<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Mar 9 2009, 05:32 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Mar 9 2009, 05:32 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->From the point of the orginal Hindutva of kShtriya vareity -- Orissa remains unmatched. Not even karNATaka comes close. One region besides kAmarUpa that moslems never managed to penetrate, subjugate or convert is Orissa. While vijayanagara gets some attention on the pages of history for securing dakShiNApatha for over two centuries from <b>jehAdI-s</b>, we are not taught anything at all about the valiant struggle of contemporary ga~NgA-s that continued to secure this bastion of Hindus largely unabated from <b>Islam</b>. Like vijayanagara rose in utter defiance, so also Orissa, parallelly and independently. It is unfortunate that history is largely silent on their tumultuous ocean-like raise for the defence their Hindu country, wave after wave. These Fierce Oriya-s of course paid huge costs for this defiance by their blood, but conclusively frustrated the <b>moslem</b> onslaught for centuries. The final destruction of vijayanagara and that of Orissa at the hands of ghAZI-s are almost parallel.
It took the <b>mlechCha-s</b> to really quell the spirit of these Hindus. They were first mass-murdered through starvation and disease, and then subjected to conversions -- which too, unlike south, bore little result -- Orissa even today remains largely Hindu.
Hindutva should naturally come to the inner AuDra-s. It is just that BJP has a wrong wavelength, and its confused leaders would not appeal here. Hard to imagine how they react to the BJP leader providing "healing-touch" to christians of kandhamal?
[right][snapback]95336[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Islamics are as mlechCha as the christians from Europe. Or alternatively, can refer to the colonials by their actual identity of christianism, just like the middle-Eastern, C and W Asian invaders were muslim.
Even today, every British person at my university (as in English/Scotch/Irish/Welsh person who's still a British citizen and has migrated to here) <i>of the older generations</i> - age-group 30 to 60, which is lecturers to professors - are very religious. They all attend church, they all baptise their kids, they are all professing christians. And this was even more the case in Churchill's day and even more so before that. Atheists were the rare exceptions of Britain's past, not the rule.
(The 20+ students with British parents at university are atheist though. And the locals of European origin tend to be atheist as far as I know, with a couple of female exceptions in biology.)
A cursory glance through material on Britsh rule in India (text books, historical literature both prose and poetry, historical fiction novels, period films) show they were quite religious. Consider Austen's transformation from her earlier literature - still christian, of course, but regency was a little less uptight - to more prudishly religious 'Mansfield Park' (foreshadowing a little of the Victorian era), or works like Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte and Tenant of Wildfell Hall by sister Anne - both also religious, Anne more traditionally so (even if Charlotte and Emma show typically christian protestant dissidence against certain christian beliefs, they are christian).
The British ruling India only looked secular compared to the French and Portuguese, and that's because the Brits very much took care to appear so: they were in it for the long haul, and knew that the rule is to never openly tread on the religious toes of a nation, else there'll be a revolt/mutiny to deal with. The Dutch come across more secular than the British only because they were mostly disinterested in sticking around - trade, goods is all they wanted from the New World and the Old. None of them were actually secular.
But in the long-term, the British were more successful when it came to christianising and christoconditioning than all of them. Will get some tangential info from Hamsa.org on how efficiently the Brits eradicated Hindu Dharma under their 'secular' cover:
- giving Hindu temple land to christian churches. Very secular.
- And more of their successful secularism - against Hindu Dharma:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->He continues, "The Tirumalai Nayak Mahal [at Madurai] is another example. Jealous of its magnificence, the British began demolishing it, but public agitation checked it and what we have today is only a part of what was originally there."
The British were generally less destructive than the Portuguese and the French, but they did not hesitate to attack temples that were in the way of construction works or to desecrate them as a means of intimidating the local populace. They fired on the temples of Kalahasti in Andhra Pradesh for this last reason; and Victoria Terminus in Bombay is built on the original site of that city's famous Mumbai Devi Temple. In Madras they obliterated the small Hindu shrines that once stood inside Fort St. George. The fort now contains St. Mary's Church, the first Protestant church built east of Suez.
But it is the French who vied with the Portuguese in their Christian zeal to destroy Pagan places of worship. Henry Love, in Vestiges of Old Madras, records that they used temples as barracks in their military operations against the British. Between 1672 and 1674, at Madras, they fortified the rebuilt Kapalees--wara Temple in Mylapore and the Parthasarathy Temple in Triplicane when they were besieged by Golconda and the Dutch.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even in secular schools in N Europe where the students are sooner to be described by the term 'anti-christian' than merely atheist, the older generations are very christian. The syllabus is very christian. And N Europe's older generation (45+) is generally less christian than Britain's older generations (30+).
Always interesting to see how islamism still doesn't get away with the sort of things christianism has got away with, and why victims continue to treat both differently. Then again, this is what christianism is good at, and the lies continue to be believed: "The nazis were secular. The crusades were only the evil catholics - not christianism, the conquistadors were Europeans and racist and killed instead of christianising the victims, African slavery was abolished by christianism OR: it was due to European racism not christianism." I know many an African-American christian writer, site or vocalist that blames the "whites" for "racism", and a number of native American web pages that talk about the "white Europeans" who genocided them. Christianism is miraculously exempt from everything, from all scrutiny, from all mention.
And Indians talk of the 'British', the 'Portuguese' and the 'French'. And it's most particularly the case that when they mention the British it always looks like the British were no more than secular and at worst nominally christian. Yet practically every single British aristocrat right upto Edwardian times and even beyond (at least until the Charleston period) was christian in lifestyle and <i>beliefs</i>, and the rest of the classes even more so, because they had been kept illiterate, obedient and blind 'simple' for even longer (the French non-aristocratic populace had better chances of education after the revolution, but was worse than England before). Not to mention Britain in the Victorian era and before.
It was long "GOD, KING/QUEEN AND COUNTRY" all the way (and in that order, but royalty and nation somewhat tied because they were equated; English monarch has always been the Head of the Church of England since the pope was deposed from the position) . Note the songs the aristocratic households sung on New Year with their staff and tenants - again, even into the Charleston times (roaring 20s, 30s).
France was less christian thanks to the Revolution, but even France continues to be very catholic now, for all the adverts of it being rational and skeptical compared to other European countries. Every single French exchange student I know is a professing, church-going catholic.
But Britain never had a revolution.
Watch Chariots of Fire (yes, the one with Vangelis' theme of the same tune). You will hear the Jewish protagonist stating factually how the most prestigious British universities (aristocratic of coures) are implaccably Christian, Saxon - Saxon identity was strongly linked to christianism, hence religious-racial anti-semitism. Chariots of Fire is set around pre WWII I'd say, going by the women's hats, clothes and hair.
But I guess christianism will really get away with murder. Because the victims are only too happy to overlook it altogether and continue covering up. (One exception: the Hellenes don't. Then again - they are a class apart and also always knew christianism better than anyone. Moreover, they don't get blinkered by distractions, unlike everyone else.)
I have no other words to describe the sheer criminal perfection of christianism's successful strategy but to say that it's <i>amazing</i>. If I wanted to become an instant billionaire, my money in the gamble would be on christianism winning. What an ugly but profitable bet that would be.
<b>ADDED:</b>
If only the Hellenes were more numerous - like an eighth to a quarter of the number of Hindus today - say 80 millions - Hellenismos would win hands down, against christianism and communism at least (and has a positive rate of inadvertent conversion even among neighbouring muslims). Shame that the odds at present aren't (yet) quite so good.
It took the <b>mlechCha-s</b> to really quell the spirit of these Hindus. They were first mass-murdered through starvation and disease, and then subjected to conversions -- which too, unlike south, bore little result -- Orissa even today remains largely Hindu.
Hindutva should naturally come to the inner AuDra-s. It is just that BJP has a wrong wavelength, and its confused leaders would not appeal here. Hard to imagine how they react to the BJP leader providing "healing-touch" to christians of kandhamal?
[right][snapback]95336[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Islamics are as mlechCha as the christians from Europe. Or alternatively, can refer to the colonials by their actual identity of christianism, just like the middle-Eastern, C and W Asian invaders were muslim.
Even today, every British person at my university (as in English/Scotch/Irish/Welsh person who's still a British citizen and has migrated to here) <i>of the older generations</i> - age-group 30 to 60, which is lecturers to professors - are very religious. They all attend church, they all baptise their kids, they are all professing christians. And this was even more the case in Churchill's day and even more so before that. Atheists were the rare exceptions of Britain's past, not the rule.
(The 20+ students with British parents at university are atheist though. And the locals of European origin tend to be atheist as far as I know, with a couple of female exceptions in biology.)
A cursory glance through material on Britsh rule in India (text books, historical literature both prose and poetry, historical fiction novels, period films) show they were quite religious. Consider Austen's transformation from her earlier literature - still christian, of course, but regency was a little less uptight - to more prudishly religious 'Mansfield Park' (foreshadowing a little of the Victorian era), or works like Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte and Tenant of Wildfell Hall by sister Anne - both also religious, Anne more traditionally so (even if Charlotte and Emma show typically christian protestant dissidence against certain christian beliefs, they are christian).
The British ruling India only looked secular compared to the French and Portuguese, and that's because the Brits very much took care to appear so: they were in it for the long haul, and knew that the rule is to never openly tread on the religious toes of a nation, else there'll be a revolt/mutiny to deal with. The Dutch come across more secular than the British only because they were mostly disinterested in sticking around - trade, goods is all they wanted from the New World and the Old. None of them were actually secular.
But in the long-term, the British were more successful when it came to christianising and christoconditioning than all of them. Will get some tangential info from Hamsa.org on how efficiently the Brits eradicated Hindu Dharma under their 'secular' cover:
- giving Hindu temple land to christian churches. Very secular.
- And more of their successful secularism - against Hindu Dharma:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->He continues, "The Tirumalai Nayak Mahal [at Madurai] is another example. Jealous of its magnificence, the British began demolishing it, but public agitation checked it and what we have today is only a part of what was originally there."
The British were generally less destructive than the Portuguese and the French, but they did not hesitate to attack temples that were in the way of construction works or to desecrate them as a means of intimidating the local populace. They fired on the temples of Kalahasti in Andhra Pradesh for this last reason; and Victoria Terminus in Bombay is built on the original site of that city's famous Mumbai Devi Temple. In Madras they obliterated the small Hindu shrines that once stood inside Fort St. George. The fort now contains St. Mary's Church, the first Protestant church built east of Suez.
But it is the French who vied with the Portuguese in their Christian zeal to destroy Pagan places of worship. Henry Love, in Vestiges of Old Madras, records that they used temples as barracks in their military operations against the British. Between 1672 and 1674, at Madras, they fortified the rebuilt Kapalees--wara Temple in Mylapore and the Parthasarathy Temple in Triplicane when they were besieged by Golconda and the Dutch.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even in secular schools in N Europe where the students are sooner to be described by the term 'anti-christian' than merely atheist, the older generations are very christian. The syllabus is very christian. And N Europe's older generation (45+) is generally less christian than Britain's older generations (30+).
Always interesting to see how islamism still doesn't get away with the sort of things christianism has got away with, and why victims continue to treat both differently. Then again, this is what christianism is good at, and the lies continue to be believed: "The nazis were secular. The crusades were only the evil catholics - not christianism, the conquistadors were Europeans and racist and killed instead of christianising the victims, African slavery was abolished by christianism OR: it was due to European racism not christianism." I know many an African-American christian writer, site or vocalist that blames the "whites" for "racism", and a number of native American web pages that talk about the "white Europeans" who genocided them. Christianism is miraculously exempt from everything, from all scrutiny, from all mention.
And Indians talk of the 'British', the 'Portuguese' and the 'French'. And it's most particularly the case that when they mention the British it always looks like the British were no more than secular and at worst nominally christian. Yet practically every single British aristocrat right upto Edwardian times and even beyond (at least until the Charleston period) was christian in lifestyle and <i>beliefs</i>, and the rest of the classes even more so, because they had been kept illiterate, obedient and blind 'simple' for even longer (the French non-aristocratic populace had better chances of education after the revolution, but was worse than England before). Not to mention Britain in the Victorian era and before.
It was long "GOD, KING/QUEEN AND COUNTRY" all the way (and in that order, but royalty and nation somewhat tied because they were equated; English monarch has always been the Head of the Church of England since the pope was deposed from the position) . Note the songs the aristocratic households sung on New Year with their staff and tenants - again, even into the Charleston times (roaring 20s, 30s).
France was less christian thanks to the Revolution, but even France continues to be very catholic now, for all the adverts of it being rational and skeptical compared to other European countries. Every single French exchange student I know is a professing, church-going catholic.
But Britain never had a revolution.
Watch Chariots of Fire (yes, the one with Vangelis' theme of the same tune). You will hear the Jewish protagonist stating factually how the most prestigious British universities (aristocratic of coures) are implaccably Christian, Saxon - Saxon identity was strongly linked to christianism, hence religious-racial anti-semitism. Chariots of Fire is set around pre WWII I'd say, going by the women's hats, clothes and hair.
But I guess christianism will really get away with murder. Because the victims are only too happy to overlook it altogether and continue covering up. (One exception: the Hellenes don't. Then again - they are a class apart and also always knew christianism better than anyone. Moreover, they don't get blinkered by distractions, unlike everyone else.)
I have no other words to describe the sheer criminal perfection of christianism's successful strategy but to say that it's <i>amazing</i>. If I wanted to become an instant billionaire, my money in the gamble would be on christianism winning. What an ugly but profitable bet that would be.
<b>ADDED:</b>
If only the Hellenes were more numerous - like an eighth to a quarter of the number of Hindus today - say 80 millions - Hellenismos would win hands down, against christianism and communism at least (and has a positive rate of inadvertent conversion even among neighbouring muslims). Shame that the odds at present aren't (yet) quite so good.