Apropos of nothing - the "us" vs. "them" mentality

[BacktoCricaddict]

The bane of humanity since time-immemorial.  In-groups and out-groups.  Us and them.  We good, they bad.    

 

Of course, there is some truth to it while talking about the gentlemen who play for the Indian cricket team and the savages that play for Pakistan, Australia and England.  Or the noble souls who play for my beloved college football team vs the cheats who play for the rivals.  

Edited August 7, 2020 by BacktoCricaddict

[zen]

In cricket/sports, while I support team India, I do not care much about individual players.  I try to be as neutral as possible when judging cricketers   

 

 

[coffee_rules]

Why is it a bane? Boundaries are essential for survival. As a dog owner, I know why they choose where to pee. They like marking their boundaries. In team sports rivalries are essential for the sport to survive. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

16 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Why is it a bane? Boundaries are essential for survival. As a dog owner, I know why they choose where to pee. They like marking their boundaries. In team sports rivalries are essential for the sport to survive. 

Agree with regard to sports rivalries - they are harmless expressions of social identity for entertainment purposes only.   But when we start territorializing everything, creating in-groups and out-groups, stereotyping and even hating people based on our perceptions of whether they are in-our-group or out-our-group, then it becomes a bane.   

 

The cartoon encapsulates how the same actions are perceived differently based on whether they are performed by people within your in-group or people from the outside.  For example, Chola conquests are matters of pride - "wow he expanded my country's footprint" while Ghaznavi conquests are to be condemned - "what a savage."  Ironically, Marathas, who are held up as "our national heroes" plundered Karnataka, my home state and went to war against the Wodeyars.  We don't hate on them like we hate on the Muslim invaders - why?  Because they were "our" despots?  

 

Borders and boundaries are necessary for administrative efficiency.  But when we use those to condemn what and whom we perceive as "other," it is detrimental to human progress.   

 

My pride is in my heritage stems from a nation that relishes the idli and the biryani, the mudde and the dal-baati, the carnatic and the sufi, the veshti and the kurta.  And one that allows adaptation and fusion of art and cuisine that come from various places.  Not from one that fights over which one of them is "ours" and which one is "theirs" and why ours is better.  India's pride comes from its amalgamation of cultures, one that is difficult if not impossible to find in any other nation.  Let's glorify it all.  

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2020 by BacktoCricaddict

[coffee_rules]

^^^ apropos to nothing, huh?

 

btw, can’t see the cartoon. 
 

[BacktoCricaddict]

19 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

^^^ apropos to nothing, huh?

 

btw, can’t see the cartoon. 
 

Well, not "nothing."  I got a WhatsApp message stating that Indians are the only ones who prop up the heritage of invaders and downgrade their own heritage.  That got me thinking about invaders and the fair share of "our" invaders who have plundered and looted and started wondering why we give them a free pass ... and then when you responded, I connected it to your samosa post :-)!

 

I posted an image.  It's here again:

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2020 by BacktoCricaddict

[coffee_rules]

2 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Well, not "nothing."  I got a WhatsApp message stating that Indians are the only ones who prop up the heritage of invaders and downgrade their own heritage.  That got me thinking about invaders and the fair share of "our" invaders who have plundered and looted and started wondering why we give them a free pass ... and then when you responded, I connected it to your samosa post :-)!

 

I posted an image.  It's here again:

 

 

 

I use iPhone still can’t see. Just post the link. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

1 minute ago, coffee_rules said:

I use iPhone still can’t see. Just post the link. 

Try this:

 

https://www.simplypsychology.org/ingroup-bias.jpg?ezimgfmt=rs:555x352/rscb20/ng:webp/ngcb20

[coffee_rules]

12 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 But when we start territorializing everything, creating in-groups and out-groups, stereotyping and even hating people based on our perceptions of whether they are in-our-group or out-our-group, then it becomes a bane.   

 

Agreed, so far, but if we are rightfully forming boundaries, when they were removed forcibly to begin with, just to fit somebody’s egotistical world order, then it is not a bane. Case in point, former Yugoslavia. After WWIi, they removed boundaries to brag about a unified country, ravaged in civil war till 90s, they had to make smaller boundaries to maintain peace for their pedigree. Same with bloodless partition of Czechoslovakia. Also. Former USSR has redraw those cultural and national boundaries. Removing boundaries only works in a post-modernism world where peace is already attained by the majority.

Quote

  For example, Chola conquests are matters of pride - "wow he expanded my country's footprint" while Ghaznavi conquests are to be condemned - "what a savage." 
 

This is exactly what Marxist historians have taught, No, they are not the same. Are you really comparing these two? First of all, there is nothing called Iconoclasm in any Hindu scriptures, Ghazni and Ghori and all Islamic invaders from Arabia, Turkey, Persia, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, etc.,expanded an Islamic Nizami kingdom  bound by religion. 
 

There is no such evidence of Chola kingdoms doing the same atrocities in SE Asia. Buddhism spread in East Asia largely through monasteries and peaceful spread of the message. Hinduism too. It was mainly through spread of stories like Ramayana and Mahabharata which was enticing to people, rather than the sword.

 

Quote

Ironically, Marathas, who are held up as "our national heroes" plundered Karnataka, my home state and went to war against the Wodeyars.  We don't hate on them like we hate on the Muslim invaders - why?  Because they were "our" despots?  
 

Please read about Marathas or rather Peshwas more. They were inspired by Vijayanagara kings to establish a Hindu kingdom to rid the region of Islamic hegemony. After the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, they have have been trying to control large part of India, including installing a puppet ruler in Delhi, despite losing badly in Panipat to Abdali. Peshwas have used small mercenaries to start or clear an attack, mainly using one community of warriors - Lamaans and Pindaaris. Their quests are attributed to Marathas by Brits and later Marxist historians. Marathas did not plunder our state. Their rulers and their subordinates in Holkar dynasties have restored many Hindu holy sites from Ayodhya, Kashi, Rameshwaram, Belur (yes in Karnataka), Kedarnath and Badrinath, much of Hinduism to flourish post Moghuls and Brits is because of their efforts.

 

In the case of Sringeri, these lamaans who were mercenaries were without a head and were not paid enough, did plunder the Sringeri temple of its wealth. But Peshwas have taken responsibility and tried to rectify the mistake, is lost in the letters of Peshwas, ignored by early Historians. There are citations of original sources and the whole episode analyzed in

https://swarajyamag.com/culture/what-exactly-happened-at-sringeri-math-in-april-1791

So, rest assured Marathas are not plunderers as maintained by commie Hisrorians. Peshwas or Marathas never fought with Wodeyars. Wodeyars predate Shivaji and he was inspired by their quests against Bahamanis. All Maratha Mysore wars were because of Hyder Ali and Tipu’s expansionist efforts.

Quote

 

My pride is in my heritage stems from a nation that relishes the idli and the biryani, the mudde and the dal-baati, the carnatic and the sufi, the veshti and the kurta.  And one that allows adaptation and fusion of art and cuisine that come from various places.  Not from one that fights over which one of them is "ours" and which one is "theirs" and why ours is better.  India's pride comes from its amalgamation of cultures, one that is difficult if not impossible to find in any other nation.  Let's glorify it all.  

 

 

 

Yes, that is also the basis of Vedanta, to accept all ideologies and respect them. Not just tolerate. Vedas didn’t speak of Murti worshipping. But later Vedic Hindus or sanatana dharmics have coopted them. Same with vegetarianism and many rituals and sampradayas like Shakti worship.
 

There needs to be some reconciliation and truth finding efforts to move forward. We can’t glorify Moghuls and Islamic dark rule by negating history and attribute cuisine, festivals (like raksha bandhan), architecture, culture to them. We were a thriving civilization for 5000 years before others invaded. There is nothing wrong to feel proud about it. At the same time, as we need to move forward, let’s acknowledge the wrongs and don’t hide it under the carpet. Don’t fall into the trap that India was formed in 1947. The majority of the country have millennia of culture binding them, with all major ills like jaatiwaad. We are moving forward with so many reforms and many to come, like the Annihilation of jaatiwaad. We need not glorify tyrants like Timur, Aurangzeb, Tipu, but identify who believe in the idea of a nation that takes everybody forward. 

Edited August 9, 2020 by coffee_rules

[coffee_rules]

11 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Try this:

 

https://www.simplypsychology.org/ingroup-bias.jpg?ezimgfmt=rs:555x352/rscb20/ng:webp/ngcb20

I had to crop it to get the pic 

This is such a reductionistic view of the whole thing. It is not a binary.

[jf1gp_1]

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

This is such a reductionistic view of the whole thing. It is not a binary.

This his how majority view things as this is how things are sold to its people.

 

Last week i reached this video from one of pak channels talking about need to prepare for a war against India. I found it amusing  and then went down the youtube hole, watched plenty more across last few months and realised this is what was sold in pak. They hate modi is universally known but the way its sold and the whole narrative of India on the verge of attacking pakistan was unbelievable. Video after video 'ab jung hone wali hai' 'india attack karne wala hai' was thrown around so casually that it was disturbing. It replicated the cartoon and it hardly matters if its the truth. 

[Gollum]

Quote

For example, Chola conquests are matters of pride - "wow he expanded my country's footprint" while Ghaznavi conquests are to be condemned - "what a savage."

Stopped reading after this.

[BacktoCricaddict]

10 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Agreed, so far, but if we are rightfully forming boundaries, when they were removed forcibly to begin with, just to fit somebody’s egotistical world order, then it is not a bane. Case in point, former Yugoslavia. After WWIi, they removed boundaries to brag about a unified country, ravaged in civil war till 90s, they had to make smaller boundaries to maintain peace for their pedigree. Same with bloodless partition of Czechoslovakia. Also. Former USSR has redraw those cultural and national boundaries. Removing boundaries only works in a post-modernism world where peace is already attained by the majority.

This is exactly what Marxist historians have taught, No, they are not the same. Are you really comparing these two? First of all, there is nothing called Iconoclasm in any Hindu scriptures, Ghazni and Ghori and all Islamic invaders from Arabia, Turkey, Persia, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, etc.,expanded an Islamic Nizami kingdom  bound by religion. 
 

There is no such evidence of Chola kingdoms doing the same atrocities in SE Asia. Buddhism spread in East Asia largely through monasteries and peaceful spread of the message. Hinduism too. It was mainly through spread of stories like Ramayana and Mahabharata which was enticing to people, rather than the sword.

 

Please read about Marathas or rather Peshwas more. They were inspired by Vijayanagara kings to establish a Hindu kingdom to rid the region of Islamic hegemony. After the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, they have have been trying to control large part of India, including installing a puppet ruler in Delhi, despite losing badly in Panipat to Abdali. Peshwas have used small mercenaries to start or clear an attack, mainly using one community of warriors - Lamaans and Pindaaris. Their quests are attributed to Marathas by Brits and later Marxist historians. Marathas did not plunder our state. Their rulers and their subordinates in Holkar dynasties have restored many Hindu holy sites from Ayodhya, Kashi, Rameshwaram, Belur (yes in Karnataka), Kedarnath and Badrinath, much of Hinduism to flourish post Moghuls and Brits is because of their efforts.

 

In the case of Sringeri, these lamaans who were mercenaries were without a head and were not paid enough, did plunder the Sringeri temple of its wealth. But Peshwas have taken responsibility and tried to rectify the mistake, is lost in the letters of Peshwas, ignored by early Historians. There are citations of original sources and the whole episode analyzed in

https://swarajyamag.com/culture/what-exactly-happened-at-sringeri-math-in-april-1791

So, rest assured Marathas are not plunderers as maintained by commie Hisrorians. Peshwas or Marathas never fought with Wodeyars. Wodeyars predate Shivaji and he was inspired by their quests against Bahamanis. All Maratha Mysore wars were because of Hyder Ali and Tipu’s expansionist efforts.

Yes, that is also the basis of Vedanta, to accept all ideologies and respect them. Not just tolerate. Vedas didn’t speak of Murti worshipping. But later Vedic Hindus or sanatana dharmics have coopted them. Same with vegetarianism and many rituals and sampradayas like Shakti worship.
 

There needs to be some reconciliation and truth finding efforts to move forward. We can’t glorify Moghuls and Islamic dark rule by negating history and attribute cuisine, festivals (like raksha bandhan), architecture, culture to them. We were a thriving civilization for 5000 years before others invaded. There is nothing wrong to feel proud about it. At the same time, as we need to move forward, let’s acknowledge the wrongs and don’t hide it under the carpet. Don’t fall into the trap that India was formed in 1947. The majority of the country have millennia of culture binding them, with all major ills like jaatiwaad. We are moving forward with so many reforms and many to come, like the Annihilation of jaatiwaad. We need not glorify tyrants like Timur, Aurangzeb, Tipu, but identify who believe in the idea of a nation that takes everybody forward. 

I think we are in a lot of agreement.  Especially the last paragraph. 

 

My overall POV possibly stems from my propensity to condemn all invaders - from Alexander to RR Chola to Genghis Khan to Ghazni/Ghori to Mughals to Tipu to British .... went to war to expand territory or colonize or enforce chauths or expand religious influence, even if it was the religion that I grew up with and that has had the biggest cultural influence on me.  Secondly, I have not seen where the barbaric Islamic invaders are being glorified - I just don't keep up with that part of Indian media, hence have a blind spot there.  

 

As you have surmised, I am also a condemner of blind groupism.  Be it Hindu, Muslim, white, black, whatever, people have a tendency to create in-groups and out-groups and forgive their in-groupies for offenses for which they would condemn out-groupies.  I am sensitive to that hypocrisy.  

 

And thanks for pointing me to more sources on Maratha history.  Will do more homework.  Here's where I saw the Maratha plunder story.  Are these lies?  

 

https://historyofmysuru.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-kannadiga-victims-of-maratha-empire.html

Edited August 9, 2020 by BacktoCricaddict

[BacktoCricaddict]

5 hours ago, Gollum said:

Stopped reading after this.

Would you elaborate why you might see the two invasions as different.  I respect your viewpoints and would like to learn more.  

[MechEng]

17 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Would you elaborate why you might see the two invasions as different.  I respect your viewpoints and would like to learn more.  

Chola never imposed their way of life on South East Asians. Ghaznavi conquered through war but Chola culture was accepted through strong trade relations.

[Gollum]

17 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Would you elaborate why you might see the two invasions as different.  I respect your viewpoints and would like to learn more.  

Will be a mega long post bhai. Will elaborate when I get time and am in the mood. I might have made some post about a similar topic in the past, will quote it here if I find it. 

 

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

9 hours ago, MechEng said:

Chola never imposed their way of life on South East Asians. Ghaznavi conquered through war but Chola culture was accepted through strong trade relations.

It is undeniable that the Cholas invaded and plundered SE Asia.  They did not stay on and impose their way of life, and that is a possible difference between the two, but not that fact that they had highly elaborate navies that they used to attack SE Asia. 

 

http://vidyamandira.ac.in/pdfs/e_learning/gm_history/Chola Naval Activity.pdf

 

It is highly glorified by Tamizh people even today.  My point is - either glorify all conquests that were simply done to expand a kingdom's footprint or influence (to extend digvijaya), or condemn them all.  Both Cholas and Ghaznavis conquered other lands with the aim of expanding.  I condemn both.  Now, there may be differences in how they handled matters post-conquest, but I am still trying to learn about that.  

 

 

[Mariyam]

On 8/10/2020 at 12:16 PM, MechEng said:

Chola never imposed their way of life on South East Asians. Ghaznavi conquered through war but Chola culture was accepted through strong trade relations.

I am guessing that the natives of South East Asia were the ones who first sang "Mohe rang de Basanti, Chola" , while wholeheartedly welcoming the culture/religion that Chola kings got along with their armies.

 

[coffee_rules]

On 8/10/2020 at 12:08 PM, BacktoCricaddict said:

It is undeniable that the Cholas invaded and plundered SE Asia.  They did not stay on and impose their way of life, and that is a possible difference between the two, but not that fact that they had highly elaborate navies that they used to attack SE Asia. 

 

http://vidyamandira.ac.in/pdfs/e_learning/gm_history/Chola Naval Activity.pdf

 

It is highly glorified by Tamizh people even today.  My point is - either glorify all conquests that were simply done to expand a kingdom's footprint or influence (to extend digvijaya), or condemn them all.  Both Cholas and Ghaznavis conquered other lands with the aim of expanding.  I condemn both.  Now, there may be differences in how they handled matters post-conquest, but I am still trying to learn about that.  

 

 

You are using current day moralities to judge past actions. This is exactly how modern so called activists treat historic chars. Expansion was always an option for those rulers and wars were fought brutally . If you read about Cholas even from unforgiving sources like Wikipedia, they have always said that Cholas used trade routes and political divide in the region to expand. Why do you keep comparing Cholas to Timurs and Ghaznis etc. ?Those central Asians were mainly here to loot people, spread Islam and  and make good money out of temples. Shirk or idolatory is a sin in Islam and they have always used Islamic iconoclasm to destroy temples or places of worship of others’ to spread Islam. There is no such evidence from Cholas, even before the expansion and wars which are political opportunism, there was centuries of trade with the region and the religion was spread much before by traders. There is no account of religious discrimination by Cholas like the Islamic tyrants from Central Asia. 

[MechEng]

15 hours ago, Mariyam said:

I am guessing that the natives of South East Asia were the ones who first sang "Mohe rang de Basanti, Chola" , while wholeheartedly welcoming the culture/religion that Chola kings got along with their armies.

 

They sang it with prabhu deva dance steps.