04-14-2007, 06:02 PM
I believe that Hindus in general suffer from certain leftover traits that have often been described as dhimmitude or as being Macaulay-putras.
While the terms and the characteristics these words describe may not be wrong they create an impression that those people who can be described by these words have all the deficiencies and those who cannot be described by these words do not suffer from any deficiencies.
I believe that the truth is more complex than that.
Hindu psyche has layer upon layer upon layer of complexity and removing the dhimmi/Macaulay layers does not necessarily remove all the problems that the Hindus mind is hamstrung with.
Besides, and more importantly, it does not remove the years (decades/centuries) of having the Hindu narrative written by all sorts of conquerors, sycophants and Hindus who were just trying to save their own skins by telling a narrative in a particular way. I am certain that these complex layers of "forced Hindu narrative" that is in contrast to the real Hindu self image cause Hindus to react in a particular way.
At least on the internet I have noticed Hindus reacting in a particularly harsh and angry way to criticism, flamebait and plain lies. This is counter productive in the long run. All too often, Hindus are at pains to instantly prove that they are neither dhimmis nor Macaulay-putras and this instant knee jerk is a kind of switch that can be used to tweak and aggravate Hindus to get them to react angrily and then eliminate them from debate as violent, hateful trolls as has happened frequently on BRF.
Christianity and Islam, in the process of selling and promoting themselves have developed standard "ready to use" rhetoric to tear down arguments against them. Islam actually teaches rhetoric as a subject in mulla-universities. Hindus have no such knowledge to fall back upon. Rhetoric is no use when you search for truth. Rhetoric died out with the advent of modern science. Except with some religions, from where it has been honed into an art akin to a diamond edged knife.
So you find incredibly sophisticated Christians and Muslims, with readymade rhetoric in front of whom the poor Hindu often comes out looking like a naive schoolboy in comparison. On BRF I have seen situations where a sophisticated troll is able to successfully trip up half a dozen Hindus from stating their viewpoint by using the "switch" that gets them angry. Appropriate flamebait is posted - that gets Hindus arguing about the flamebait and sooner or later one of them gets angry enough to say something that gets classified as "hate speech" and he gets banned. Guess whose narrative loses out?
The point I am trying to make is the need for a single minded purpose in putting forward one's narrative without getting into arguments. When you get into an argument with somebody's who opposed your view - you are giving his narrative attention and you are allowing him to use a flawed view to get you angry. You lose both ways. You end up looking stupid and your view has been successfully sidelined.
A Hindu view will never get aired if Hindus choose to go on the defensive and start arguing the minute their worldview is criticized. The way forward is to blurt out your view and ignore those who oppose your narrative. Let them oppose it - there is no need to get into an argument. A person who opposes you WANTS you to get into an argument and specifically chooses arguments designed to irritate you. His intention is to irritate you, get you arguing and trip you up. An angry person is easy to trip up, and an angry person just has to say a few words that can be construed as hate speech" to permanently put a seal on his narrative.
There are things loaded against a Hindu narrative, but only you can avoid falling into the trap.
Set aside anger. Just do your duty. Without anger.
While the terms and the characteristics these words describe may not be wrong they create an impression that those people who can be described by these words have all the deficiencies and those who cannot be described by these words do not suffer from any deficiencies.
I believe that the truth is more complex than that.
Hindu psyche has layer upon layer upon layer of complexity and removing the dhimmi/Macaulay layers does not necessarily remove all the problems that the Hindus mind is hamstrung with.
Besides, and more importantly, it does not remove the years (decades/centuries) of having the Hindu narrative written by all sorts of conquerors, sycophants and Hindus who were just trying to save their own skins by telling a narrative in a particular way. I am certain that these complex layers of "forced Hindu narrative" that is in contrast to the real Hindu self image cause Hindus to react in a particular way.
At least on the internet I have noticed Hindus reacting in a particularly harsh and angry way to criticism, flamebait and plain lies. This is counter productive in the long run. All too often, Hindus are at pains to instantly prove that they are neither dhimmis nor Macaulay-putras and this instant knee jerk is a kind of switch that can be used to tweak and aggravate Hindus to get them to react angrily and then eliminate them from debate as violent, hateful trolls as has happened frequently on BRF.
Christianity and Islam, in the process of selling and promoting themselves have developed standard "ready to use" rhetoric to tear down arguments against them. Islam actually teaches rhetoric as a subject in mulla-universities. Hindus have no such knowledge to fall back upon. Rhetoric is no use when you search for truth. Rhetoric died out with the advent of modern science. Except with some religions, from where it has been honed into an art akin to a diamond edged knife.
So you find incredibly sophisticated Christians and Muslims, with readymade rhetoric in front of whom the poor Hindu often comes out looking like a naive schoolboy in comparison. On BRF I have seen situations where a sophisticated troll is able to successfully trip up half a dozen Hindus from stating their viewpoint by using the "switch" that gets them angry. Appropriate flamebait is posted - that gets Hindus arguing about the flamebait and sooner or later one of them gets angry enough to say something that gets classified as "hate speech" and he gets banned. Guess whose narrative loses out?
The point I am trying to make is the need for a single minded purpose in putting forward one's narrative without getting into arguments. When you get into an argument with somebody's who opposed your view - you are giving his narrative attention and you are allowing him to use a flawed view to get you angry. You lose both ways. You end up looking stupid and your view has been successfully sidelined.
A Hindu view will never get aired if Hindus choose to go on the defensive and start arguing the minute their worldview is criticized. The way forward is to blurt out your view and ignore those who oppose your narrative. Let them oppose it - there is no need to get into an argument. A person who opposes you WANTS you to get into an argument and specifically chooses arguments designed to irritate you. His intention is to irritate you, get you arguing and trip you up. An angry person is easy to trip up, and an angry person just has to say a few words that can be construed as hate speech" to permanently put a seal on his narrative.
There are things loaded against a Hindu narrative, but only you can avoid falling into the trap.
Set aside anger. Just do your duty. Without anger.