I *never* learn: like an utter Fool, I looked up the hinduhumanrights website that Elst mentioned in a footnote as having written his "Hindu survival" article for.
I clicked on two articles there, and the topmost images on both pages scared (scarred?) me permanently. I didn't even dare to scroll onward to find out what was written on either page...
1. www.hinduhumanrights.info/hindu-self-defence-some-steps-to-survive/
Top image is of Some Blue Scare. It's like the Hulk discoloured.
2. www.hinduhumanrights.info/hinduism-not-simply-a-monotheistic-religion/
The top image: Looks like the X-men - e.g. I see Gambit or Pyro, Storm - dressed up in some Indian gear, one even carrying a Veenaa.
Apparently it is supposed to represent some Hindu Gods.
Wanting to know if some alien made the picture (would make me feel better if it was, but I suspect it's some Indians of Hindu origin), I clicked on the top picture which produced a URL that is called "prettyPhoto". :eek:
Let's get this clear first:
a. I have NO problem with Hindus making comics or comic book heroes - good for you, just don't invent stuff about the Gods. (Although WHY Indian plagiarism would go the western route when the unchallenged examples for this medium of visual sci-fi etc are in the far east is beyond me....)
b. Plus I too am a fan of the X-men - special mention for the cartoon from the *early* 90s (not the later one), though I suppose the movies weren't too bad either, especially compared to the stream of silly superhero movie dross that the US keeps churning out.
But why would anyone do this to the Hindu Gods? And if it was Hindus behind this (angelsk-speaking Hindus, I'm willing to bet: I think there is an inverse correlation there, which really needs to be investigated), it's worse than anything.
It reminds me of that debile "baby Hanuman" cartoon which doesn't really teach children the story of Hanuman, but imprints a subverted version a la what Disney always does: Disney is well-known for taking famous (fictive or historical) characters and inventing their own, entirely *different* (totally unrelated) stories, and then this becomes fixed in the popular imagination as the "true" version of the famous characters' stories.
(E.g. no one remembers that the Little Mermaid is supposed to die at the end - duh - or that there is no "Gaston" in Beauty and the Beast, etc. And the so-called 'Hercules' nightmare - UGH.)
Disney, and much of the modern revisionist storytelling in the west (remember the movie Troy etc?) are only versed in butchering iconic stories and religious narratives. And Hindus seem determined in following in those footsteps, but as they apply the revisionism to *Hindu* materials, they are essentially subverting Hindu religious stuffs. This is a crime, why does no one else ever complain? Surely people have noticed? Why is everyone okay with this? Are there any Hindus who would actually let their kids watch the silly "baby monkey" cartoon (purported to be Hanuman) crap? Wouldn't people rather their kids grow up watching *heathenism-instilling* stuff (rather than the stuff that sucks out all heathenism): e.g. Nezha and the numerous other such works among Daoists and Shinto?
At least Amar Chitra Katha offered up the original stories - albeit summarised - often with very attractive images. So I had nothing to complain about there. That era of Indian illustration and retelling of Hindu narratives was novel but authentic: still Hindu in perception and deriving its illustrations from traditional Hindu depictions. (E.g. how they depicted the female form is very Hindu.)
It's a different thing that the current owner of ACK - a typically de-heathenised entity - is reputed to peddle the archives of the franchise he bought as alleged "mythology".
But back to the opening images at the above 2 Hindu Human Rights links:
This is possibly The Most Offensive stuff to me.
MFH and others don't offend me, can't offend me (they offended others: after all, I didn't create this thread). The reason is because MFH and other christoislamics like him are of terrorist ideologies and hence *expected* to act as terrorists: one knows beforehand they'll be making ugly sick things given half a chance and trying to pin that on Hindus and Hindus Gods. It's what christoislamaniacs *do*, after all. And it only says something about them.
But when Hindus subvert the imagery of their Gods into unHinduness - and imagine/project this as the 'future' of 'hinduism' ("Hindu reconstructionism"? our own brand of "neopaganism" but before Hindus' actual religion is even dead?) ... I find it terrifying. I'm not going to go over it again: I'd already clumsily explained in length why this is such a truly terrifying prospect in post 64 of the "Hindu/Indian Culture Outside India" thread. The same underlying issues mentioned there apply here also. It applies to so many Hindoo things.
And while I'm complaining, I may as well add:
If you're *going* to make futuristic versions of the Hindu Gods and ancient Hindu heroes, at least have an honest vision that is true to the original, the way the Japanese long long ago submitted exceptionally magnificent visuals for Ulysses. That one was a collaboration between 1. the Japanese who provided the visuals - and Ulysses there is the Definition of all-round righteous Hero, plus he and the others are a Vision for the eyes) - and 2. the French who provided the storytelling, which sort of followed the Odyssey but was instead set in the distant, space-faring (rather than sea-faring) future. There's even a crossover in a later episode, where this future Ulysses and his cub Telemachus are thrown into the past, where they then meet the original Homeric Ulysses and even the original Penelope (who momentarily is gladdened upon seeing the future Ulysses, thinking it is her husband, but then instinctively realises it is another's Ulysses instead). I won't say the Olympic Gods got a fair turn in the programme, since the French were writing it and not the Japanese and it was really more a sci-fi than anything, but still, they're presented more as a force of nature avenging the opening death of the Cyclops, rather than being projected as the stereotypical christolie of "the vengeful pagan Gods" that you feel bitter about.
For a long time in my childhood, the image of that Ulysses was *the* Ulysses my mind would conjure up on hearing of his adventures. It was *that* beautiful, complete with great Opening and Closing Credits.
But perhaps all that is down to the difference between the Japanese and the Indians ("the future of hinduism")?
One is *actually* heathen, the other is headed for neopagan but will predictably claims this is heathen.
Oh and, by the way, What is Up with the overly-buff (inflated by any chance?) male characters in these Indian comic-book style drawings who are supposed to present the "Hindu Gods"? It's *not* attractive, it just isn't.
a. Make them well-built but lanky like the best issues of Amar Chitra Katha did: that was very attractive, plus recognisable as Hindu Gods.
b. Or else stick to the authentic Hindu visuals of the male Gods: they're still far more built than the Goddesses, even if neither look quite "human" qua proportions, plus the male Gods are usually overall projected as being bigger than their consorts.
But b. is a very complex and exacting... science, that only traditional Hindus are good at and can do naturally.
I clicked on two articles there, and the topmost images on both pages scared (scarred?) me permanently. I didn't even dare to scroll onward to find out what was written on either page...
1. www.hinduhumanrights.info/hindu-self-defence-some-steps-to-survive/
Top image is of Some Blue Scare. It's like the Hulk discoloured.
2. www.hinduhumanrights.info/hinduism-not-simply-a-monotheistic-religion/
The top image: Looks like the X-men - e.g. I see Gambit or Pyro, Storm - dressed up in some Indian gear, one even carrying a Veenaa.
Apparently it is supposed to represent some Hindu Gods.
Wanting to know if some alien made the picture (would make me feel better if it was, but I suspect it's some Indians of Hindu origin), I clicked on the top picture which produced a URL that is called "prettyPhoto". :eek:
Let's get this clear first:
a. I have NO problem with Hindus making comics or comic book heroes - good for you, just don't invent stuff about the Gods. (Although WHY Indian plagiarism would go the western route when the unchallenged examples for this medium of visual sci-fi etc are in the far east is beyond me....)
b. Plus I too am a fan of the X-men - special mention for the cartoon from the *early* 90s (not the later one), though I suppose the movies weren't too bad either, especially compared to the stream of silly superhero movie dross that the US keeps churning out.
But why would anyone do this to the Hindu Gods? And if it was Hindus behind this (angelsk-speaking Hindus, I'm willing to bet: I think there is an inverse correlation there, which really needs to be investigated), it's worse than anything.
It reminds me of that debile "baby Hanuman" cartoon which doesn't really teach children the story of Hanuman, but imprints a subverted version a la what Disney always does: Disney is well-known for taking famous (fictive or historical) characters and inventing their own, entirely *different* (totally unrelated) stories, and then this becomes fixed in the popular imagination as the "true" version of the famous characters' stories.
(E.g. no one remembers that the Little Mermaid is supposed to die at the end - duh - or that there is no "Gaston" in Beauty and the Beast, etc. And the so-called 'Hercules' nightmare - UGH.)
Disney, and much of the modern revisionist storytelling in the west (remember the movie Troy etc?) are only versed in butchering iconic stories and religious narratives. And Hindus seem determined in following in those footsteps, but as they apply the revisionism to *Hindu* materials, they are essentially subverting Hindu religious stuffs. This is a crime, why does no one else ever complain? Surely people have noticed? Why is everyone okay with this? Are there any Hindus who would actually let their kids watch the silly "baby monkey" cartoon (purported to be Hanuman) crap? Wouldn't people rather their kids grow up watching *heathenism-instilling* stuff (rather than the stuff that sucks out all heathenism): e.g. Nezha and the numerous other such works among Daoists and Shinto?
At least Amar Chitra Katha offered up the original stories - albeit summarised - often with very attractive images. So I had nothing to complain about there. That era of Indian illustration and retelling of Hindu narratives was novel but authentic: still Hindu in perception and deriving its illustrations from traditional Hindu depictions. (E.g. how they depicted the female form is very Hindu.)
It's a different thing that the current owner of ACK - a typically de-heathenised entity - is reputed to peddle the archives of the franchise he bought as alleged "mythology".
But back to the opening images at the above 2 Hindu Human Rights links:
This is possibly The Most Offensive stuff to me.
MFH and others don't offend me, can't offend me (they offended others: after all, I didn't create this thread). The reason is because MFH and other christoislamics like him are of terrorist ideologies and hence *expected* to act as terrorists: one knows beforehand they'll be making ugly sick things given half a chance and trying to pin that on Hindus and Hindus Gods. It's what christoislamaniacs *do*, after all. And it only says something about them.
But when Hindus subvert the imagery of their Gods into unHinduness - and imagine/project this as the 'future' of 'hinduism' ("Hindu reconstructionism"? our own brand of "neopaganism" but before Hindus' actual religion is even dead?) ... I find it terrifying. I'm not going to go over it again: I'd already clumsily explained in length why this is such a truly terrifying prospect in post 64 of the "Hindu/Indian Culture Outside India" thread. The same underlying issues mentioned there apply here also. It applies to so many Hindoo things.
And while I'm complaining, I may as well add:
If you're *going* to make futuristic versions of the Hindu Gods and ancient Hindu heroes, at least have an honest vision that is true to the original, the way the Japanese long long ago submitted exceptionally magnificent visuals for Ulysses. That one was a collaboration between 1. the Japanese who provided the visuals - and Ulysses there is the Definition of all-round righteous Hero, plus he and the others are a Vision for the eyes) - and 2. the French who provided the storytelling, which sort of followed the Odyssey but was instead set in the distant, space-faring (rather than sea-faring) future. There's even a crossover in a later episode, where this future Ulysses and his cub Telemachus are thrown into the past, where they then meet the original Homeric Ulysses and even the original Penelope (who momentarily is gladdened upon seeing the future Ulysses, thinking it is her husband, but then instinctively realises it is another's Ulysses instead). I won't say the Olympic Gods got a fair turn in the programme, since the French were writing it and not the Japanese and it was really more a sci-fi than anything, but still, they're presented more as a force of nature avenging the opening death of the Cyclops, rather than being projected as the stereotypical christolie of "the vengeful pagan Gods" that you feel bitter about.
For a long time in my childhood, the image of that Ulysses was *the* Ulysses my mind would conjure up on hearing of his adventures. It was *that* beautiful, complete with great Opening and Closing Credits.
But perhaps all that is down to the difference between the Japanese and the Indians ("the future of hinduism")?
One is *actually* heathen, the other is headed for neopagan but will predictably claims this is heathen.
Oh and, by the way, What is Up with the overly-buff (inflated by any chance?) male characters in these Indian comic-book style drawings who are supposed to present the "Hindu Gods"? It's *not* attractive, it just isn't.
a. Make them well-built but lanky like the best issues of Amar Chitra Katha did: that was very attractive, plus recognisable as Hindu Gods.
b. Or else stick to the authentic Hindu visuals of the male Gods: they're still far more built than the Goddesses, even if neither look quite "human" qua proportions, plus the male Gods are usually overall projected as being bigger than their consorts.
But b. is a very complex and exacting... science, that only traditional Hindus are good at and can do naturally.