12-09-2004, 02:10 PM
Somehow I think this "persecution complex" has its root in jesus's story -> Jesus died/suffered to absolve everyone who becomes xtian. This has led to the current state where the human-rights/persecution marketplace has now become extremely competitive - every one wants to shout louder about how he is more persecuted then the next guy.
Sometimes I find it surprising that it has actually become fashionable to show how one is soft and tender only to be persecuted by wolves waiting around the corner.
In another context on Sulekha Rajiv Malhotra mentioned Rhetorical Ethics which might be applicable in this case. In one of the comments to his column "Myth of Hindu Sameness" he said..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rhetorical Ethics:
In my previous column on Whiteness, I reference the book by Marimba Ani. One of the core characteristics she describes about Western culture is what she calls 'rhetorical ethics.' This means the ethics that is projected outwardly but not intended to be practiced internally. It is a sort of hypocrisy or PR for others to believe. Ani claims that most Western ethics is simply rhetorical and not sincere ethics.
Gandhi's satyagraha was constantly provoking the British to expose that their 'civilizing mission' was rhetorical and not sincere. His objective was not to change the British (because he knew they were stuck in their ways) but to arouse the Indians' awareness that British ethics was largely rhetorical.
Sabena's latest comment is claiming that the external projection of sameness by many Christian leaders in dealing with Hindus is insincere and hence merely rhetorical. There is much merit in this charge.
It is the Hindus who get taken by this rhetoric and they start to preach AND PRACTICE sameness. Hence there is one-sided disarmament. Hindus are told to become same as Christians, but Christians are internally preached to remain exclusive while being politically correct externally.
Many academic scholars of Hinduism practice rhetorical ethics when they say that ad hominem attacks are not allowed, because RISA engages in such attacks against outsiders.
When they claim that their scholarship is free from 'insider bias' because they are not practicing Hindus, they cover up that they are Judeo-Christian 'insiders' and hence biased.
Cynthia Humes' recent personal attack on me at DANAM, which was supposed to be a 'response' to my paper on the Sameness Myth, was a clear example of the academy blatantly violating its own advertised standards of scholarship and conduct. Yet the system sustains on cronyism, contacts, power, etc. It was tragic to see Rita Sherma get compromised as the panel chair - which some speculated was because of her own career conflicts of interest.
We should discuss rhetorical ethics as a category, as it exposes the mindset which (according to Marimba Ani) is the central reason for the West's success in conquering others. Truth does NOT prevail, hypocrisy does, as per her thesis. The Robert Clives and Jaichands were not trading on truth but rhetorical ethics. Much rhetorical ethics was deployed to separate the native Americans from their land and gold, and eventuallly they had to be eradicated by holocaust. The moral is to challenge the other's ethical claims and never take them at face value.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sometimes I find it surprising that it has actually become fashionable to show how one is soft and tender only to be persecuted by wolves waiting around the corner.
In another context on Sulekha Rajiv Malhotra mentioned Rhetorical Ethics which might be applicable in this case. In one of the comments to his column "Myth of Hindu Sameness" he said..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rhetorical Ethics:
In my previous column on Whiteness, I reference the book by Marimba Ani. One of the core characteristics she describes about Western culture is what she calls 'rhetorical ethics.' This means the ethics that is projected outwardly but not intended to be practiced internally. It is a sort of hypocrisy or PR for others to believe. Ani claims that most Western ethics is simply rhetorical and not sincere ethics.
Gandhi's satyagraha was constantly provoking the British to expose that their 'civilizing mission' was rhetorical and not sincere. His objective was not to change the British (because he knew they were stuck in their ways) but to arouse the Indians' awareness that British ethics was largely rhetorical.
Sabena's latest comment is claiming that the external projection of sameness by many Christian leaders in dealing with Hindus is insincere and hence merely rhetorical. There is much merit in this charge.
It is the Hindus who get taken by this rhetoric and they start to preach AND PRACTICE sameness. Hence there is one-sided disarmament. Hindus are told to become same as Christians, but Christians are internally preached to remain exclusive while being politically correct externally.
Many academic scholars of Hinduism practice rhetorical ethics when they say that ad hominem attacks are not allowed, because RISA engages in such attacks against outsiders.
When they claim that their scholarship is free from 'insider bias' because they are not practicing Hindus, they cover up that they are Judeo-Christian 'insiders' and hence biased.
Cynthia Humes' recent personal attack on me at DANAM, which was supposed to be a 'response' to my paper on the Sameness Myth, was a clear example of the academy blatantly violating its own advertised standards of scholarship and conduct. Yet the system sustains on cronyism, contacts, power, etc. It was tragic to see Rita Sherma get compromised as the panel chair - which some speculated was because of her own career conflicts of interest.
We should discuss rhetorical ethics as a category, as it exposes the mindset which (according to Marimba Ani) is the central reason for the West's success in conquering others. Truth does NOT prevail, hypocrisy does, as per her thesis. The Robert Clives and Jaichands were not trading on truth but rhetorical ethics. Much rhetorical ethics was deployed to separate the native Americans from their land and gold, and eventuallly they had to be eradicated by holocaust. The moral is to challenge the other's ethical claims and never take them at face value.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->