zen Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 In short, the self proclaimed mission of the west to bring civilization to any population that does not fit the category "west" .... One of the ways to do that was to undermine the culture, traditions, etc., of the natives .... Even today, many feel things related to Indian culture as being outdated .... Some consider adapting western values, w/o probably understanding them, as being modern .... Even our economic development goals are related to matching what the west has achieved Discuss, is the western way the right way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stradlater Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 Modern way is the right way. Western way is the shite way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted July 28, 2018 Author Share Posted July 28, 2018 (edited) Reminds me of the story line in many Bollywood films where the “dumb” and/or under educated villager goes to a big city to become rich or whatever. In the city, he learns important life lessons including “yeah Bumbai hai Bumbai”, attains wisdom, gets westernized (or acts westernized) and therefore gets/appears modern Edited July 28, 2018 by zen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibarn Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 IMO, when most people argue from a "modernity" perspective they are simply admitting that they don't have an argument. The whole lexicon of progressive/regressive, modern/backwards is simply loaded language used to try to truncate a discussion when the question of cost/benefit of a so-called "modern" behavior happens. As opposed to objectively modern standards, such as technology where quantitative values can be used to compare, say, Alexander Graham Bell's original telephone with the latest i-Phone, questions/arguments which devolve to puerile use of terms like modern/backwards/progressive/regressive on topics which are mostly/entirely qualitative/opinion-based grow tiring. In "the West", at least on the internet, a subsection of netizens seem to think it is sufficient to simply say it is the current year, ie "It is 2018, why don't you accept xyz?" As if stating the current date and saying what you favor is modern automatically brings a debate to an end and convinces neutrals to one's side... This seems to be common among our own kala angrez who have internalized this concept of linear progress which has its roots in the Middle Eastern religions. That's just my opinion... MechEng, zen and Moochad 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 You are going to have to define "civilize" for this discussion. From what the RW in US sing 24/7 - its a stew of anglo saxon social beliefs that has some roots in judeo christian values and some in english empiricism that produces the right conditions and incentives for humans to prosper. Other than korea have whiteys managed to "civilize" any other country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someone Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 Indians suffer from inferiority complex, it's a deep problem. Rajiv Malhotra has written so much on that. One good video... zen and coffee_rules 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted July 29, 2018 Author Share Posted July 29, 2018 32 minutes ago, someone said: Indians suffer from inferiority complex, it's a deep problem. Rajiv Malhotra has written so much on that. One good video... Very nice discussion .... Many of the things said are similar to what I think at the moment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted July 29, 2018 Author Share Posted July 29, 2018 (edited) As a mechanism of mental subjugation, the British introduced the English education, eliminating the native education system. The focus was placed on teaching Indians about the European / Western art, literature, and languages to separate Indians from their own traditions and culture This in turn created a class of individuals in India that would be British in intellect, opinions, tastes and morals, even though they could be Indian in color. Indian culture and everything it represented was seen as useless and primitive. It was argued that Indians lived in sheer barbarity and the only cure for that was abolishing their Indian roots In 1835, Governor General of India decided to provide no support to students and teachers that pursued native languages and subjects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Education_Act_1835 The British aimed at rewriting Ind's history. They used every tool to undermine the cultural significance and authenticity of India. Many in India developed a sense of hostility towards their own identities Edited July 29, 2018 by zen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 we have to be like Japan or Korea. Keep our language, culture and arts, but become western in every other context, just like them. Its pretty much the only proven way for a democratic, high income country to succeed. Because 'western-ism' is actually institutionalism. THAT is the decisive difference the British or the west has made everywhere: introduce its methodology of teaching law, civics, science and mathematics. Its no surprise that in british India we have far greater # of people educated in science, law and mathematics than the millenia preceeding it. Indic cultural strength has always been absorbing what is useful from the outside, with zero qualms made for its origin. We have to keep that. Reality is, mass media, pop culture, consumerism are here. Unless we want to live in an authoritarian regime like China or Kuwait, pretty much the only way forward, is to let the individual do what they want with themselves and other consenting people, have as much fun as possible without hurting others and getting on with one's life. If the world's most proud and honor-based culture like the Japanese can do it, so can we. sensible-indian and beetle 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MechEng Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) We must understand that the definition of being civilized has never been an objective one, it has changed with time. Like the current definition of being civilized is largely based on fundamental values formed during the Industrial Revolution, and the countries which are the least civilized as per modern definition are not necessarily barbaric but the ones who are very last in adapting to the industrial model of the society. For example being civilized had a different meaning say 500 years ago, the joint family system was the norm all over the world and duty towards not only the family but also the community was expected of any decent individual, being very individualistic and ambitious would be considered self centered in that era, whereas in modern industrial societies being ambitious or having a 'dream' is literally a need at least in developed countries. Developing countries like India, Brazil, Ethiopia and etc. are yet to match developed nations but still these countries have strong family values as compare to say the western world. Maybe 100 years from now, once the society adapts from industrial age to information age completely the definition of civilization could again change. Edited July 30, 2018 by MechEng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted July 30, 2018 Author Share Posted July 30, 2018 Like the way how Bhutan is balancing various elements based on its own metrics: https://youtu.be/ZLkjDVLYVo4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts