until just now. Until I pointed out that your version of history seemed to just be picking on my friends and wasn't very well rounded.
Nirvanam wrote:It is our karma that we are going thru such times...
Yes, I suppose if you believe in karma it could be a way to explain everything but I don't and it's too easy to just blame it all on karma. Not very sophisticated if you ask me.
Nirvanam wrote: Tell me one other civilization of man that has caused the amount of destruction and exploitation that these fellows have?
You just finished telling me that the Islamic sultanates were much more intolerant.
Nirvanam wrote:I think Westerners must stop viewing their History as one of bringing civilization to other lands. You are deluded in that...give up that delusion.
:laughter: Delusional? I'm not the one who thinks that the WWll made colonial countries empathetic or that I think Westerners brought civilization to other lands when I never said any such thing. Oh and let me not forget about the rational part of the brain being the covering...oh sorry, wrong thread.

Nirvanam wrote:And the western idea of civilization = modern cell phones, computers is not necessarily the only way.
Did I say that civilization equals cell phones and computers? No. Delusion?

Nirvanam wrote:Civilization always progresses on the path that the society chooses it to. The other places of the world had advanced in mental and spiritual areas unlike Western which is primarily material.
So you're saying here that Western society chose to progress along the lines of material advancement and because I'm born into that society, I must think the same way? Wow. Nothing like throwing everyone into the same pot. Isn't that how racism is born? It's this extreme focus on the 'other', on all their wicked ways, on all the horrible things they've done, on how they all think the same and how ignorant the 'other' is but never really finding out who the 'other' is as a human being, as an individual person.
Transformative fire...

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#40 Post by Nirvanam » October 26th, 2010, 5:30 pm

Marian wrote:Yes, I'm quite aware of the Freedom movement and even Gandhi's name strikes a bell. You cannot force someone to be empathetic. That's just laughable. Empathy is not why countries leave other places; there are a great many other reasons mostly having to do with economics. Apparantly, I can't believe what I want to because you are here to tell me otherwise.
No. You are welcome to believe what you want to believe. Like I said many times in this forum, we believe based on the faith we put in who, where, and how knowledge is acquired. I am not stopping you from believing whatever you want to. Just coz I am arguing with you does it mean I am saying you can't believe whatever you want to?
Marian wrote:
Nirvanam wrote:In case you haven't noticed I have said that Bharatvarsha has had the scars of conquest and exploitation from barbarians both Islamic and white European for the last 1000 years.
No, in this conversation, I have not noticed you mentioning anything about the Moghuls until just now. Until I pointed out that your version of history seemed to just be picking on my friends and wasn't very well rounded.
Read thru the thread again you will see it.
Marian wrote:
Nirvanam wrote:It is our karma that we are going thru such times...
Yes, I suppose if you believe in karma it could be a way to explain everything but I don't and it's too easy to just blame it all on karma. Not very sophisticated if you ask me.
I have seen your sophisticated beliefs...nuff said.
Marian wrote:
Nirvanam wrote: Tell me one other civilization of man that has caused the amount of destruction and exploitation that these fellows have?
You just finished telling me that the Islamic sultanates were much more intolerant.
You did not understand the question, did you? I have made one word in there bold...that should help you understand the question better.
Marian wrote:
Nirvanam wrote:I think Westerners must stop viewing their History as one of bringing civilization to other lands. You are deluded in that...give up that delusion.
:laughter: Delusional? I'm not the one who thinks that the WWll made colonial countries empathetic or that I think Westerners brought civilization to other lands when I never said any such thing. Oh and let me not forget about the rational part of the brain being the covering...oh sorry, wrong thread.
Like I said we choose to believe based on the faith we have in who, where, and how we acquire knowledge. Your rational part of the brain covering is as stupid as your effort to .... oh sorry wrong thread.
Marian wrote:
Nirvanam wrote:And the western idea of civilization = modern cell phones, computers is not necessarily the only way.
Did I say that civilization equals cell phones and computers? No. Delusion?
No...assumption. And I assume you don't believe that way now that you have questioned me?
Marian wrote:
Nirvanam wrote:Civilization always progresses on the path that the society chooses it to. The other places of the world had advanced in mental and spiritual areas unlike Western which is primarily material.
So you're saying here that Western society chose to progress along the lines of material advancement and because I'm born into that society, I must think the same way?
Err....no. As I have clearly explained, even in the past, that all Human Beings have certain prejudices...these prejudices are necessary for us to live life and make decisions. Now I have a certain opinion of a westerner...for ex - can't take hot and spicy food. That opinion is for collective...when I meet a westerner who can take hot and spicy food my opinion about that westerner changes. But the collective still remains until there are enough experiences of westerners able to take hot and spicy food. Then a new prejudice forms - that of westerners liking hot and spicy food.

You might find it difficult to accept this part of how your mind works, I have no qualms about it.
Marian wrote:Wow. Nothing like throwing everyone into the same pot. Isn't that how racism is born?
You choose to believe what you want to believe. If you cannot understand that when we talk about History we use collective terms then that is not my problem. When I say British crapped in India, I am not saying every British individual came here and exploited India. It's a collective term one uses. The French helped the Americans fight the British...does it mean every French individual helped every American individual who happened to fight every British individual?
Marian wrote: It's this extreme focus on the 'other', on all their wicked ways, on all the horrible things they've done, on how they all think the same and how ignorant the 'other' is but never really finding out who the 'other' is as a human being, as an individual person.
Explained above. Also, History and facts remain facts immaterial of how much you want to wish them away. I have given absolutely no indication that I will treat you as a racist or I think your great grand father is a racist. When we talk History we need to view it that way...when I said the British translation of the Vedas that my ancestral great grand mother was having ceremonial sex with a horse...I was wrong because I said "my"... there is no personal implication...the implication was generic Indian ancestors...whether she was in direct lineage or not I don't know.

You are taking it personally like as if I am talking about you or your great grand parents. Nope that is not what I am doing. When we are talking History you are supposed to view it from that perspective. Where is your Humanist perspective of rationality? Does that perspective of rationality tell you that in a discussion on Historical things each individual has to keep specifying "this is not about you personally it is about those specific individuals" or that an individual should not use collective terms? Come on, understand the context and discuss that way. In case of doubt it is always better to clarify (like how Fia did).

User avatar
getreal
Posts: 4354
Joined: November 20th, 2008, 5:40 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#41 Post by getreal » October 26th, 2010, 5:39 pm

I meant they imply in text books. If you want to observe this phenomenon...just open a few text books and read passages that refer to Europeans going to different parts of the world and what happened there, etc. Just read them and you will detect the underlying implications.
This whole thread seems to be based on Nirvanam's view of how history is taught in our schools. I can tell you that Nirvanam, you are wrong! (Fia has already said this).I must assume that you have never read any history textbooks from here, because you are talking total crap. Your textbooks may talk in these terms, but I assure you, *ours do not!


* based on actually having tread current textbooks used in Scottish schools to teach history, both in primary and secondary schools.
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.

Post Reply