On chaighar, the comments veered towards the Aryan Invasion Theory. Shiv then very cleverly points out the subjectivity of history.
Shiv submitted this:
Shiv submitted this:
History is an interesting subject.
First there was a black African race who spread all over the world. As man moved North, evolution favored a lighter skin. The man moving North also had to contend with a more hostile environment and became more clever than his black cousins who used to get food easily in the tropics.
Later the superior fair skinned man moved south again. One of those migrations was the Aryan invasion of India. natural selection ensures the survival of the fittest. Naturally the fairer man started ruling over that darker people of India. The fairer people were the Brahmins and Kshatriyas – natural warriors. The blackies were the lower castes. But over time, lust overcame the superior Aryans and they interbred with the blackies leading to a degradation of their gene pool. The genital worship was combined with dung worship, horse worship and genital worship of the worst kind.
In the meantime, the fair skinned people who had remained in the North continued to evolve into superior beings. A great political system and way of life came into being and a great egalitarian religion arose. The people who had this great system naturally overran the polluted dung and penis worshippers of India. Evolution does favor survival of teh fittest.
But , meanwhile, the fair skinned people in the north evolved even more and became even more superior. They came and conquered the world and even managed to defeat the civilized races who were benignly ruling over the corrupt penis worshippers. But these new conquerors were not as strong as the true civilised rulers of India. They would have been defeated – so they took the help of the penis worshippers in an act of inexcusable treachery.
Luckily a man called Jinnah saw through this game., He understood how the powerful fair people of the north were collaborating with the penis and dung worshippers and deftly created a country of pure people. The people of this country were not dung and penis worshippers. They were the truly civilised people of the earth.
To which Vajra repliedAh, history is such a fascinating subject.
@Shiv [June 18, 2010 at 8:52 am]At which point, Shiv made his point:
There is nothing to be gained by putting out this completely erroneous version which has no basis whatsoever and is so obviously you trailing your coat. Why you felt it necessary is a mystery. Correcting this nonsensical story is an aggravating waste of time, which could have been spent on other more interesting things.
Correcting this nonsensical story is an aggravating waste of time,
Thanks. From the viewpoint of rhetoric, a story that cannot be corrected is one that is true.
The (his)story has been written deliberately to pose a “Heads I win, tails you lose” dilemma” to anyone who seeks to argue with the story. It is a mix of fiction and innuendo of a type that typifies the writing of Martha Nussbaum and Arundhati Roy who are both better at it than I am. But I’m trying to get there and become as irritating as those two icons.
If the story is accepted as being true as a whole, and is not refuted, that also tells a tale. History can be written any which way you like. If I write history and you argue with it, it gives me the information I need about you. I know exactly what irritates you so that I can construct an even more preposterous tale the next time just for you.
The best way to deal with one version of History is not to argue, but to inundate “intellectual space” with alternate versions. I am merely helping to inundate this discussion with my version of events. People who come later will never know what is right and what is not.
It is always the one who argues who comes second. The person who writes his story has the initiative. I presume you know about my “You farted” analogy? If not I will post it here.