<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Jul 12 2009, 10:20 PM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Jul 12 2009, 10:20 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->This is exactly the communist narration in India!
The communist have been doing this reinterpretation of Indian history including Ghaddar movement to give it a native oppression slant.
[right][snapback]99637[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Communist movement has one primary goal and that is to deny "radicalness" (attractiveness) to the real native movements like Hindutva, and to keep these movements alienated from anti-colonial discourse in the eyes of the colonized. Anti-colonial radicalness is to be posited solely within the communist/liberal wing of the colonial edifice and thus tightly controlled (amidst false colonial categorizations). The Sepoy must be seen as the one imparting freedom whenever the colonial edifice adjusts its shape.
When the native movement grows too strong despite these measures, disaffected elements are co-opted and are shown to actually be rebelling against the native culture itself, instead of the colonizer. Thus, the decolonizing movement is turned against the native culture itself. This is done by positing any external mark (5 K's, jewish cap) as the differentiating feature between the native resurgent group and the native culture's "masses". The nativized response is turned into a separate and distinct outgrowth from the native culture, which in turn is shown as an ungrateful host. The Khalistani is thus radicalized against the native host culture.
The alienation of Sikhs from Hindus is a clear case:
Hindu-Sikh Relationship
By Shri Ram Swarup
The "exclusivism" of Jews is another such instance of motivated transformation by the colonizer. It is <b>impossible </b>for a colonized people to transform themselves thus on their own. They must be normed by an external colonizing force. In the case of the Jews, the colonizing force possessed a theoretical normativism nursed in the academy. The line was Socrates > Plato(Glaucon) > Aristotle(Nichomachean).
QUOTE
<i>In this revolutionary thesis of how the Pentateuch was written, Gmirkin argues, for example, that the biblical exodus story was a Jewish response to Manetho's anti-semitic story of the expulsion of lepers from Egypt, and not the other way around as has traditionally been supposed. </i>
The writer misses the point the "Jewish response" itself was a colonial endeavor when the original domestication of the canaanite failed (Manetho, which was probably a more pedestrian affair than social engineering). Manetho even attempted to make a false historical equivalence between the narrative of Moses and an appropriately selected external entity, the Hyksos; and Josephus commented upon the same at a later time in Contra Apion.
The Israelite was the disaffected nativized response, disaffected from the native culture, and disaffected due to the colonizer's machinations. The lineage of resisters was transformed into a succession of prophets of ideological change, all linearly(!) progressing towards the colonizer's utopia.
The communist have been doing this reinterpretation of Indian history including Ghaddar movement to give it a native oppression slant.
[right][snapback]99637[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Communist movement has one primary goal and that is to deny "radicalness" (attractiveness) to the real native movements like Hindutva, and to keep these movements alienated from anti-colonial discourse in the eyes of the colonized. Anti-colonial radicalness is to be posited solely within the communist/liberal wing of the colonial edifice and thus tightly controlled (amidst false colonial categorizations). The Sepoy must be seen as the one imparting freedom whenever the colonial edifice adjusts its shape.
When the native movement grows too strong despite these measures, disaffected elements are co-opted and are shown to actually be rebelling against the native culture itself, instead of the colonizer. Thus, the decolonizing movement is turned against the native culture itself. This is done by positing any external mark (5 K's, jewish cap) as the differentiating feature between the native resurgent group and the native culture's "masses". The nativized response is turned into a separate and distinct outgrowth from the native culture, which in turn is shown as an ungrateful host. The Khalistani is thus radicalized against the native host culture.
The alienation of Sikhs from Hindus is a clear case:
Hindu-Sikh Relationship
By Shri Ram Swarup
The "exclusivism" of Jews is another such instance of motivated transformation by the colonizer. It is <b>impossible </b>for a colonized people to transform themselves thus on their own. They must be normed by an external colonizing force. In the case of the Jews, the colonizing force possessed a theoretical normativism nursed in the academy. The line was Socrates > Plato(Glaucon) > Aristotle(Nichomachean).
QUOTE
<i>In this revolutionary thesis of how the Pentateuch was written, Gmirkin argues, for example, that the biblical exodus story was a Jewish response to Manetho's anti-semitic story of the expulsion of lepers from Egypt, and not the other way around as has traditionally been supposed. </i>
The writer misses the point the "Jewish response" itself was a colonial endeavor when the original domestication of the canaanite failed (Manetho, which was probably a more pedestrian affair than social engineering). Manetho even attempted to make a false historical equivalence between the narrative of Moses and an appropriately selected external entity, the Hyksos; and Josephus commented upon the same at a later time in Contra Apion.
The Israelite was the disaffected nativized response, disaffected from the native culture, and disaffected due to the colonizer's machinations. The lineage of resisters was transformed into a succession of prophets of ideological change, all linearly(!) progressing towards the colonizer's utopia.