Hinduism [Archive]

Lenina Rosenweg

16th July 2010, 00:04

My understanding is that the RSS and other fascist or semi-fascist organizations in India have selectively interpreted a romanticised version of India's traditional culture to support a highly authoritarian ideology.

Meera Nanda talks about this in Prophets Facing Backwards

http://www.indiaclub.com/Shop/SearchResults.asp?ProdStock=15595

http://amadlandawonye.wikispaces.com/2004,+Nanda,+Postmodernism,+Hindu+nationalism+and+ Vedic+science

This dynamic is what the BJP feeds off of. It seems to stem from the failure of the Indian left (the CPI is horrible), continuing oppression peasants and others face, the confusion of some non-Marxist Indian leftists, the rise of post-modernism and the support it gives to the Indian "traditionalist" revival, and the recent high tech "boom" among small urban layers. There is a lot in brahmanical Hinduism which is deeply authoritarian and reactionary, the caste system and much else. "Hinduism" is a vast, complex system of religious, spiritual, and cultural traditions. Apart from the reactionary teachings of the brahmans there are materialist and atheist traditions.

Nanda cites the Dalit leader Ambedkar (who opposed the caste system and advocated the mass conversion of the "untouchables" to a form of Buddhism) as a progressive use of Indian traditions. Ambedkar wasn't a Marxist (his experience of it was though Stalinism), but he did attempt a dialog with the Marxist tradition. Interestingly Gandhi (who may be more popular in the US than in India right now) wanted to preserve the caste system.
Meera Nanda had a blog which was interesting, not sure if it still exists.

The Nazi fetish may be a phenomena among middle class or petty bourgeois youth who want a "strong leader' There are Nazi sympathies in China. In Shanghai I noticed swastika graffiti (the National Socialist version, not the Buddhist)in several areas and a restaurant owner I knew had a swastika tattoo. Friends of mine said this represented racism against the Hui nationality, Chinese Muslims centered in Ningxia Province but scattered thoughout China. They are generally poor people but they have a reputation of being good at business, creating resentment among Han petty bourgeois elements.

Adi Shankara

16th July 2010, 00:22

I know very much about Hinduism, probably more than I know about christianity or any other religion, and Hinduism has nothing to do with fascism. in fact, Hinduism on many levels preaches equality, as the equality of all parts of the atman (soul) that compose the Brahman, even as we are all simultaneously different.

some sects of Hinduism could be considered "national socialist" in nature, such as those that hold Brahmins superior to all castes, but these sects are largely ostracized by hinduism at large, as they directly conflict with the Bhagavad Gita, which talks of the equality of all souls when cleansed of karma (whereas these Brahmans outright think they are superior period.)

I think the Nazi obsession in India has more to do with the fact they have no direct experiences with fascism or Nazism, so they don't really know how wrong those ideas are, since they never had to fight nazi oppression, nor is WWII history that big in India, since India had only a minor part in WWII.

also, India had an alliance of convenience with the Nazi party because they were fighting the British in India, thus the Nazis supported them. many Indian Independence leaders, like the Irish ones, saw the Nazis firstly as a force to fight the British, before anything else. this was no different in India.

I'm highly in doubt that Indians, considering how diverse they are, would support national socialism or fascism.

Saivitri Devi was an attention seeker who spoke much about Hinduism, but knew very little. in fact, she claimed Hitler an Avatara of Vishnu, which would be impossible since Vishnu wouldn't reincarnate until the age of Kaliyuga, as Kalki Avatara. Kalki is set to destroy many things--but only evil.

If anything, she was just another privileged huckster taking advantage of Western ignorance to Hinduism.

Lenina Rosenweg

16th July 2010, 00:52

I don't think Hinduism itself is fascist. Its a vast, complex tradition. Elements of the Hindu cultural tradition have been miobilized into movements which can only be described as fascist.

the horrific Babri Majid massacre in 1992 points to this.Basically the Babri Majid was a mosque built by the Mughal emperor Babur in 1526. It was also supposed to be the birthplace of Rama, an avatar of Krishna, if I remember.The BM was sacred to Hinduism and Islam Its very complicated but communal tensions rose in the late 80s/early 90s basically due to the effects of neo-liberalism and the lack of a viable left alternative.The Indian media whipped up a frenzy in the months before this.There was very popular TV mini-series about the life of Krishna.Religion plays a role in India different than that of the west. Tensions were at a fever pitch. An outright fascist group, the RSS, whipped up religious frenzy against Muslims. The result was a horrendous massacre. The RSS was essentially doing the dirty work of the Hindu fundamentalist BJP.

There were wonderful courageous instances were Hindus and Muslims in working class areas united to repel the mobs, but it seems they were in the minority.

I have friends who were caught up in this.

Again, I do not at all think Hinduism is fascist, that's absurd. Hindu traditions have been mobilized to support fascism.

Robocommie

16th July 2010, 00:54

Not knowing a great deal about it, I might suppose that the Nazi fetish in India and other Asian countries is in large part due to the incredible seductiveness that the image of power effects on people. The Nazis were experts at stagecraft and they went to great lengths to cultivate this image of strength and power because they knew how seductive it was - because they were seduced by it themselves.

Dimentio

16th July 2010, 00:59

Saivitri Devi was an attention seeker who spoke much about Hinduism, but knew very little. in fact, she claimed Hitler an Avatara of Vishnu, which would be impossible since Vishnu wouldn't reincarnate until the age of Kaliyuga, as Kalki Avatara. Kalki is set to destroy many things--but only evil.

If anything, she was just another privileged huckster taking advantage of Western ignorance to Hinduism.

According to Savitri, we are living in Kali Yuga now. But that means we will basically have like 30 000 years left of it. :lol:

Hinduism could obviously not be fascist in itself since fascism per definition is defined as a group of ideologies exclusive for the 20th and 21st centuries.

Mahatma Gandhi

16th July 2010, 05:25

Good topic.:thumbup1:

Hinduism was spread in India by the Aryans from Germany, so yes, there will be similarities between Hindus and Nazis. Upper-caste Hindus are essentially Caucasians and they look down upon the lower-caste people; no wonder caste system is still intact.

Racism is part of Hindu culture and not an aberration, which is why middle-class kids (who are essentially upper-caste) love the Nazis. They identify totally with the Caucasians (even the darkest among the Hindus, that is) and hate anything that is dark. All this is obviously the result of centuries of caste system which convinced them that 'lighter the better.' No wonder Hindus regularly attack and bully other dark-skinned people, such as the Muslims, even as they turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed by corporates that are predominantly white (see how hindus pretend that the gas tragedy was no big deal).

That's why even today, India still remains a feudal nation with zero progress; people are abnormal, to put it gently. In conclusion, Hinduism and Hindus are reactionary and have nothing in common with socialism.

Adi Shankara

16th July 2010, 05:34

Mahatma Gandhi

16th July 2010, 05:47

I'm sorry, but not a single thing you said in this thread is true. Aryans didn't come from Germany; they came from the Fertile crescent region of what became Mesopotamia.

Point is, they came from outside and imposed their beliefs and culture on the local dravidic people. Chillingly similar to the Nazis.

you bought into the nazi race myth hook line and sinker; also, your points about Hinduism are equally as false.

What race myth? Caste system is based on skin color, somewhat different from class system in Europe. In caste, it is not merely the wealth that counts but also race; again, similar to Nazi view that 'purity of blood' comes first.

(P.S: you know your avatar is a picture of a really devout Hindu, right?)

I also like Marx and I am not an atheist. Get my drift?

manic expression

16th July 2010, 06:14

The post above mine is entirely idiotic.

In case anyone's interested:

There have been two major theories about the early development of early south Asian traditions.

The Aryan migration thesis that the Indus Valley groups calling themselves 'Aryans' (noble ones) migrated into the sub-continent and became the dominant cultural force. Hinduism, on this view, derives from their religion recorded in the Veda along with elements of the indigenous traditions they encountered.
The cultural transformation thesis that Aryan culture is a development of the Indus Valley culture. On this view there were no Aryan migrations (or invasion) and the Indus valley culture was an Aryan or vedic culture.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history_1.shtml#section_3

The Aryan Invasion Theory holds no water, it's been essentially debunked for years. The effects of an Aryan migration into the area of the Indus Valley are debated, but it's not a case of mean old Aryans imposing Hinduism on the indigenous people of India.

As far as Hinduism and fascism, of course there are reactionaries who will come out of the religion, but you can say the same for anything else. Catholicism gave us Franco but it also gave us Oscar Romero, and Hinduism is far, far, far less of a fixed doctrine than Catholicism is, so ideological variation goes without saying. Hinduism is a wide open thing, it's more open to interpretation and individual practice than any other religion I'm familiar with, so much so that it's almost futile to try to define it. It gets even more flexible when you look past the rituals (which is exactly how most Hindu sages made their names in the past).

There were wonderful courageous instances were Hindus and Muslims in working class areas united to repel the mobs, but it seems they were in the minority.I remember seeing reports about this as well. I also remember seeing reports that the poorer communities (slums, etc.) were largely untouched by the mobs, and when reporters asked why they didn't see any sectarian violence, the people simply responded that the poor had nothing to lose or gain from all the nonsense.

Adi Shankara

16th July 2010, 06:21

the Aryan invasion theory is more European chauvinism, as if to say "Indians couldn't create a great civilization without descending from White people".

Mahatma Gandhi

16th July 2010, 06:46

the Aryan invasion theory is more European chauvinism, as if to say "Indians couldn't create a great civilization without descending from White people".

I see what you mean, but it doesn't make it any less true. If a chauvinist says the earth is round, you don't start believing in the opposite just because the source of your information happens to be someone you don't like. Besides, one can call it migration instead of invasion, if that could soften things a little.:)

Mahatma Gandhi

16th July 2010, 06:54

The post above mine is entirely idiotic.

Huh? History and DNA prove otherwise.

The effects of an Aryan migration into the area of the Indus Valley are debated, but it's not a case of mean old Aryans imposing Hinduism on the indigenous people of India.

Marx believed otherwise. Also, caste system would otherwise have been redundant. Add to that DNA tests and the general culture of the Hindus.

Hinduism is a wide open thing, it's more open to interpretation and individual practice than any other religion I'm familiar with

Maybe so, but the single most important aspect of Hinduism, the foundation as it were, is the caste system. And in this system, lighter=superior, darker=inferior. It goes beyond class dynamics and dehumanizes people based on skin color, very similar to Nazism.

That's also why Hindus have always accepted British, Turkish and other rulers who were mostly light-skinned without any problem; it is because those rulers were seen by the natives as 'top of the caste pyramid' and hence worthy of veneration.

Mahatma

manic expression

16th July 2010, 07:48

Huh? History and DNA prove otherwise.
Post something specific or shut up.

Marx believed otherwise. Also, caste system would otherwise have been redundant. Add to that DNA tests and the general culture of the Hindus.Marx accepted the accepted historical explanation of his day. Fortunately for us, more research has been done on the subject and the Aryan Invasion Theory is now known as complete BS.

What "general culture of Hindus" shows an invasion by Aryans? Is puja really a coded reenactment of the Aryan subjugation of India? You're talking straight out of your ass.

Maybe so, but the single most important aspect of Hinduism, the foundation as it were, is the caste system. And in this system, lighter=superior, darker=inferior.So Krishna is inferior. :lol: Good one.

That's also why Hindus have always accepted British, Turkish and other rulers who were mostly light-skinned without any problem; it is because those rulers were seen by the natives as 'top of the caste pyramid' and hence worthy of veneration. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sepoy+rebellion

Adi Shankara

16th July 2010, 08:05

Mahatma Gandhi

16th July 2010, 08:11

Post something specific or shut up.

I am not going to do your homework for you. DNA tests prove that upper-caste people have more in common with Caucasians than they do with lower caste folks - hence the racism.

Marx accepted the accepted historical explanation of his day. Fortunately for us, more research has been done on the subject and the Aryan Invasion Theory is now known as complete BS.

Migration, perhaps. Point is, Hindus have always surrendered quietly to invaders, so an invasion of India wouldn't have been the same as the invasion of other countries.

So Krishna is inferior. :lol: Good one.

Hindus do paint him white, though. Even otherwise, that's not the point, is it? We're not talking about the gods that the Brahmins have created from their overactive imaginations but only about the general behavior of the Hindu people. Most of them, if not all, unquestioningly accept the supremacy of white skin. It reflects in their behavior and ideas, so there is nothing more to say on this.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sepoy+rebellion
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=aberration

Mahatma Gandhi

16th July 2010, 08:14

Please MG, don't post anymore on Hinduism for your sake. you realy don't know what you're talking about. I'm in the process of switching my major to philosophy. this has all I been studying this summer is Hinduism.

TS, Hinduism as a subject in college is entirely different from the Hinduism of the real world.

... where is pranabjyoti when you need him?:cool:

Adi Shankara

16th July 2010, 08:17

TS, Hinduism as a subject in college is entirely different from the Hinduism of the real world.

... where is pranabjyoti when you need him?:cool:

I'm also in the process of converting, having my own Shuddi and such. I've become really interested in it. and have been doing this since about a few months ago, but am finally taking the full leap after bouncing between hinduism and buddhism.

about the Diksha, I am preparing for that as well.

Mahatma Gandhi

16th July 2010, 08:23

I'm also in the process of converting, having my own Shuddi and such. I've become really interested in it. and have been doing this since about a few months ago, but am finally taking the full leap after bouncing between hinduism and buddhism.

about the Diksha, I am preparing for that as well.

Good luck!:thumbup1:

I have no problem with the theology (whether or not I agree is another matter) but only with the culture of which caste and other practices are a part.

.... but remember only Jesus saves.;)(sorry, couldn't resist).

manic expression

16th July 2010, 08:34

I am not going to do your homework for you.
So you're not going to support your argument. Good to know.

Migration, perhaps. Point is, Hindus have always surrendered quietly to invaders, so an invasion of India wouldn't have been the same as the invasion of other countries.All the evidence points to a migration, not an invasion. That being the case, it's very much not what you've been saying. And lastly, your argument is that "Hindus" were the ones doing the invading, not doing the surrendering, so you're contradicting yourself completely.

Hindus do paint him white, though. Even otherwise, that's not the point, is it? We're not talking about the gods that the Brahmins have created from their overactive imaginations but only about the general behavior of the Hindu people. Most of them, if not all, unquestioningly accept the supremacy of white skin. It reflects in their behavior and ideas, so there is nothing more to say on this.So the incarnation of god, who is known as the "dark one" and painted with dark skin...doesn't matter. Because you said so.

What "behavior and ideas"? If you mean Bollywood standards of beauty, that has little to do with Hinduism itself. But again, post something specific or shut up.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=aberrationOh, really? Nice excuse. But then I guess the Duke of Wellington didn't need to fight the Battle of Assaye, since Hindus don't offer resistance to white people. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Adi Shankara

16th July 2010, 08:44

Hindus do paint him white, though. Even otherwise, that's not the point, is it? We're not talking about the gods that the Brahmins have created from their overactive imaginations but only about the general behavior of the Hindu people. Most of them, if not all, unquestioningly accept the supremacy of white skin. It reflects in their behavior and ideas, so there is nothing more to say on this.

one of the most supreme goddesses, the feminine aspect of Shiva the Destroyer, is Kali, and she is pitch black. she is worshipped very much so in her own right. (and despite what Indiana Jones may have taught you, Kali is not evil, nor good)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8a/Kali_Traditional.jpg/348px-Kali_Traditional.jpg

Mahatma Gandhi

16th July 2010, 10:08

So you're not going to support your argument. Good to know.

For the third time, DNA evidence proves that upper-caste hindus are more like Europeans and lower-castes are more like the aborigines of Australia. What more evidence do you need? If you wish to learn more, do a google search.

All the evidence points to a migration, not an invasion. That being the case, it's very much not what you've been saying. And lastly, your argument is that "Hindus" were the ones doing the invading, not doing the surrendering, so you're contradicting yourself completely.

Semantics.:rolleyes: Hindus as in people of the subcontinent.

So the incarnation of god, who is known as the "dark one" and painted with dark skin...doesn't matter. Because you said so.

Dark as in dark blue, not dark as in black. And Krishna is dark blue.

What "behavior and ideas"? If you mean Bollywood standards of beauty, that has little to do with Hinduism itself. But again, post something specific or shut up.

No, I am not talking about this or that standard. I am talking about the general attitude of the Hindu people. I've seen how shabbily Hindus treat the blacks in total contrast to how they treat whites. If you can't see this, you're a racist yourself.:mad:

Oh, really? Nice excuse. But then I guess the Duke of Wellington didn't need to fight the Battle of Assaye, since Hindus don't offer resistance to white people. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Your jokes aside, ask yourself the following: how many people have Hindus killed? A lot. How many of them dark? A lot. How many white? Not many. How many times have they accepted white rule? Most of the time. How many times they have rebelled? Not many.

Thanks to caste system, Hindus have always tried to oppress and kill dark people and make peace with the light-skinned folk since the latter are on top of the caste structure.

Dimentio

16th July 2010, 10:27

Indo-Europeans neither came from the Fertile Crescent nor Germany. The earliest remnants of their culture show that they came from the Uralic region and the western parts of what is now Kazachstan.

Dimentio

16th July 2010, 11:10

I see that I got neg-repped by GracchusBabeuf who sent me a message that I'm a "racist pisshead". Now, I'm curious about mr Babeuf's evidence. If I'm a racist, I have nothing to do here and should be banned.

Exactly what was racist with the first post in this thread?

ChrisK

16th July 2010, 11:23

Dimentio

16th July 2010, 12:17

Because he's an obnoxious troll who does shit like that.

:lol:

I just think its so irritating when users who haven't even participated in a thread are neg-repping people.

manic expression

16th July 2010, 13:52

For the third time, DNA evidence proves that upper-caste hindus are more like Europeans and lower-castes are more like the aborigines of Australia. What more evidence do you need? If you wish to learn more, do a google search.
And for the third time, post something concrete or shut up. Thanks.

Semantics.:rolleyes: Hindus as in people of the subcontinent.So the fact that you think Hinduism is synonymous with the human beings who populate the Indian subcontinent is semantics. No...it's you not having the slightest clue of what you're talking about. Learn the difference.

Dark as in dark blue, not dark as in black. And Krishna is dark blue.And white people aren't. I thought so. :lol:

No, I am not talking about this or that standard. I am talking about the general attitude of the Hindu people. I've seen how shabbily Hindus treat the blacks in total contrast to how they treat whites. If you can't see this, you're a racist yourself.:mad:So you're not going to make a serious argument. Fine. Anyway, this "behavior" is Hinduism's fault...how, exactly? It's not like Muslim, Christian, Jain, Sikh, Parsi or any other religious groups in India are any nobler. Unless you want to tell us why Hinduism is intrinsically inferior. Go ahead, it's what you've been trying to say this whole time (unfortunately for us all, you seem to lack the ability to articulate your warped views clearly, however).

Your jokes aside, ask yourself the following: how many people have Hindus killed? A lot. How many of them dark? A lot. How many white? Not many. How many times have they accepted white rule? Most of the time. How many times they have rebelled? Not many.:lol: Why would I need to make jokes when I can read your garbage instead? Hinduism is not at fault for killing dark people, religions themselves seldom are responsible for acts of violence. Further, Hinduism has been a religion among non-whites since the conception of "white" and "non-white" began. So of course its history has affected non-whites primarily.

How has India's acceptance of European rule been any different than Latin America or Asia or the Middle East? They've rebelled at times but they've also been subjects. So what? Egypt only really rebelled against European influence by the 20th Century, before that it was in concert with the Ottomans most of the time...I guess Sunni Islam is pro-white, huh? Unless, of course, you're a fool who wants to prove an insipid point. You'd know a thing or two about that, though, wouldn't you.

Thanks to caste system, Hindus have always tried to oppress and kill dark people and make peace with the light-skinned folk since the latter are on top of the caste structure.:lol: Which we know is true, because the British still rule India. Oh, wait. :lol:

Mahatma Gandhi

16th July 2010, 14:50

And for the third time, post something concrete or shut up. Thanks.

I did. If you can't accept it, there is nothing I can do.

And white people aren't. I thought so.

Meaning, it is just a symbol for them, not a real person. It is easy to respect a symbol that has dark blue color or any color at all; ask Hindus to respect a real human being who has dark skin and see how that goes.

So you're not going to make a serious argument. Fine. Anyway, this "behavior" is Hinduism's fault...how, exactly?

Caste system.

It's not like Muslim, Christian, Jain, Sikh, Parsi or any other religious groups in India are any nobler.

That's because they too are part of Hindu culture, although their theological beliefs may be different. So hindu culture is to blame even if the fault lies with some religious community other than hindus.

Unless you want to tell us why Hinduism is intrinsically inferior.

I meant Hindu culture, not theology. Theology is subject to multiple interpretations; culture, on the other hand, is something you can observe directly and verify. And Hindu culture is based upon violence, bullying, and all that; this is because hindus, unlike people of Abrahamic faiths, do not believe in concepts like right and wrong, charity etc. 'Might is right' would best describe Hindu culture.

Why would I need to make jokes when I can read your garbage instead? Hinduism is not at fault for killing dark people, religions themselves seldom are responsible for acts of violence. Further, Hinduism has been a religion among non-whites since the conception of "white" and "non-white" began. So of course its history has affected non-whites primarily.

How many times do I have to say that I am talking about culture, not religious beliefs alone?

How has India's acceptance of European rule been any different than Latin America or Asia or the Middle East? They've rebelled at times but they've also been subjects. So what?

The difference is: these people were unwilling subjects, whereas the Hindus were not. They considered it a privilege to be ruled by light-skinned people, thanks to their caste system equating white to superiority and dark to inferiority.

manic expression

16th July 2010, 15:19

I did. If you can't accept it, there is nothing I can do.
I can't accept something you didn't provide. Sorry, better luck next time.

Meaning, it is just a symbol for them, not a real person. It is easy to respect a symbol that has dark blue color or any color at all; ask Hindus to respect a real human being who has dark skin and see how that goes.
Most Hindus I know have "dark skin", and they respect themselves and their families. Try again, mahatma. :lol:

Caste system.
And the fact that the caste system began within Aryan/Vedic society just isn't something you're going to deal with, is it? Makes sense, history can be all too annoying when you're trying to argue against it.

That's because they too are part of Hindu culture, although their theological beliefs may be different. So hindu culture is to blame even if the fault lies with some religious community other than hindus.
:lol: So everything in India is now Hindu? Does that include capitalist society, the automobile, the internet and soda pop or are you just making things up as you go along?

Guess what, Coca-Cola is now 100% Hindu! Why? Because it's produced in India, that's why! :lol:

I meant Hindu culture, not theology. Theology is subject to multiple interpretations; culture, on the other hand, is something you can observe directly and verify. And Hindu culture is based upon violence, bullying, and all that; this is because hindus, unlike people of Abrahamic faiths, do not believe in concepts like right and wrong, charity etc. 'Might is right' would best describe Hindu culture.
Another :lol:. First, you don't know what you mean, you talk of religion and then you talk of culture and then you equate it all to the Indian subcontinent with no regard for history whatsoever. Like the anti-historical hack that you so richly are. But moreover, please explain how "Hindu culture" (not theology, apparently) is based on violence more than any other culture. If not, then shut up.

How many times do I have to say that I am talking about culture, not religious beliefs alone?
You've only said that in this one post, big guy, and more importantly you have failed to make that distinction, so you're only contradiction yourself. Again. As I expected.

The difference is: these people were unwilling subjects, whereas the Hindus were not. They considered it a privilege to be ruled by light-skinned people, thanks to their caste system equating white to superiority and dark to inferiority.
So the Marathas fought at the Battle of Assaye against their will? Against their better judgment? Against their supposed "culture"?

Like I said, entirely idiotic. Keep the laughs coming.

ChrisK

16th July 2010, 18:07

:lol:

I just think its so irritating when users who haven't even participated in a thread are neg-repping people.

And now I'm apparantly a racist douchbag. If Babeuf would like to tell me how that is the case I would like to be educated.

Adi Shankara

16th July 2010, 18:53

Did everyone just sort've ignore the picture of the black-skinned Goddess Kali I posted?

She has black skin. some sects of Hinduism hold her more sacred than the Trimurti itself.

Dimentio

16th July 2010, 18:58

And now I'm apparantly a racist douchbag. If Babeuf would like to tell me how that is the case I would like to be educated.

If more users behaved like that, the entire reputation system would need to be scrapped.

Dimentio

16th July 2010, 19:05

Did everyone just sort've ignore the picture of the black-skinned Goddess Kali I posted?

She has black skin. some sects of Hinduism hold her more sacred than the Trimurti itself.

Mahatma Gandhi (the user, not the historical figure) is writing so much strange stuff that I think a lot of people here just scroll past his posts. He's correct that there's a fetischisation of fair skin in India, but the same accounts for China for example, or for Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Skin colour was - in societies like China, India and Europe associated with social status. A person who was out and the worked in the fields all the day would get his or her skin coloured by the sun, while a person doing no such work would have paler skin. Thus, pale skin was a symbol of being of the upper class and thus "morally superior".

That all changed in the later half of the 19th century, with the industrial revolution. The industrial workers had much less sun and often developed sicknesses associated with a lack of daylight. In response, the upper class started to sport more and more to get a nice sunburn.

I think that only in some parts of Latin America (and in the USA even if everyone there are denying that), skin colour is associated with social status on a racial basis as an integrated part of culture.

Mahatma Gandhi

16th July 2010, 19:51

Did everyone just sort've ignore the picture of the black-skinned Goddess Kali I posted?

She has black skin. some sects of Hinduism hold her more sacred than the Trimurti itself.

I explained that already. Respecting a symbol, whether black or white or navy blue, is easy. Respecting a dark-skinned person in real life is another matter, which the hindus find hard to do.

revolution inaction

16th July 2010, 20:07

For the third time, DNA evidence proves that upper-caste hindus are more like Europeans and lower-castes are more like the aborigines of Australia. What more evidence do you need? If you wish to learn more, do a google search.

provide a source or stfu

Mahatma Gandhi (the user, not the historical figure) is writing so much strange stuff that I think a lot of people here just scroll past his posts. He's correct that there's a fetischisation of fair skin in India, but the same accounts for China for example, or for Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries.
also japan i think, at least for women.

Dimentio

16th July 2010, 20:10

also japan i think, at least for women.

Oh yes, in Japan as well.

Mahatma Gandhi

17th July 2010, 11:32

So everything in India is now Hindu? Does that include capitalist society, the automobile, the internet and soda pop or are you just making things up as you go along?

I was referring to behavioral traits, not to 'things', whatever they are.

But moreover, please explain how "Hindu culture" (not theology, apparently) is based on violence more than any other culture. If not, then shut up.

If violence happens on a daily basis with some sort of 'sanction' from the society itself, then it is logical to conclude that such violence is part of culture. Or, it couldn't have become normal, so much so that society itself approves of such acts. Logic 101.

Or, if this confuses you, look at it this way: if A kills B and you react with horror, that means you're sickened by the very idea of murder. If, on the other hand, you act as if killing were as normal as breathing, what does it say about you? That's exactly the question I am asking of the hindu society.

Also see this:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/shocking-teacher-murders-t138607/index.html

manic expression

17th July 2010, 11:49

Looks like mahatma is backtracking faster than I previously thought. The majority of his arguments are already abandoned.

I was referring to behavioral traits, not to 'things', whatever they are.
You don't know what you're referring to, you're switching up your words faster than you can keep track. But that aside, the defense of private property is a Hindu "trait", is it?

Or, if this confuses you, look at it this way: if A kills B and you react with horror, that means you're sickened by the very idea of murder. If, on the other hand, you act as if killing were as normal as breathing, what does it say about you? That's exactly the question I am asking of the hindu society.Ah, yes. "The Hindu society". How could I overlook this curious little construction of your imagination? What tickles me, though, is that this is in full, complete contradiction of what you've said before:

Point is, Hindus have always surrendered quietly to invaders

So which is it, are Hindus bloodthirsty murderers who kill as easily as we breathe, or do they always surrender quietly to invaders?

Have fun choosing which way you screw your own pathetic argument. I'll just be enjoying the show. :thumbup1:

Mahatma Gandhi

17th July 2010, 11:56

Looks like mahatma is backtracking faster than I previously thought. The majority of his arguments are already abandoned.

I haven't. But neither do I have time for your games.

Ah, yes. "The Hindu society". How could I overlook this curious little construction of your imagination? What tickles me, though, is that this is in full, complete contradiction of what you've said before:
Point is, Hindus have always surrendered quietly to invaders

So which is it, are Hindus bloodthirsty murderers who kill as easily as we breathe, or do they always surrender quietly to invaders?

Again, try some logic and you'll see there is no contradiction.:) A bully hurts weak people (a) but surrenders to a bigger and stronger bully. (b). You see a and b in isolation and think it is a contradiction.

manic expression

17th July 2010, 12:08

I haven't. But neither do I have time for your games.
You have, and I'm hardly even trying. Funny that.

Again, try some logic and you'll see there is no contradiction.:) A bully hurts weak people (a) but surrenders to a bigger and stronger bully. (b). You see a and b in isolation and think it is a contradiction.
So according to your logic, the British were weak because Hindus tried to fight them viciously on multiple occasions...while the Parsis are "bigger and stronger", because they have generally lived in relative peace with Hindus.

This just gets better and better.