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
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

Latest post of the previous page:

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.

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

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

#42 Post by Marian » October 26th, 2010, 6:40 pm

Nirvanam wrote: You are welcome to believe what you want to believe.
Sure am! But you haven't addressed the issue of empathy and how the British and others learned this from WWll.
Nirvanam wrote: Read thru the thread again you will see it.
No, you need to find where you mentioned in the thread about the Islamic barbarians before I mentioned it and quote it here. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it.
Nirvanam wrote:I have seen your sophisticated beliefs...nuff said.
Really? You know me that well. So what are my sophisticated beliefs or is this just another 'you westerners' think so and so?
Nirvanam wrote: You did not understand the question, did you? I have made one word in there bold...that should help you understand the question better.
How patronizing. If I didn't understand the question, I would have asked for clarification.
Your rebuttal to my comment is very slick but not very sophisticated. If you meant to emphasize the word 'amount' you should have done that in your original post. Very sloppy.
Nirvanam wrote: Your rational part of the brain covering is as stupid as your effort to .... oh sorry wrong thread.
What are you talking about here? Are you just copying what I'm saying?
Nirvanam wrote:No...assumption. And I assume you don't believe that way now that you have questioned me?
You know what happens when we assume? We make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'. Get it? Assumptions are very dangerous things. Perhaps you ought to clarify when things aren't clear.

Nirvanam wrote: 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.
Here we are. Back to assumptions. There are many Westerners who enjoy hot and spicy food but because you make assumptions based on television and the few people you've met in your short lifetime, you are ignorant of that fact. Cajun,Creole, Mexican foods are typically all hot and spicy. This is some of North American cuisine. Oh yeah, in the States and Canada they have stores that sell nothing but hot sauce; I don't think they'd stay in business unless there was a demand. Which means, btw, that people actually eat hot and spicy food over here.

If you wish to be proud of your prejudice, go right ahead but I'm just trying to say that it doesn't reflect well on you. Other people can only respond to that which you show them.
One definition of prejudice is: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
Are you sure that's what you want to say?

Nirvanam wrote: If you cannot understand that when we talk about History we use collective terms then that is not my problem.
In order to be a sophisticated speaker/poster, one needs to recognize what messages one is sending and how one is doing that. If you come across as someone who has a chip on the shoulder about Europeans, it's going to interfere with how people speak to you. It's got nothing to do with collective terms in History but that was a nice try.

Nirvanam wrote: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.
So does this mean that you are agreeing that you come across as being racist against Europeans? And no, you've explained nothing above.
Nirvanam wrote: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).
Ah, what might the reason be for taking it personally? Are you writing it that way by saying 'you brits', etc? What is a humanist perspective of rationality? No, actually, it's your responsibility to write in such a way that we don't interpret you as racist/prejudiced against Europeans. It's not ours to guess.
Transformative fire...

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

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

#43 Post by Nirvanam » October 26th, 2010, 7:07 pm

getreal wrote:
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.
How do you expect me to prove this to you? I have not said that they state explicitly that Europeans brought civilization and development to other lands. I said it is implied. As for the facts of History, there I can argue in black and white. So, in your text books when they mention about how Indian civilization came about do they say it was indigenous or do they present the Aryan invasion/migration/trickle down crap?

On the implying 'Europeans brought advancement and civilization to these lands'...maybe you can copy-paste a page or two from a school History text book here and I will try explaining how implications are made (or give me a URL for those texts). Of course the text must talk about the History of that place.

I form my opinion based on what I notice about western culture. Such things are implied in various media - text books, TV, newspapers, movies, music, etc, etc. So one way of verifying this is for you to copy-paste or give the URL of a History text book in school where the topic in discussion is History of a land like South America or Asia.

Let's do that. In case my opinion is based on a wrong inference then it'll only be good for me. If it is not, then it will get reinforced

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

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

#44 Post by Alan C. » October 26th, 2010, 7:24 pm

Now I have a certain opinion of a westerner...for ex - can't take hot and spicy food.
Curry (the hotter the better) is more popular here in Scotland than fish and chips, indeed at one of our meet ups (Glasgow I think) we elected to dine at an Indian restaurant and we all had curry.

As a comparison can I ask; do you swim? Dark skinned people don't seem to be very good at swimming, does that mean I should think no dark skinned people can swim?
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

User avatar
Val
Posts: 749
Joined: October 6th, 2007, 10:56 pm

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

#45 Post by Val » October 26th, 2010, 7:29 pm

yes Alan it was Glasgow where we ate curry and also in Aviemore. At least I did not get locked in the lavatory in Aviemore as I had in Glasgow.

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

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

#46 Post by Alan C. » October 26th, 2010, 7:37 pm

Val wrote:yes Alan it was Glasgow where we ate curry and also in Aviemore. At least I did not get locked in the lavatory in Aviemore as I had in Glasgow.
Yes Val, twas a good weekend; apart from you getting locked in the loo :)

Nirvanam, I don't think you know enough "Westerners" To make the blanket assertions that you're so fond of.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

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

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

#47 Post by Nirvanam » October 26th, 2010, 7:43 pm

Marian wrote:Sure am! But you haven't addressed the issue of empathy and how the British and others learned this from WWll.
What exactly do you want to know? I form my opinion based on the facts I know and also life teaches me empathy is the quickest way to understand wholly others' perspective. How the British learned? Because they were made to experience what they had caused others to experience. Can I prove it scientifically? Obviously not. Can you prove that they had other reasons for leaving those lands, scientifically? Obviously not. So what further info do you need to help you understand opinions are formed based on life experiences and the perspectives we choose to take? And that this is an opinion.
Marian wrote:No, you need to find where you mentioned in the thread about the Islamic barbarians before I mentioned it and quote it here. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it.
Are you for real? Whether you admit it or not does not matter coz this particular quibble here is nothing but ego oneupmanship...does not add anything to the discussion. Anyway, here satisfy your ego - my first post on page 2...my third para.
Marian wrote:
Nirvanam wrote:I have seen your sophisticated beliefs...nuff said.
Really? You know me that well. So what are my sophisticated beliefs or is this just another 'you westerners' think so and so?
Its useless responding to this coz no matter what I say, you will say it is not so. Leave this ego oneupmanship, Marian. If you think I have hurt your sensitivities tell me so and I'll explain what I meant (in case you misinterpreted). This line of conversation will take us nowhere.
Marian wrote:Here we are. Back to assumptions. There are many Westerners who enjoy hot and spicy food but because you make assumptions based on television and the few people you've met in your short lifetime, you are ignorant of that fact. Cajun,Creole, Mexican foods are typically all hot and spicy. This is some of North American cuisine. Oh yeah, in the States and Canada they have stores that sell nothing but hot sauce; I don't think they'd stay in business unless there was a demand. Which means, btw, that people actually eat hot and spicy food over here.
Great! Like I said all of us have our own prejudices. When I meet enough westerners who can take the hot and spicy food that prejudice will change form.
Marian wrote:If you wish to be proud of your prejudice, go right ahead but I'm just trying to say that it doesn't reflect well on you. Other people can only respond to that which you show them.
There is nothing to be proud about a prejudice...they are necessary to make sense of things in the world. You think it doesn't reflect well on someone who quite openly accepts how his mind works (and in deed all Human Beings' minds work), that is fine coz that is your prejudice. I am alright with it...I ain't judging you morally. Now pls don't come back arguing prejudice is prejudgment so I am judging you...I am not judging you morally.
Marian wrote:One definition of prejudice is: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
Are you sure that's what you want to say?
In case you haven't already figured that I am not referring to the negative connotative quality of the term prejudice, then this will be good time to do so. Alright, educate me here...my English is not as good as yours. What word would you use to convey the message that, you form certain opinions based on your experiences in life and the knowledge you have about various things. These opinions are such that they help you make decisions and meet day to day life events. And these opinions are usually about collective things than specific individual items. Once you experience enough individual items that behave a different way than what you originally opined, then your opinion changes in accordance with the current behavior. Please give me a term for this.
Marian wrote:In order to be a sophisticated speaker/poster, one needs to recognize what messages one is sending and how one is doing that. If you come across as someone who has a chip on the shoulder about Europeans, it's going to interfere with how people speak to you. It's got nothing to do with collective terms in History but that was a nice try.
chip on your shoulder....beauty!! Lovely. Can't you understand that I am talking about Historical things here. Is it so difficult for you to face the facts of History. Am I wrong in saying that British systematically exploited India? Am I wrong in saying that Europeans systematically exploited and plundered South America? Stating them makes me have a chip on my shoulder, is it?
Marian wrote:So does this mean that you are agreeing that you come across as being racist against Europeans? And no, you've explained nothing above.
Ah now the racist term. Oh yes go on shout at the top of your voice from the top of your building...Nirvanam is a racist. If stating facts about Europeans plundering other lands and systematically exploiting those countries = racist, then yes I am a racist. Happy?
Marian wrote:Ah, what might the reason be for taking it personally? Are you writing it that way by saying 'you brits', etc? What is a humanist perspective of rationality? No, actually, it's your responsibility to write in such a way that we don't interpret you as racist/prejudiced against Europeans. It's not ours to guess.
Pls help me with this...my English is bad. Please take this passage for instance and show me what words must I use without changing the intensity, the depth of what they are saying. Here's a random passage -

/-
Aryans were supposed to be the ancestors of both white Europeans and the other group which migrated to central Asia and from there is supposed to have invaded Bharatvarsha on chariots (don't ask how they crossed the Hindu Kush mountains and the Himalayas on chariots...maybe Max Mueller or Cunnigham will have plausible explanations for this).

Now, Bismarck used this concoction first in the late 19th century to unify Germany (Prussia). Upon its backfiring, the British had to find a way to thwart the growing power of Germany. So their Historians started concocting that "Oh no, Aryan refers to a series of languages not to tribes, silly". But the seeds had been sowed and they paid the price for their concoction when Nazi Germany screwed their happiness.

However, although the concept of Aryan had undergone a sea change from it being a tribe of people to it being a group of languages (which is also bullshit), your History text books (and in deed ours too) continue to present Aryans as a group of people who invaded Bharatvarsha during 1500 - 1200 BC (how did they arrive at these dates? I mean come on my rationalist friends pls help me understand this...seriously please help me understand your rationality in believing these dates...begging you, please enlighten me). The invasion theory can be verified if you open the text books of school children.
-/

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

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

#48 Post by getreal » October 26th, 2010, 7:52 pm

Nirvanam, it's not up to me to prove to you. You have asserted that History is taught, in the "west" in such a way as to imply that the west brought civilisation to India and seem to have based that on the popular media presentations of history. You have absolutly no reliable evidence to prove this.

Also, AFAIK Scottish school history books are not available online. We still use the paper type of books here. We are very backward in that respect.

I've just had a look at the history courses offered at Glasgow University and can't find any which relate to either history of the British empire, or India
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.

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

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

#49 Post by Nirvanam » October 26th, 2010, 7:53 pm

Alan C. wrote:Nirvanam, I don't think you know enough "Westerners" To make the blanket assertions that you're so fond of.
Alan, I live in a country that has hardly any population of westerners. Now, suppose you were in my situation. Is it possible for you to not have a single opinion about westerners' life styles when you watch so many western movies, watch western TV shows, read about western History, have romantic affluences with western women, etc, etc, etc. And is it wrong to have an opinion? Life experiences will only change or reinforce those opinions, no?

OK, if you want to hear a more positive opinion about Westerners I have instead of spicy and hot food. I find the average westerner is way more humane and concerned and goes great distances to take care of domestic animals ad pets. Now how is that opinion formed? Because I see shows like Petsburgh, I watch in movies how much you guys like your pets, and how differently and lovingly you treat them. My ex-wife saved a small mouse from the commode putting her hand in there. Now I can't imagine an Indian do it? Coz mostly we think...o well its a mouse, it'll go away thru the drainage pipe and get out from there...lemme just flush it. Now unless I meet enough westerners who are sadistically cruel to animals my prejudice about westerners care for animals will not change.

Why does it feel somehow morally wrong for someone to openly accept how the mind works? I mean what do we have to hide? These are normal, regular human mental processes at work...what's wrong with them? Doesn't your mind work the same way? Is there a different word I must use instead of the word 'prejudice'? My English is not that good...help me here.

Edit: Just thought about a different way to present this. Given your life and how you live and the knowledge you have about say India. Based on the things you hear about India, TV shows, movies, the Indians you have met...do you form certain opinions about how they would behave in certain situations? For example, do you think Indians love to make things colorful...decorate things in great colors? Do you have any small little opinion...even a 50.1% feeling that they might behave a certain way?

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

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

#50 Post by Nirvanam » October 26th, 2010, 7:57 pm

getreal wrote:Nirvanam, it's not up to me to prove to you. You have asserted that History is taught, in the "west" in such a way as to imply that the west brought civilisation to India and seem to have based that on the popular media presentations of history. You have absolutly no reliable evidence to prove this.

Also, AFAIK Scottish school history books are not available online. We still use the paper type of books here. We are very backward in that respect.
You are right, its not upto you to present or prove anything to me. I am wrong, Getreal. My opinion about European invasion and exploitation of the different lands is wrong. It has no basis in any fact...it is all conjured up nonsense. When in TV shows people use the term "new world" to mean America I should not opine that it is somehow presenting a very Euro-caucasian centric view of America. Its wrong to make such inferences. I got it all wrong.

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

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

#51 Post by getreal » October 26th, 2010, 8:08 pm

No one in the UK has referred to the US and Canada as "the new world" since my mother (aged 81) has been to school. It was never referred to as such when I was at school. Likewise the term "third world". That term is not used in schools today (or even at work. I worked in the NHS and we were often involved in providing assistance to people in various African countries. I would have been reprimanded had I used the term "third world") The accepted term is "developing countries", because that's what they are.

Please don't be so dismissive. I am trying to explain to you what the situation here actually is (as opposed to what you think it is).
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.

redsquirrel
Posts: 38
Joined: October 23rd, 2010, 9:28 pm

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

#52 Post by redsquirrel » October 26th, 2010, 8:26 pm

Nirvanam wrote:
Marian wrote:In order to be a sophisticated speaker/poster, one needs to recognize what messages one is sending and how one is doing that. If you come across as someone who has a chip on the shoulder about Europeans, it's going to interfere with how people speak to you. It's got nothing to do with collective terms in History but that was a nice try.
chip on your shoulder....beauty!! Lovely. Can't you understand that I am talking about Historical things here. Is it so difficult for you to face the facts of History. Am I wrong in saying that British systematically exploited India? Am I wrong in saying that Europeans systematically exploited and plundered South America? Stating them makes me have a chip on my shoulder, is it?
Marian wrote:So does this mean that you are agreeing that you come across as being racist against Europeans? And no, you've explained nothing above.
Ah now the racist term. Oh yes go on shout at the top of your voice from the top of your building...Nirvanam is a racist. If stating facts about Europeans plundering other lands and systematically exploiting those countries = racist, then yes I am a racist. Happy?
Marian wrote:Ah, what might the reason be for taking it personally? Are you writing it that way by saying 'you brits', etc? What is a humanist perspective of rationality? No, actually, it's your responsibility to write in such a way that we don't interpret you as racist/prejudiced against Europeans. It's not ours to guess.
Pls help me with this...my English is bad.
Nirvanam
I think it may help to realise that just because some Brits/Europeans etc did certain things to other countries they colonised, it doesn't mean we who now live in Britain/Europe were involved (of course) or would have done the same/agree with it. In fact for those of us who are of the working classes, the chances are we got it every bit as bad from our ruling/upper class 'masters', and as far as I am concerned in many ways still do!

That doesn't mean of course that the negative effects of empires etc on certain countries are not living on now, as I am certain they are, but perhaps the best approach is not to tar everyone with the same brush, which is perhaps the way it comes across, even if this is not your intention. What now needs to be considered is how we can best improve the lot of all humans, and that will only be achieved IMO if we learn lessons from the past but don't spend too much time on things that are gone and can't now be changed.
Last edited by Alan H on October 26th, 2010, 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Put what Nirvanam said in quotes for clarity.

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

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

#53 Post by Nirvanam » October 26th, 2010, 8:28 pm

getreal wrote:No one in the UK has referred to the US and Canada as "the new world" since my mother (aged 81) has been to school. It was never referred to as such when I was at school. Likewise the term "third world". That term is not used in schools today (or even at work. I worked in the NHS and we were often involved in providing assistance to people in various African countries. I would have been reprimanded had I used the term "third world") The accepted term is "developing countries", because that's what they are.

Please don't be so dismissive. I am trying to explain to you what the situation here actually is (as opposed to what you think it is).
Well, what can I say? In my experience I have heard enough westerners use that term, so why would my mind not form that opinion? In case you don't believe me, here's a search I did on the term "Ponce de Lion in the new world transcript of History channel" (I remember this show very clearly). Anyway it threw up its results. http://www.google.co.in/#sclient=psy&nu ... 790509fc4a

The second site is a kids site - go to that site and just do ctrl-F to find on page and include the words "new world" that will tell you how the term is being used. (http://www.kidinfo.com/american_history/explorers.html)

I don't know how else to tell you that such references to America especially in Historical shows is quite regular. And when one neutral person hears it, what opinion does he form (of course my opinion is not that it is done on purpose...my opinion is that it has sunk into the subconscious level in society so much that the term is as good as taken for granted).

I don't know how else to present data or reasons of why I form my opinions...not all of them will be rational and i have no qualms in accepting that fact.

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

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

#54 Post by Nirvanam » October 26th, 2010, 8:35 pm

redsquirrel wrote:Nirvanam
I think it may help to realise that just because some Brits/Europeans etc did certain things to other countries they colonised, it doesn't mean we who now live in Britain/Europe were involved (of course) or would have done the same/agree with it. In fact for those of us who are of the working classes, the chances are we got it every bit as bad from our ruling/upper class 'masters', and as far as I am concerned in many ways still do!

That doesn't mean of course that the negative effects of empires etc on certain countries are not living on now, as I am certain they are, but perhaps the best approach is not to tar everyone with the same brush, which is perhaps the way it comes across, even if this is not your intention. What now needs to be considered is how we can best improve the lot of all humans, and that will only be achieved IMO if we learn lessons from the past but don't spend too much time on things that are gone and can't now be changed.
Redsquirrel, I have made it amply clear that these are Historical facts...now can you guys please cut some slack? For heaven's sake do not interpret it as me saying each European person TODAY is like the Brits and Europeans of the 19th century.

If there was a different way of stating those facts, then PLS HELP ME BY RE-WRITING THAT ONE PASSAGE I included....HELP!!!!

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

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

#55 Post by Nirvanam » October 26th, 2010, 8:54 pm

Folks,
I think it is amply clear that my English is lacking and looks like that has caused a lot of misinterpretation and misunderstanding. But I'd like to make an effort to improve my language.

I ask for your help. Can you please be so kind to re-write the passage mentioned below in the form that does not imply that I am referring to you but to a collective of people in the past. My only requirement is that the intensity, and depth of what I had presented also needs to be maintained.

If you cannot give me a better worded passage then you must ask yourself whether you were right in indicating I am being a racist or whatever. Also, I request you with all sincerity let this not be an exercise for ego oneupmanship...if that is how it will be viewed then I'll make it easier and I'll repeat whatever you want me to say, accept whatever you want me to accept, agree to whatever you accuse me of right away. In case you'd like I'll also change my username to read "Racist Bastard Nirvanam"

But just in case you find that I couldn't have worded it any greatly different other than some cosmetic changes here and there, then please also have the heart to let me know I wasn't behaving like a racist.

Here's the example passage

/-
Aryans were supposed to be the ancestors of both white Europeans and the other group which migrated to central Asia and from there is supposed to have invaded Bharatvarsha on chariots (don't ask how they crossed the Hindu Kush mountains and the Himalayas on chariots...maybe Max Mueller or Cunnigham will have plausible explanations for this).

Now, Bismarck used this concoction first in the late 19th century to unify Germany (Prussia). Upon its backfiring, the British had to find a way to thwart the growing power of Germany. So their Historians started concocting that "Oh no, Aryan refers to a series of languages not to tribes, silly". But the seeds had been sowed and they paid the price for their concoction when Nazi Germany screwed their happiness.

However, although the concept of Aryan had undergone a sea change from it being a tribe of people to it being a group of languages (which is also bullshit), your History text books (and in deed ours too) continue to present Aryans as a group of people who invaded Bharatvarsha during 1500 - 1200 BC (how did they arrive at these dates? I mean come on my rationalist friends pls help me understand this...seriously please help me understand your rationality in believing these dates...begging you, please enlighten me). The invasion theory can be verified if you open the text books of school children.
-/

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

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

#56 Post by Alan C. » October 26th, 2010, 10:19 pm

dumb? Anyone needs more logic on the existence of chi, I am free to discuss it
Fuck you! I/we don't need your interpretation of chi, as we manage quite well without it.
Don't you get it yet?

Oh and
in deed
Indeed as you used it is all one word in English.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

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

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

#57 Post by getreal » October 26th, 2010, 10:37 pm

your History text books (
Where, Nirvanam? Where in a school history book does it say that? Not the Discovery Channel nor pages from the internet, but school history books ??

For a start, they don't teach anything about this at state schools in scotland. They've only just got round to teaching scottish history, let alone the history of the Indian sub continent.
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.

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

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

#58 Post by Nirvanam » October 26th, 2010, 10:52 pm

getreal wrote:
your History text books (
Where, Nirvanam? Where in a school history book does it say that? Not the Discovery Channel nor pages from the internet, but school history books ??

For a start, they don't teach anything about this at state schools in scotland. They've only just got round to teaching scottish history, let alone the history of the Indian sub continent.
Here is a link of the case where California text books had introduced this and the Indian community there had successfully challenged it.
http://www.letindiadevelop.org/irochtc/ ... 9-05.shtml

Edit: Also when I say your History text books teach Aryan Invasion myth I mean it as whichever grade your first History lesson about Indian civilization comes in. If you include Indian History in the 6th grade then it will be sixth grade text book. If it is only in higher studies like Undergraduate then it will be in those courses. I can tell you that in India, world History was taught to us only from the 10th grade. In 6th grade I remember there were mentions about civilizational beginnings of Humans i.e. Egyptians, Chinese, Mesopotamia, etc. So I'd not expect your schools to go in depth and teach about Indian civilization at school level. There will just be mention of Indian civilizations at school level (going by what you say). But whenever you encounter 'how Indian civilization developed' in History text books that is where you will find Aryan myth.

Further edit: The History channel reference was in response to your post about the use of the term "new world"...hope that clarifies the History channel post

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

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

#59 Post by Fia » October 26th, 2010, 11:01 pm

Off the top of my head, I'm sure I could improve it more:

Aryans were supposed by whom? references plsto be the ancestors of both white Europeans and the other group which migrated to central Asia and from there isare supposed by whom? references pls to have invaded Bharatvarsha we assume this is an old names for a part of Indiaon chariots (don't ask how they crossed the Hindu Kush mountains and the Himalayas on chariots...maybe Max Mueller or Cunnigham will have plausible explanations for this). which does seem rather unlikely due to the geography of the region that's assuming my geography education wasn't all wrong too, of course :D

Now, I assert, again, without references, thatBismarck used this concoction first in the late 19th century to unify Germany (Prussia). Upon its backfiring, the British had to find a way to thwart the growing power of Germany. So their Historians started concocting that "Oh no, Aryan refers to a series of languages not to tribes, silly". I allege their is/was a conspiracy involving British Historians to somehow destabilise Germany, which is such a huge secret no-one knows about itBut the seeds had been sowed sownmere pedantry on my my part and they paid the price for their concoctionsuffered like everyone else when Nazi Germany screwed their happiness. developed some very nasty ideas, underpinned by a reign of terror and some of the best made propaganda the world has seen e.g. "The Triumph of the will"

However, although I assert, again without foundationthe concept of Aryan had undergone a sea change from it being a tribe of people to it being a group of languages (which is also bullshit), your History text books (and in deed ours too) continue to present Aryans as a group of people who invaded Bharatvarsha during 1500 - 1200 BC No, ours DO NOT,and we can't speak for yours as we haven't seen them(how did these secretive British Historians perchance? they arrive at these dates? I mean come on my rationalist friends pls help me understand this...seriously please help me understand your rationality in believing these dates...How many times do we have to say it: WE DON'Tbegging you, please enlighten me). We're still waiting for you to do that. But then you're not listening to us anyway.The invasion theory can be verified if you open the text books of school children.NO IT CAN'T

I apologise for shouting but unless you can show us a thread of credible evidence for this weird a wacky conspiracy theory of yours then I, for one, am butting out.

...But not before wondering if you do anything else bar watch TV, go to movies, the occasional cricket match and post crossly on TH. When you're not getting all het up about a pet peeve, that none of us understand because you haven't given us the tools to do so, you can be an interesting and thought provoking chap. I look forward to seeing him around again :D

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

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

#60 Post by Nirvanam » October 26th, 2010, 11:12 pm

Alan C. wrote:
dumb? Anyone needs more logic on the existence of chi, I am free to discuss it
Fuck you! I/we don't need your interpretation of chi, as we manage quite well without it.
Don't you get it yet?

Oh and
in deed
Indeed as you used it is all one word in English.
Alan, instead of abusing me, have you considered responding to the post where I have, with utmost sincerity and friendly frame of mind, presented you with the context in which I have learned about other cultures, etc?

I was hoping you would actually be friendly enough and try and help me out in finding the right word to describe what I have described as prejudice. And I was sincerely hoping that you will be able to empathize why I use the word prejudice when I edited that thread to include a situation where you might be able to understand the mental processes I am perhaps wrongly referring as prejudices.

Seriously, if you feel like debating with me or even want to converse with me, use logic and rational thought processes like others are doing here. Abusing me is not gonna change a thing. If you find my style intolerable then why do you have to read my posts and cause yourself to get worked up only to end up abusing me.

I am regretting now that I felt so positive and so hopeful that you will understand my perspective when I wrote that post. I shouldn't have responded to you.

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

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

#61 Post by Nirvanam » October 26th, 2010, 11:23 pm

Fia, in all those different font sizes and formating I am not sure I understood you correctly. So please correct me,
you want me to show you why the early European Indologists version of Indian History is prejudiced, right?

I'll find you enough sources and inferences provided you are willing to go through them. In the meanwhile you can also have a look at the links Emma has posted on this thread about the Aryan Invasion Myth.

Also, I ask you sincerely, to help me...I want to convey that the Europeans specifically the British systematically looted and exploited the Indian subcontinent...what would be the right words to use here (assuming that the language used for referring to parties is generally how it is used when referring to Historical events).

Post Reply