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.
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.