Alexander the Great Invades India

[Godless-Kafir]

Well GK I'm going to sift through the hyperbole and fallacies to respond to the points that were in response to the ones I actually made, and not the ones you think I was making.



What does the richness of India have to do with anything I said? I wasn't talking about the motives, although yes they are important in another context. Interesting to note is that a sizable chunk or even majority of the destruction of Hindu/Buddhist schools, temples, places of worship, etc... were actually demolished and looted by muslims prior to and during the Mughal dynasties.

Also whether or not most of the invaders of the British isles were European or not is besides the point, and the Barbary pirates were certainly not European either. The same point could be said that apart from the Greeks and Brits, most of Indias invaders have actually been Asian; same continent as India. The point is that India is not a country that has had a disproportionate amount of invasions when you compare to many European or Middle-Eastern countries.



When did I say anything a long those lines in this thread exactly? All I said in relation to your original point is that England has had its fair share of invasions, and while the motivations inherently were different; the results were similar.



I pointed out that India did not defeat the Persians, it was the Greeks who ultimately did and any historian can tell you that. The Mauryans captured land in Afghanistan and Pakistan because the Greeks had already came through and wiped out the Persian forces in the region. If that is considered blind western nationalism, to point out a historical inaccuracy on your part, then there can never be a serious discussion on these subjects without upsetting someones national pride or precious feelings. I've had enough of this kind of thinking from muslim extremists GK, I sure don't need it from you.



In reference to your point about him becoming a Buddhist; So what? Many Mongols converted to Christianity and Islam, usually through their captured regions. Naturally even in a war situation where two or more cultures clash, there are attempts to bring differing perspectives together or to share each others experiences and knowledge. That is a common practice throughout history. I might also add that the historically accepted boundaries of the Mauryans did not reach that far, although I'm sure their cultural influence (like many other numerous empires in history) did extend beyond their borders. Ashokas realization is an admirable one though, if only the communists, fascists, and other monarchists of the world had realized the same thing, then perhaps the world would be a better place.



Alexander grew up in a period of history where monarchism, expansionism, and similar ideas were common, even amongst the Indians he fought against these could be found. I'm not trying to downplay the Mauryans or Indian history, I am trying to keep an objective and neutral approach to these periods without resorting to blind nationalism. If you can understand that distinction then we can have a serious discussion, otherwise I can predict that this will get unnecessarily emotional fast; I'd rather avoid that. If you fail to understand that, then I will cease having this argument with you as it will be pointless.

Now despite your dismissive and rhetorical remarks, I might highlight some things to the contrary; if that is perfectly fine with you. One of which is the Library of Alexandria, which would have not existed had it not have been for the conquests of Alexander over the Persians. Another aspect was the spreading and propagating of Hellenism, which reached as far as India and included the works of many famous Greek philosophers, mathematicians, and general thinkers. So how is Alexander any less of a ruler than Ashoka? The only difference is that the latter was able to realize war is futile after he had killed tens of thousands of people, where as Alexander was assassinated before he would have had the chance to see that for himself; despite his own massacres.

It has everything to do with how rich a country is, why would a thief rob an poor mans house which has noting everyone targets what the rich have. Thats why India was targeted more, England did not face as much threats as India did, it did not have any Golden temples or famous for riches and trade that made it an primary target.

Your not Nationalistic and narrow minded but yet you talk of Hellenism which is a a term popular in Nazi web sites these days and you defend the westernism more than you really want to admit. Alexander glorified killing and conquering while Ashoka took an more human approach even towards animal killing and he spread the idea of non-violence towards other sentient beings. Alexander, Napoleon all justified the low and animalistic tendencies in man to over power the other and make piss marks on land. Alexander set of an viscous example which is still today touted as an noble endeavor even when he was merely an megalomaniac and mass murderer for glory.

Persia is the term for Iran, it did not exist only in Alexanders time later many muslim Persians also Invaded India.

P.S. You make it sound like i am some narrow minded chest thumping flag waveing Nationalist! I am as much an fan of western philosophy and ideas as eastern ideas, I love Greek Philosophers like Socrates,Plato or even the modern novelists and poets like Mark Twain, Oscar Wilde. I am also as much as an evolutionist as an western Atheist but i get bored and annoyed when western people talk they always talk in the narrow pathways of western ideas as if those are the only ones that lead us to where we are. The struggle of early man to survive and leave africa or use fire is more important to our survival of our species than even the modern revolutions. The birth of Agricultural revolution in Asia and middle east 10,000 years back is as important as any other revolution. All these revolutions make us who we are today so it annoys me when people talk only from the angle they belong to. To me Ashokas missionary proselytism is more important than Alexanders invasion of Persia, Ashoka started the revolution of Proselytism and missionary activity before that people where either born a Hindu,Jew or Greek and the other cant convert to any one else tribalistic belifs. Ashoka broke that mold and sent missionaries to convert people, which was later copied by Jews and made into Christianity with the same central figure as Buddha called Jesus and the entire functioning of Christianity is very similar to what Ashoka started. People miss the truth when they are biased so at times i tend to sound biased myself when i try to show the other side of the coin.

 

[civfanatic]

P.S. You make it sound like i am some narrow minded chest thumping flag waveing Nationalist! I am as much an fan of western philosophy and ideas as eastern ideas, I love Greek Philosophers like Socrates,Plato or even the modern novelists and poets like Mark Twain, Oscar Wilde. I am also as much as an evolutionist as an western Atheist but i get bored and annoyed when western people talk they always talk in the narrow pathways of western ideas as if those are the only ones that lead us to where we are. The struggle of early man to survive and leave africa or use fire is more important to our survival of our species than even the modern revolutions. The birth of Agricultural revolution in Asia and middle east 10,000 years back is as important as any other revolution. All these revolutions make us who we are today so it annoys me when people talk only from the angle they belong to. To me Ashokas missionary proselytism is more important than Alexanders invasion of Persia, Ashoka started the revolution of Proselytism and missionary activity before that people where either born a Hindu,Jew or Greek and the other cant convert to any one else tribalistic belifs. Ashoka broke that mold and sent missionaries to convert people, which was later copied by Jews and made into Christianity with the same central figure as Buddha called Jesus and the entire functioning of Christianity is very similar to what Ashoka started. People miss the truth when they are biased so at times i tend to sound biased myself when i try to show the other side of the coin.

There is an African proverb that says, "Until lions get their own historians, history will always glorify the hunter", and that is very much true.

As long as Western ideals are the most influential worldwide, we can expect one-sided accounts of history. However, I am noticing a shift in the last couple decades away from Western-oriented history/philosophy towards a more all-encompassing approach, and this is taking place in the West itself as well as other parts of the world. Part of this is caused by the rise of the "Old East" like India and China, and also by increasing openness and information access in all parts of the world.

I think our accounts of history by the end of this century will be fundamentally different compared to now.

 

[Param]

There is an African proverb that says, "Until lions get their own historians, history will always glorify the hunter", and that is very much true.

As long as Western ideals are the most influential worldwide, we can expect one-sided accounts of history. However, I am noticing a shift in the last couple decades away from Western-oriented history/philosophy towards a more all-encompassing approach, and this is taking place in the West itself as well as other parts of the world. Part of this is caused by the rise of the "Old East" like India and China, and also by increasing openness and information access in all parts of the world.

I think our accounts of history by the end of this century will be fundamentally different compared to now.

No need to wait for end of the century. Maybe a few more decades. But I am sure there will not be a fundamental change. The history of dominant countries and societies is often glorified.

 

[civfanatic]

The history of dominant countries and societies is often glorified.

I don't expect the West to be dominant by the end of the century, which is why I expect a fundamental shift in historical perception.

Another important factor to note is the rate of archaeological and literary discoveries in the East. A big reason why Rome and Greece are glorified so much is due to the large numbers of archaeological sites that have already been uncovered, and the huge amounts of literature that have been translated. However, the amount of archaeological work is very low in the East when compared to the West. There are still many archaeological sites in India and China that have yet to be uncovered, and there are plenty of Indian and Chinese works that have not been fully translated, or found in fragments only.

 

[AOE]

It has everything to do with how rich a country is, why would a thief rob an poor mans house which has noting everyone targets what the rich have. Thats why India was targeted more, England did not face as much threats as India did, it did not have any Golden temples or famous for riches and trade that made it an primary target.

While that's a nice saying, but thieves will steal anything they can get their hands on regardless of whether or not the person is rich or dirt poor. Viking raids were common for centuries in the British isles despite the fact they lacked the wealth India had in ancient times, same goes for Roman, Norman, and other invasions that occurred; but all of this is besides the point, as I made no remark about Indias wealth; apart from the fact that a sizable number of those Hindu/Buddhist schools/temples were looted and destroyed by Muslims, long before Britain knew India existed. People invade other countries for a lot more reasons than whether the country is rich or not, and the number of invasions or periods of being conquered/subjugated are no greater or less in number than what people of the British isles went through. That was part of the original argument, but you keep digressing and shifting the goal posts.

Your not Nationalistic and narrow minded but yet you talk of Hellenism which is a a term popular in Nazi web sites these days and you defend the westernism more than you really want to admit. Alexander glorified killing and conquering while Ashoka took an more human approach even towards animal killing and he spread the idea of non-violence towards other sentient beings. Alexander, Napoleon all justified the low and animalistic tendencies in man to over power the other and make piss marks on land. Alexander set of an viscous example which is still today touted as an noble endeavor even when he was merely an megalomaniac and mass murderer for glory.

Now we're going to come to guilt by association, another irrational argument. Hellenism is not a word solely used in Nazi circles, it is also a term used by historians, academics, and teachers of the ancient world. If you type that word into google, a part from the obvious wikipedia page; you will see at least two Jewish library/encyclopedia websites, a few university pages, and some on mythology. Yes, real national socialism in practice if I ever saw it. Defending 'westernism' is subjective as it depends on what western values I do defend that you think are wrong. I wouldn't exactly think promoting democracy, capitalism, modern science, etc... is necessarily evil, but hey that's just me.

Ashoka and Alexander both killed tens of thousands of people, both were conquerors, both helped to spread knowledge and civilization (although they were different), and both at one point or another allowed cultural influences from the outside even if they were at war. Both have their pros and cons, I repeat I was not trying to play up one over the other; I was pointing out how you had a one-sided view of this but in reality Alexanders conquests did have positive effects and reasons behind them. The main difference is that Alexanders rule became more megalomaniacal, and Ashoka lived long enough to realize the follies of some of his actions. How's that for blind western nationalism? lol If anything I am trying to find cultural similarities between the east and west, rather than say that Indias rulers were wonderful but all of the others are evil and murderous. I admire a sizable amount of Indian history.

Also what does Napoleon have anything to do with the ancient world? Napoleon simply cited any and all famous conquerors (with some exceptions, some of which were worse than Alexander) to bolster his own image and his knowledge of combat, but the main flaw of Napoleon was his Caesarism. That's why he proclaimed himself the emperor of France, and behaved in a tyrannical manner. The terms 'Tsar' and 'Kaiser' also come from Caesar as well. This is off topic though.

Persia is the term for Iran, it did not exist only in Alexanders time later many muslim Persians also Invaded India.

I know this, most terms used to describe the ancient world are Anglicized adaptations of Roman/Greek descriptions and names, but this is a common theme throughout most cultures. Do you know how many pronunciations and versions of 'Genghis Khan' there are? Do you know that his real name was Temujin? Some amounts of history is lost or changed in translation, but on this point it's a minor one.

The Persian/Arab Muslim invasions of India between the 7th centuries and the end of the Mughal dynasties are filled with violence, murdered Indian rulers, religious-based genocide, slavery, and behavior of which that would rival the British Raj. The Muslims who invaded India, did so slowly and there were only a few minor victories in this period for the Indians; it wasn't until the Marathras that the Indians were able to turn the tides, but they defeated a dynasty that claimed it was the successor of the Mongols; descended through Timur and Babur. This is hardly a major example of Indians defeating the Iranians or Persians.

P.S. You make it sound like i am some narrow minded chest thumping flag waveing Nationalist! I am as much an fan of western philosophy and ideas as eastern ideas, I love Greek Philosophers like Socrates,Plato or even the modern novelists and poets like Mark Twain, Oscar Wilde. I am also as much as an evolutionist as an western Atheist but i get bored and annoyed when western people talk they always talk in the narrow pathways of western ideas as if those are the only ones that lead us to where we are. The struggle of early man to survive and leave africa or use fire is more important to our survival of our species than even the modern revolutions. The birth of Agricultural revolution in Asia and middle east 10,000 years back is as important as any other revolution. All these revolutions make us who we are today so it annoys me when people talk only from the angle they belong to. To me Ashokas missionary proselytism is more important than Alexanders invasion of Persia, Ashoka started the revolution of Proselytism and missionary activity before that people where either born a Hindu,Jew or Greek and the other cant convert to any one else tribalistic belifs. Ashoka broke that mold and sent missionaries to convert people, which was later copied by Jews and made into Christianity with the same central figure as Buddha called Jesus and the entire functioning of Christianity is very similar to what Ashoka started. People miss the truth when they are biased so at times i tend to sound biased myself when i try to show the other side of the coin.

Well the chest thumping and flag waving you mentioned yourself, but yes I did say to some extent you are biased and using circular/illogical reasoning for some of your points. If you are an atheist then you would dismiss religion on all sides of the equation, even that of Buddhism for its beliefs in supernatural nonsense; instead you glorify it because of this period of history which is a blind nationalistic thing to do. I am of European descent, yet you will not hear me even on a bad day justifying Christian mass murder and slavery in the last 2000 years, even in contrast to the behavior displayed by Muslims extremists or Communism. I don't think that Alexander was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but he did make many positive changes to the world he conquered; even if many Greeks at the time wanted to keep Hellenistic knowledge and education to themselves where as Alexander wanted to spread it; this is actually an admirable trait. I never said the rest of the point you made about 'western superiority' so that is simply putting words into my mouth, and very few people I have met in my life (being that I am a westerner, and have spent most of my life mingling with other westerners) have glorified or worshiped this person to the extent you dubiously claim. So this is simply a reactionary and emotional response by you, not one that is solely ground in reason or history. If you asked, I would have told you already that I consider western civilization to be a universal one, not just one that is relegated to Europe. It has had many influences from different cultures, and it has also influenced others as well.

There is an African proverb that says, "Until lions get their own historians, history will always glorify the hunter", and that is very much true.

As long as Western ideals are the most influential worldwide, we can expect one-sided accounts of history. However, I am noticing a shift in the last couple decades away from Western-oriented history/philosophy towards a more all-encompassing approach, and this is taking place in the West itself as well as other parts of the world. Part of this is caused by the rise of the "Old East" like India and China, and also by increasing openness and information access in all parts of the world.

I think our accounts of history by the end of this century will be fundamentally different compared to now.

The change in thinking largely has to do with the availability of knowledge, particularly through the internet. So what exactly is one-sided in this discussion, or in history? Sweeping and unfounded statements aren't helpful I'm afraid.

I wonder if that proverb also applies to the Indian victors, or is this just another symptom of blaming the west for everything? Surely one of these days people will take responsibility for their own actions, and admit their own evils without having to walk around with a persecution complex. So who realistically do you think should fill the vacuum for America at the end of this century? China? Russia? I mean hey, if you think the world is in a bad state now, think of how worse it could be then; similar to the early 20th century, when colonialism, fascism, and communism were either at their peak, or starting to form.

 

[Virendra]

The Persian/Arab Muslim invasions of India between the 7th centuries and the end of the Mughal dynasties are filled with violence, murdered Indian rulers, religious-based genocide, slavery, and behavior of which that would rival the British Raj. it wasn't until the Marathras that the Indians were able to turn the tides, but they defeated a dynasty that claimed it was the successor of the Mongols; descended through Timur and Babur. This is hardly a major example of Indians defeating the Iranians or Persians.

The invasions were infact repelled for quite a few centuries, starting from 700 AD to around 1300 AD. Before Mughals there were no invasive forces who could settle at majority of main land India for a long time. Most were mere looters who grabbed whatever they could, defeated some and got defeated by some. In these initial centuries the invasive dynasties got hold of staging areas in northwest india - such as kandhar and punjab (including pakistani punjab). This enabled for repeated and reinforced invasions further into the main land.
I could cite many examples but a few would be:
Arab General Muhammad bin Qasim defeated at Chittor and routed out to west of Kandhar. Liberation of Kandhar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bappa_Rawal
Junaid, the successor of Qasim defeated at Navsari and Avanti and died of the injuries of that battle.
Tamim the successor of Junaid defeated at borders of Sindh.
In the words of the Arab chronicler Suleiman, "a place of refuge to which the Muslims might flee was not to be found." The Arabs crossed over to the other side of the River Indus, abandoning all their lands to the victorious Hindus. The local chieftains took advantage of these conditions to re-establish their independence. Subsequently the Arabs constructed the city of Mansurah on the other side of the wide and deep Indus, which was safe from attack. This became their new capital in Sindh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rajasthan

The Muslims who invaded India, did so slowly and there were only a few minor victories in this period for the Indians

As the small examples above would tell you, they didn't do it slowly. They could manage to do it slow only because of the stiff resistence in the initial centuries. As far as the victories as concerned, it is a common mistake to remember only the victories that are attached to milestones of dynasties as in when they collapsed or rose. In this checkpoint of going from one rein to the other we tend to forget many important intermittent struggles that have actually shaped the history into the way it is today. It is not just those final events. If the victories were only few and minor it wouldn't have taken muslims so many centuries to eventually control the main land India, where as they conquered countries like Syria, Jordan etc within days, Egypt took 20 days to be conquered, Iraq 3 months, Iran 3 years and India 400 yrs.


Regards,
Virendra

 

[Phenom]

The invasions were infact repelled for quite a few centuries, starting from 700 AD to around 1300 AD. Before Mughals there were no invasive forces who could settle at majority of main land India for a long time.

Very true,
Unfortunately Western Historians always judged the importance of battles in the east, by looking at the amount of land captured. Since Indian Kings were defending their country, whenever the defeated the enemy, no major territory gets conquered and the battle is believed to be a minor victory for Indians. But when they lose, huge amount of territory is conquered by the invader and then the battle is considered a major defeat for Indians.

I could cite many examples but a few would be:
Arab General Muhammad bin Qasim defeated at Chittor and routed out to west of Kandhar. Liberation of Kandhar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bappa_Rawal

If Indian King has lost this battle, it would have been a major victory for Arabs as they would have established the Ghazwa-e-hind. but since they failed it hardly finds any mention, even in Indian text books.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Very true,
Unfortunately Western Historians always judged the importance of Battles in the east, by looking at the amount of land captured. Since Indian Kings were defending their country, whenever the defeated the enemy, no major territory gets conquered and the Battle is believed to be a minor victory for Indians. But when they lose, huge amount of territory is conquered by the invader and then the battle is considered a major defeat for Indians.



If Indian King has lost this battle, it would have been a major victory for Arabs as they would have established the Ghazwa-e-hind. but since they failed it hardly finds any mention, even in Indian text books.

This is an excellent point Phenom. This pattern is also true of many Indian conquerors later who did conquer land from Ashoka to Ranjit Singh.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

While that's a nice saying, but thieves will steal anything they can get their hands on regardless of whether or not the person is rich or dirt poor. Viking raids were common for centuries in the British isles despite the fact they lacked the wealth India had in ancient times, same goes for Roman, Norman, and other invasions that occurred; but all of this is besides the point, as I made no remark about Indias wealth; apart from the fact that a sizable number of those Hindu/Buddhist schools/temples were looted and destroyed by Muslims, long before Britain knew India existed. People invade other countries for a lot more reasons than whether the country is rich or not, and the number of invasions or periods of being conquered/subjugated are no greater or less in number than what people of the British isles went through. That was part of the original argument, but you keep digressing and shifting the goal posts.

Not all thieves steal from the poor and thats not the point the point is there is nothing much for an theif to visit a poor mans house. The truth is invaders wanted to make it worth while when they invaded a country. Thats why no one invaded Siberia or Central Africa which had nothing to offer in terms of wealth,name and recognition or else Alexander would have taken his Army North to Britian and France. When the Persians invaded and stole the peacock throne it was well worth the visit for him. The point i am trying to make is that Britian never had it as bad as India in terms of number of foreign invaders, they had a reasonable time to take a breather and get over it. Vikings where not invaders they where more like over grown pirates and raiders, more over none of these invaders you mention are outside Europe. So where is the parallel between an Northern Island nation and one which is bang in-between the Silk Route and links West, Midle-East and East! What exactly does Britain link?

Now we're going to come to guilt by association, another irrational argument. Hellenism is not a word solely used in Nazi circles, it is also a term used by historians, academics, and teachers of the ancient world. If you type that word into google, a part from the obvious wikipedia page; you will see at least two Jewish library/encyclopedia websites, a few university pages, and some on mythology. Yes, real national socialism in practice if I ever saw it. Defending 'westernism' is subjective as it depends on what western values I do defend that you think are wrong. I wouldn't exactly think promoting democracy, capitalism, modern science, etc... is necessarily evil, but hey that's just me.

Its good to defend the values you mention but its not good to get attached to them to become blind enough to not see the errors in its own ideas. Its good to be introspective but the point of Alexander and Ashoka being the same can only be born out of an need to defend blindly.

If you study the following Edicts of Ashoka you will see that he was clearly different from Alexander. Yes initially both killed but life is about what you learn from it and leave behind and Ashokas life is an powerful example that killing does not solve our problems. Alexander still only glorifies death and he never could leave behind anything that is living today, everything is dead and in the museum. Where as Ashokas way to non-violence is still quite active and has give rise to many different paths.



The people of the unconquered territories beyond the borders might think: "What is the king's intentions towards us?" My only intention is that they live without fear of me, that they may trust me and that I may give them happiness, not sorrow. Furthermore, they should understand that the king will forgive those who can be forgiven, and that he wishes to encourage them to practice Dhamma so that they may attain happiness in this world and the next. I am telling you this so that I may discharge the debts I owe, and that in instructing you, that you may know that my vow and my promise will not be broken. Therefore acting in this way, you should perform your duties and assure them (the people beyond the borders) that: "The king is like a father. He feels towards us as he feels towards himself. We are to him like his own children."


People see only their good deeds saying, "I have done this good deed." But they do not see their evil deeds saying, "I have done this evil deed" or "This is called evil." But this (tendency) is difficult to see. One should think like this: "It is these things that lead to evil, to violence, to cruelty, anger, pride and jealousy. Let me not ruin myself with these things." And further, one should think: "This leads to happiness in this world and the next."

How do you compare this guy with Alexander who had never seen anything beyond himself and his glory? Alexander only lived in misery, did a lot of misery and left behind a lot of misery. There is no parallels at all.

Ashoka and Alexander both killed tens of thousands of people, both were conquerors, both helped to spread knowledge and civilization (although they were different), and both at one point or another allowed cultural influences from the outside even if they were at war. Both have their pros and cons, I repeat I was not trying to play up one over the other; I was pointing out how you had a one-sided view of this but in reality Alexanders conquests did have positive effects and reasons behind them. The main difference is that Alexanders rule became more megalomaniacal, and Ashoka lived long enough to realize the follies of some of his actions. How's that for blind western nationalism? lol If anything I am trying to find cultural similarities between the east and west, rather than say that Indias rulers were wonderful but all of the others are evil and murderous. I admire a sizable amount of Indian history.

It is blind attachment to an idea to claim Alexander is the same as Asoka. Asoka and Chandragupta both accomplished these feets before they where 27years old, they did live longer than that because they understood the errors of their ways. Your comparing an Megalomaniac with one who gave up the sword and taught compassion and refrained from killing. Hitler,Napoleon all take inspiration from people like Alexander and it does not set a good president towards the future generations who also will want to conquer another corner of the pale blue dot. Incase you have not seen the Video of Carl Sagan about the Pale blue dot and how redicilious our conquests are you must watch it. Asoka understood that long before most people did. It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways.

This only shows the meaningless pursuit of Conquerors and Kings which are only to often revisited by people who want to emulate and follow them and have a total lack of understanding and comprehension of what we really are. I recommend you watch the whole Video here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g

I know this, most terms used to describe the ancient world are Anglicized adaptations of Roman/Greek descriptions and names, but this is a common theme throughout most cultures. Do you know how many pronunciations and versions of 'Genghis Khan' there are? Do you know that his real name was Temujin? Some amounts of history is lost or changed in translation, but on this point it's a minor one.

The Persian/Arab Muslim invasions of India between the 7th centuries and the end of the Mughal dynasties are filled with violence, murdered Indian rulers, religious-based genocide, slavery, and behavior of which that would rival the British Raj. The Muslims who invaded India, did so slowly and there were only a few minor victories in this period for the Indians; it wasn't until the Marathras that the Indians were able to turn the tides, but they defeated a dynasty that claimed it was the successor of the Mongols; descended through Timur and Babur. This is hardly a major example of Indians defeating the Iranians or Persians.

The only reason you say that is because Indians did not go back and destroy their foundation in Iran. They defended successfully against Persians and Arabs many times its only when they lost did it become History. Prithivi Raj won many times against the Persians and he did not attack back, Indians in most part have only defended.

Well the chest thumping and flag waving you mentioned yourself, but yes I did say to some extent you are biased and using circular/illogical reasoning for some of your points. If you are an atheist then you would dismiss religion on all sides of the equation, even that of Buddhism for its beliefs in supernatural nonsense; instead you glorify it because of this period of history which is a blind nationalistic thing to do. I am of European descent, yet you will not hear me even on a bad day justifying Christian mass murder and slavery in the last 2000 years, even in contrast to the behavior displayed by Muslims extremists or Communism. I don't think that Alexander was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but he did make many positive changes to the world he conquered; even if many Greeks at the time wanted to keep Hellenistic knowledge and education to themselves where as Alexander wanted to spread it; this is actually an admirable trait. I never said the rest of the point you made about 'western superiority' so that is simply putting words into my mouth, and very few people I have met in my life (being that I am a westerner, and have spent most of my life mingling with other westerners) have glorified or worshiped this person to the extent you dubiously claim. So this is simply a reactionary and emotional response by you, not one that is solely ground in reason or history. If you asked, I would have told you already that I consider western civilization to be a universal one, not just one that is relegated to Europe. It has had many influences from different cultures, and it has also influenced others as well.

I dont dismiss everything on the bases that it is related to Religion, I do a lot of cherry picking inside all Philosophies and Religions i do not throw away anything on presupposed biases. Apart from the Koran which i see has nothing Wise to offer and few other books like Manu Smirit which i have already relegated to avoiding. Same way that i can not throw away everything i will not accept anything as the sole path or the truth. So i completely differ on that idea as Western Civilization as Universal one because it is not. You cant fit everyone in the same mold and thats where most of the world problems arise, if everyone has to look,dress and act like Muhammad then his whole life becomes a contradiction and conflict. You cant take the Aboriginal and drag him to your way of thinking without hurting his Society. This is very Christian of you in the end isnt it? My way is the only way to Salvation and truth all of it sounds a bit to Christian to me.


P.S. In the end even if i do sound bias i always tend to want to show the other side of the coin. Like i show the Muslims about other ideas beyond Islam and Christians and Westerners about the greats of other civilization. I am afraid that both of us could be doing the same thing to each other with out realizing that!

Guess we both want others to see beyond what they believe, I agree with what you say most of the time except for the self-ritious part of Westernism being Universal.

 

[AOE]

Not all thieves steal from the poor and thats not the point the point is there is nothing much for an theif to visit a poor mans house. The truth is invaders wanted to make it worth while when they invaded a country. Thats why no one invaded Siberia or Central Africa which had nothing to offer in terms of wealth,name and recognition or else Alexander would have taken his Army North to Britian and France. When the Persians invaded and stole the peacock throne it was well worth the visit for him. The point i am trying to make is that Britian never had it as bad as India in terms of number of foreign invaders, they had a reasonable time to take a breather and get over it. Vikings where not invaders they where more like over grown pirates and raiders, more over none of these invaders you mention are outside Europe. So where is the parallel between an Northern Island nation and one which is bang in-between the Silk Route and links West, Midle-East and East! What exactly does Britain link?

Yes not all thieves steal from the poor, beggars CAN be choosers I know all of this, but it is entirely besides the point as I highlighted later on that people invade other countries for more reasons than wealth. The reason Central-Africa or Siberia was overlooked throughout most of history have more soluble reasons than you put forward. Central-Africa was never invaded because it was largely isolated from the rest of the developing world in Europe, the Middle-East, and Asia. It was not until Muslims came to the region that there was major interest there, and places like Timbuktu became areas of slave trading and wealth during that period. Siberia was an inactive region until Russias conquests, prior to that it saw some migration/conquests by the Mongols, but to most other civilizations and groups it was largely 'Terra Incognita.' Siberia today IS USED for its natural resources, heck I've even seen this argued a few times by others in this forum that China is looking into the region.

Britain was invaded by Barbary Pirates and Viking Raiders, but most of the time it was attacked and colonized by the Romans, Normans, French, Spanish, and much later it was bombed to high-heaven by the Nazis during WWII. These are not minor skirmishes, and they are no less in number than the amount of invasions India suffered. The point about whether or not Alexander would have taken his sword to Northern Europe for riches is a null point when you consider that had Alexander not have been killed at an early age, he would have taken his war to the Arabian peninsula; which is a barren desert. lol

Its good to defend the values you mention but its not good to get attached to them to become blind enough to not see the errors in its own ideas. Its good to be introspective but the point of Alexander and Ashoka being the same can only be born out of an need to defend blindly.

I am not blindly attached to every and all aspects of European history, but you are the same when it comes to Indian history. I made that distinction in the previous post. That is what separates those who love history overall, and those who simply love everything a particular country has done throughout its history irrespective.

If you study the following Edicts of Ashoka you will see that he was clearly different from Alexander. Yes initially both killed but life is about what you learn from it and leave behind and Ashokas life is an powerful example that killing does not solve our problems. Alexander still only glorifies death and he never could leave behind anything that is living today, everything is dead and in the museum. Where as Ashokas way to non-violence is still quite active and has give rise to many different paths.

I am well aware of many of the wise sayings and passages that Ashoka has made, and I admire many of the things he has said; however I was only trying to highlight similarities rather than to diminish one side in favor of another. Ashoka and Alexander both came from periods of history of imperialism, violence, monarchism, etc... they both committed or were a part of regimes that killed civilians and behaved in imperialist manners; the difference is the lesson learned by both. Alexander was too young and did not live long enough to learn from the same lessons Ashoka did, he was killed or died by his early 30s, where as Ashoka lived twice as long as Alexander. That was my point, and I was only trying to make cultural similarities since ultimately, the conquests of both led to the spread of culture; which is the most important thing at the end of the day.

It is blind attachment to an idea to claim Alexander is the same as Asoka. Asoka and Chandragupta both accomplished these feets before they where 27years old, they did live longer than that because they understood the errors of their ways.

I did not say he is exactly the same, I said he has similarities. Key distinction here. Ashoka learned from his mistakes around the time of the Kalinga war, by which he was 40 years of age; he also came to power at the age of 34, where as Alexander conquered most of Persia by the time he was in his early 20s. Alexander started off in a city state approximately as small as the state of Macedonia today, and yet was able to conquere an empire that was around its peak, that spanned from Egypt, Asia Minor, Syria, Caanan, Mesopotamia, all the way to Afghanistan. That's damn impressive for a military strategist, where as most of Ashokas conquests outside of India happened against a worn out Macedonian army that refused to continue on. The Indians were unable to conquer or take back Persian invaded lands until the Greeks defeated the Persians.

Your comparing an Megalomaniac with one who gave up the sword and taught compassion and refrained from killing.

Wrong. You ignored my response yet again, as I have already detailed that both killed tens of thousands of civilians, but the difference was that Ashoka lived on to learn the follies of war, where as Alexander was killed by the age of 32-33.

Hitler,Napoleon all take inspiration from people like Alexander and it does not set a good president towards the future generations who also will want to conquer another corner of the pale blue dot. Incase you have not seen the Video of Carl Sagan about the Pale blue dot and how redicilious our conquests are you must watch it. Asoka understood that long before most people did. It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways.

So did the Romans, the Parthians/Sassanids, even the Indians themselves learned from Alexanders conquests. Are they all Nazis too? lol

Yet again, you accuse me (straw man argument) of comparing Ashoka and Alexander as being identical (when I did not), yet you compare Alexander, Napoleon, and Hitler as being the same.

The distinctions you make you do not extend to others I'm afraid, and that is a one-sided view of history. Even Napoleon with his Caesarism complex was nowhere near as bad as Hitler, and Alexander in turn was not as murderous as the Nazis or even the French Directorate. When did Alexander believe that certain races of people were subhuman in the way that Hitler did? When did Napoleon do the same? lol It is interesting though you mention Carl Sagan, a great scientific thinker who I am well versed in his writings and documentaries, and I think even he would tell you that one of the great legacies of Alexanders conquests was the establishment of the Library of Alexandria:


Of course your reference to the Pale Blue Dot is valid, and yes I do agree that people should stop killing and instead work together for a common goal to reach for the stars, it's a shame however that the Nazis, Communists, emperors, and others of this world both past and present failed to learn this lesson, and that includes both Alexander and Ashoka; Emperors of their own imperialist kingdoms. Ashoka is different only because he learned his lessons after he killed up to 100,000 people in the Kalinga War.

This only shows the meaningless pursuit of Conquerors and Kings which are only to often revisited by people who want to emulate and follow them and have a total lack of understanding and comprehension of what we really are. I recommend you watch the whole Video here.

I've already seen this video, dozens of times in fact. In fact I have gone one step further than this and have read everything Carl Sagan has ever written, and watched his documentary titled Cosmos; which is where I referenced the above video about the Library of Alexandria from. There has never been a greater or larger institution of learning in the ancient world, and it is a shame it was destroyed by Caesar, Aurelian, and the Christians (Theodosius).

The only reason you say that is because Indians did not go back and destroy their foundation in Iran. They defended successfully against Persians and Arabs many times its only when they lost did it become History. Prithivi Raj won many times against the Persians and he did not attack back, Indians in most part have only defended.

No, I said that because the Indians did lose land slowly to the Persians prior to Alexanders conquests, although yes the Indians did on other occasions defend well against the Persian armies. I was not contesting this, rather showing that they were losing slowly against the Persians. It was not until Alexander conquered the Persians that the Mauryan empire was able to expand and capture those lost regions with considerable excess.

I dont dismiss everything on the bases that it is related to Religion, I do a lot of cherry picking inside all Philosophies and Religions i do not throw away anything on presupposed biases. Apart from the Koran which i see has nothing Wise to offer and few other books like Manu Smirit which i have already relegated to avoiding. Same way that i can not throw away everything i will not accept anything as the sole path or the truth. So i completely differ on that idea as Western Civilization as Universal one because it is not. You cant fit everyone in the same mold and thats where most of the world problems arise, if everyone has to look,dress and act like Muhammad then his whole life becomes a contradiction and conflict. You cant take the Aboriginal and drag him to your way of thinking without hurting his Society. This is very Christian of you in the end isnt it? My way is the only way to Salvation and truth all of it sounds a bit to Christian to me.

What is 'Christian' about wanting to spread democracy everywhere? What about increasing the living standard of the average person in every place? Have you got a better system than democracy, or are you just going to give me empty placards of moral equivalence and relativism? What aspects of culture are in conflict with the proposition I put forward? Unsurprisingly you are misrepresenting my position and providing that I somehow support rampant evangelism, colonialism or fascism; when I have said nothing a long those lines.

Also the argument that everyone should dress, act, and behave like Mohammad is laughable. What has that have to do with anything, let alone spreading democracy or western values of any kind? lol I would strongly suggest people actually refrain from behaving in a similar manner to a desert dwelling psychopath who raided caravans and killed Jews and Pagans for a living.

'My way' or 'My religion is the true one' (if that is what you are inferring) is actually a common belief in all religions, including Buddhism which considers other faiths as being part of ignorance in the three poisons. Yet again you aren't clear here, rather tarring me with the same brush but not elaborating on why the points I actually made are actually Christian or dogmatic in nature.

P.S. In the end even if i do sound bias i always tend to want to show the other side of the coin. Like i show the Muslims about other ideas beyond Islam and Christians and Westerners about the greats of other civilization. I am afraid that both of us could be doing the same thing to each other with out realizing that!

You do not need to show me any opposite side of any coin of any conflict that I am already expressing my views in. I am well aware of all the major civilizations of the ancient world, and as I have said already, for the third time; I do admire Indian culture for some of its wisdom and philosophy, although I will point out it is far from perfect in itself since it is common here for people to go on a rant/bash about western culture with little effort on self-reflection or analysis of your own. I never glorify every aspect of western civilization, only certain aspects pertaining to spreading democracy, science, education, capitalism, and ending all forms of superstition, racism, xenophobia, poverty, tyranny, genocide, etc... there is nothing distinctly 'Christian' about any of this, if you knew anything about the core tenets of early Christianity; they actually espouse anti-semitism and communism (they actually promoted equal distribution in a community form, not that different to Marxism). Quite a sizable number of atheists already know this and could tell you as well.

Guess we both want others to see beyond what they believe, I agree with what you say most of the time except for the self-ritious part of Westernism being Universal.

Yet again, what is self-righteous or religiously convicted about the values I espouse? I would agree though that perhaps we do wish to see eye to eye, but only when you stop misinterpreting what I am saying.

 

[AOE]

It is not just those final events. If the victories were only few and minor it wouldn't have taken muslims so many centuries to eventually control the main land India, where as they conquered countries like Syria, Jordan etc within days, Egypt took 20 days to be conquered, Iraq 3 months, Iran 3 years and India 400 yrs.
Regards,
Virendra

Yet again I am well aware of the battles that the Indians fought with the Muslims in this period, and I am not saying the Indians were helpless; but they eventually lost to the Muslims slowly and in the process, millions of Hindus and Buddhists, a long with many of the schools of thought, and temples they built were looted and burned down, and on a much larger scale than any other conqueror in Indias history. The Muslims deemed it all as heretical, and said that only the gold and gems that lined the temple walls were of any use.

India was lucky compared to the Sassanids and the Roman provinces of Egypt, Syria, etc... both empires of which were at war for centuries, and the former went through 30 attempts at the throne before the Muslims finally conquered the Sassanid empire; however, India was subjected to slavery on a much larger scale than the Iranians were, and also had far more of their people killed.

 

[civfanatic]

So what exactly is one-sided in this discussion, or in history? Sweeping and unfounded statements aren't helpful I'm afraid.

Well, I wasn't referencing the past dicussion in that post. But now that you mention it, statements like these show a good deal of one-sidedness:

I consider western civilization to be a universal one

I hope you understand the implications of such a statement.

I wonder if that proverb also applies to the Indian victors, or is this just another symptom of blaming the west for everything?

You are comparing apples and oranges, my friend. India never colonised or controlled so much of the world like the West did. India never exercised political power over most of the world like the West did. Who were we to glorify, if the hunters and the prey were one and the same? What reason did we have to glorify anything?

Another fact that you might find interesting, and I don't expect you to know, is that there is not a single literary history of India dating from ancient or even classical times. The earliest literary histories that we have found date from the 14th century and were composed by the Turkic Muslim rulers of the Delhi Sultanate, mainly to glorify themselves and their exploits against native Indian kingdoms. It was only after this that other literary histories, such as that of the Hindu Vijayanagara Empire, were composed and preserved by court historians.

The closest thing we have before this are religious works like the Mahabharata and the Puranas, which some say include contemporary historical references in the midst of religious mythology. But such works cannot be compared to those of other civilizations that were composed purely for the purpose of recording history, such as Livy's famous History of Rome or Ban Gu's Book of Han.

The whole compendium of pre-Medieval Indian history has been pieced together from temple and pillar inscriptions, engravings, ancient literature, foreign accounts, and numerous artifacts like coins and statues. The resulting picture is far from perfect, and there is much that we do not know and can only speculate. This is the reason why I stressed in a previous post the need to continue research in Eastern history, because without more diversified information, we cannot have a proper understanding of the past.

Surely one of these days people will take responsibility for their own actions, and admit their own evils without having to walk around with a persecution complex.

What do you want me to take responsibility for? The 60 million Britons that Indian rulers starved to death? Perhaps the people of three different continents who lost their homes and were massacred?

Western doublespeak and attempts at revisionism are food for the ignorant.

So who realistically do you think should fill the vacuum for America at the end of this century? China? Russia?

The world is currently unipolar, meaning that there is only one dominant power (America), and this one power more or less dictates the major happenings in the world. Such a situation is very dangerous.

I desire, and expect, the world to become multipolar this century. There will be mutiple "poles", or great powers, who will keep each other in check and collectively maintain world peace. These "poles" will include old powers like America and Russia, as well as emerging powers like India, China, and Brazil.

 

[civfanatic]

Just a statement on the talk of the Persians in India:

No Persian ruler after Darius ever set foot in India.


The only exception would be if you consider Nadir Shah, the 18th century Shah of Persia, to be "Persian" by virtue of his political position as the ruler of that country. However, Nadir Shah was ethnically a Turk and not a Persian.

All the Islamic invaders of India were not Persian either, but were either Turks, Pashtuns, or Arabs. Mahmud of Ghazni was a Turk. Muhammad Ghauri was a Pashtun. Muhammad bin Qasim was an Arab.

The Persians, throughout history, have been a civilized nation. Even in the time of Darius, the Indian provinces of the Achaemenid Empire were not looted, and were in fact the richest parts of the empire by all accounts. It should also be noted that the Indian rulers of the provinces retained most of their autonomy, as the Persian Empire of those days was more a federation of satrapies bound by loyalty to the Emperor than a centralized state in the form of the Maurya or Han Chinese empires. The satraps were often hereditary, ruled just like kings, had similar powers of a king, and had their own armies. The further the satrapies were from Persepolis, the heart of the Empire, the more automony they had.

The loot, plunder, and exploitation of India was not caused by the Persians, but by various barbarians whose lust for wealth and power overwhelmed their humanity. This includes barbarians from across the mountains (Turks, Pashtuns, Arabs) as well as from across the sea (British, Dutch, Portuguese).

 

[Virendra]

What about Alexander's meeting with Chanakya/Kautilya. Some claim it actually happened while others refute it.
Also sometimes it is said that Kautilya and Chanakya were two different people.
Can anyone share their insight?


Regards,
Virendra

 

[AOE]

Well, I wasn't referencing the past dicussion in that post. But now that you mention it, statements like these show a good deal of one-sidedness:

lol that's circular reasoning and beating around the bush. I ask for examples of one-sided history and I am now told that asking for further information is somehow one-sided.

I hope you understand the implications of such a statement.

Indeed I do, very well in fact. None of the ideas I have put forward; democracy, modern science, capitalism, etc... are dangerous values, rather the opposite in fact.

You are comparing apples and oranges, my friend. India never colonised or controlled so much of the world like the West did. India never exercised political power over most of the world like the West did. Who were we to glorify, if the hunters and the prey were one and the same? What reason did we have to glorify anything?

I think you misunderstood what I was alluding too, which is the constant victim complex that people like to sport even though colonialism ended at the very latest about 50 years ago. It's time to take personal responsibility for ones own actions.

Another fact that you might find interesting, and I don't expect you to know, is that there is not a single literary history of India dating from ancient or even classical times. The earliest literary histories that we have found date from the 14th century and were composed by the Turkic Muslim rulers of the Delhi Sultanate, mainly to glorify themselves and their exploits against native Indian kingdoms. It was only after this that other literary histories, such as that of the Hindu Vijayanagara Empire, were composed and preserved by court historians.

It might surprise you to know that I am well aware of this, and just to add this to that I know many of those Muslim historical accounts glorified the killings and enslavement of Hindus, Buddhists, and later Sikhs. Frankly put, the Muslim invasions, the Delhi Sultunate, and the Mughal Empire all signify the most violent periods of Indian history.

The closest thing we have before this are religious works like the Mahabharata and the Puranas, which some say include contemporary historical references in the midst of religious mythology. But such works cannot be compared to those of other civilizations that were composed purely for the purpose of recording history, such as Livy's famous History of Rome or Ban Gu's Book of Han.

These are still ongoing debates to some extent, although I do agree that the methods of recording the history do vary between cultures.

The whole compendium of pre-Medieval Indian history has been pieced together from temple and pillar inscriptions, engravings, ancient literature, foreign accounts, and numerous artifacts like coins and statues. The resulting picture is far from perfect, and there is much that we do not know and can only speculate. This is the reason why I stressed in a previous post the need to continue research in Eastern history, because without more diversified information, we cannot have a proper understanding of the past.

I agree completely, but just know that a sizable amount of that history has been lost with the destruction of Hindu/Buddhist temples and schools of thought, so we may never have a complete picture, unfortunately.

What do you want me to take responsibility for? The 60 million Britons that Indian rulers starved to death? Perhaps the people of three different continents who lost their homes and were massacred?

lol no. Take responsibility for the development and prosperity of your own country. Right now Indias problems are not Britains, they are corruption, the caste system, debt bondage, human trafficking, religious sectarianism, Pakistan, China, Sri Lanka, Nepal, etc...

Western doublespeak and attempts at revisionism are food for the ignorant.

So is mindless anti-western rhetoric used to ignore the point someone is trying to make, but I guess a strawman argument works just as well.

The world is currently unipolar, meaning that there is only one dominant power (America), and this one power more or less dictates the major happenings in the world. Such a situation is very dangerous.

I desire, and expect, the world to become multipolar this century. There will be mutiple "poles", or great powers, who will keep each other in check and collectively maintain world peace. These "poles" will include old powers like America and Russia, as well as emerging powers like India, China, and Brazil.

A multipolar world is what we had during WWII and the Cold War, and being kept in 'check' meant that tens of millions of people were killed at the hands of tyrants. That's not a world that anybody within their right mind would want to return to, but I am happy with the idea of any of those countries becoming a super power; just not China. If they dropped the CCP, and became a functioning, less-aggressive democracy; then I think millions of people around the world would be happier. Russia also needs to drop the autocratic nonsense it adopted thanks to Putin, which might be a possibility in the near future.

As for your last statement about the Persians in India; yes I already agree with that, in fact I highlighted that most of the Muslim attackers in India were Arab at first, followed by Timur/Babur.

 

[Virendra]

A multipolar world is what we had during WWII and the Cold War, and being kept in 'check' meant that tens of millions of people were killed at the hands of tyrants. That's not a world that anybody within their right mind would want to return to, but I am happy with the idea of any of those countries becoming a super power; just not China.

Why should we want the globe be overwhelmed with the unipolar system always? It creates a serious dependency on who the power is, what kind of influence it exerts. And in that sense, yes I understand why you excluded China.
But I believe whether there's a group or one man free run; it eventually boils down to how the powers behave, how the people behave.
Either of the systems could work. Unipolar could work with a saner soft power at the helm. Multipolar could work with a strong UN like (better than UN please) body at the helm.

Regards,
Virenedra

 

[AOE]

Why should we want the globe be overwhelmed with the unipolar system always? It creates a serious dependency on who the power is, what kind of influence it exerts. And in that sense, yes I understand why you excluded China.
But I believe whether there's a group or one man free run; it eventually boils down to how the powers behave, how the people behave.
Either of the systems could work. Unipolar could work with a saner soft power at the helm. Multipolar could work with a strong UN like (better than UN please) body at the helm.

Regards,
Virenedra

I'm not arguing for or against a unipolar world, instead I'm highlighting that the amount of death, destruction, and poverty in the world was greater historically when it was multipolar, because the Americans and their allies shared power with the Nazis, Axis Japanese, and then later the USSR/PRC. As I have just said, I am happy for a multipolar world, so long as the difference in powers are between democracies and not dictatorships.

A strong UN is never going to happen, and I'm glad it wont. It has shown itself to be a completely useless body that allows tyrants to veto the actions of democracies, and for anti-semites to have cheap shots at the Israelis while downplaying or ignoring the tyranny and genocide of their own countries.

This is starting to get a bit off topic.

 

[civfanatic]

Indeed I do, very well in fact. None of the ideas I have put forward; democracy, modern science, capitalism, etc... are dangerous values, rather the opposite in fact.

In fact, many other cultures have developed their own versions of these concepts. The Iroqouis Confederacy of North America practiced a democratic system, where a leader was elected from the candidates from the five tribes that made up the confederation. Early democracy was also practiced in South India, where sangams, or assemblies consisting of citizens, elected the raja from their ranks. Early capitalism can be found in the Tang dynasty of China, especially under Empress Wu, who did much to reform the Chinese economy. The Mauryas and Guptas can also be considered to have early forms of "capitalism", as they had organizations similar to corporations that were privately owned and operated freely within the internal economy. None of these "values" are distinctly Western, besides the names which they use to describe them.

The problem with the Western attitude, is that they consider their own values to be superior to those of all other cultures, and they believe that all cultures should adopt these "Western" values so that they can become "civilized". This is facilitated by such statements like "Western civilization is universal", even though it takes a great deal of ignorance and one-sidedness to believe that one single culture/civilization can be adopted by all 7 billion inhabitants of the world. As I have stated and stressed before numerous time, different people and different societies have different ways of viewing the world, and this is to be appreciated, not condemned.

What I hope for, is for all cultures to be equally represented in the world, so that all cultures can learn from one another. Interaction is the best cure for ignorance. But in order for this interaction and equal representation to take place, the Western superiority complex and one-sided view of history needs to end, and the world as a whole needs to move away from a Western-dominated one to a multipolar one. Only then, will we see true progress.

Let it be known that I am a huge fan of many Western philosophers and thinkers. Plato's Republic and Thomas Moore's Utopia are two of my most favorite books of all time.

It might surprise you to know that I am well aware of this, and just to add this to that I know many of those Muslim historical accounts glorified the killings and enslavement of Hindus, Buddhists, and later Sikhs. Frankly put, the Muslim invasions, the Delhi Sultunate, and the Mughal Empire all signify the most violent periods of Indian history.

Forgive me if I have a low opinion of your knowledge on your Indian history, but if you knew anything about Indian history, you would know that the Colonial Period was by far the most destructive period in Indian history, in terms of both human deaths as well as socioeconomic damage.

I have already addressed the comparison of British and Islamic influence in India in Post #98. You asked for a specifc example of Western one-sidedness? Here you have it.

I think you misunderstood what I was alluding too, which is the constant victim complex that people like to sport even though colonialism ended at the very latest about 50 years ago. It's time to take personal responsibility for ones own actions.

lol no. Take responsibility for the development and prosperity of your own country. Right now Indias problems are not Britains, they are corruption, the caste system, debt bondage, human trafficking, religious sectarianism, Pakistan, China, Sri Lanka, Nepal, etc...

No one is here is blaming India's current problems on Britain, so I have no idea why you are bringing up completely irrelevant things. Even though many of India's problems can, in fact, be traced to British policy, there is no use blaming the British now because it won't solve anything. It's best to just learn from the past, and move on.

My only problem is with the West's one-sided depiction of themselves and of their history. More specifically, their history of interaction with the rest of the world. The West continues to drown the world with pseudo-moralistic nonsense, even though they of all people have no right to lecture anyone on "morality", nor do they have the right to criticize any third world nation for its shortcomings, when they themselves enslaved and exploited the same third world nation.

In time, of course, I expect all of this to change.

A multipolar world is what we had during WWII and the Cold War, and being kept in 'check' meant that tens of millions of people were killed at the hands of tyrants. That's not a world that anybody within their right mind would want to return to, but I am happy with the idea of any of those countries becoming a super power; just not China. If they dropped the CCP, and became a functioning, less-aggressive democracy; then I think millions of people around the world would be happier. Russia also needs to drop the autocratic nonsense it adopted thanks to Putin, which might be a possibility in the near future.

Are millions of people not being killed today? Are the genocides and wars in Darfur, Congo, and elsewhere in the world not ocurring? What is America, the world's only superpower and "shining beacon of peace and democracy", doing about these?

History has shown that the occurrence of overt conflict decreases with increasing equilibrium in global geopolitics. Quite frankly, America's "invasion spree" over the past 20 years in Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan would not be possible if the USSR was still around. The Cold War was a horrifying period in many ways, but no one can doubt that it was a period of balance.


EDIT: I have no problem with China becoming a great power, as long as it is not the ONLY great power.

 

[AOE]

In fact, many other cultures have developed their own versions of these concepts. The Iroqouis Confederacy of North America practiced a democratic system, where a leader was elected from the candidates from the five tribes that made up the confederation. Early democracy was also practiced in South India, where sangams, or assemblies consisting of citizens, elected the raja from their ranks. Early capitalism can be found in the Tang dynasty of China, especially under Empress Wu, who did much to reform the Chinese economy. The Mauryas and Guptas can also be considered to have early forms of "capitalism", as they had organizations similar to corporations that were privately owned and operated freely within the internal economy. None of these "values" are distinctly Western, besides the names which they use to describe them.

The earliest known form of democracy, including having elected leaders comes from Greece and Rome, period. There have been instances in other parts of the world where capitalism, democracy or similar versions of such have occurred; including India and China, but they are confined to one period/were used in small amounts. The first major movement to bring about democracy happened in modern times, particularly here in the west; whether you like to admit it or not.

The problem with the Western attitude, is that they consider their own values to be superior to those of all other cultures, and they believe that all cultures should adopt these "Western" values so that they can become "civilized". This is facilitated by such statements like "Western civilization is universal", even though it takes a great deal of ignorance and one-sidedness to believe that one single culture/civilization can be adopted by all 7 billion inhabitants of the world. As I have stated and stressed before numerous time, different people and different societies have different ways of viewing the world, and this is to be appreciated, not condemned.

Oh indeed, how ignorant and short-sighted of me to think that modern science, democracy, and free trade should be adopted by everyone on the planet to alleviate their own poverty, racism, superstition, tyranny, and genocide. Yet again you are throwing around vague and general descriptions but you are not alluding to anything specific that I have said that would not be helpful in all parts of this world. What better alternative can you prescribe for politics, rational thought, and economics than these three systems?

What I hope for, is for all cultures to be equally represented in the world, so that all cultures can learn from one another. Interaction is the best cure for ignorance. But in order for this interaction and equal representation to take place, the Western superiority complex and one-sided view of history needs to end, and the world as a whole needs to move away from a Western-dominated one to a multipolar one. Only then, will we see true progress.

If you mean trying to bring an end to religious sectarianism at the hands of Islamists and other extremist religions, political democide at the hands of communists/fascists, promoting modern science, and capitalism to alleviate poverty and disease around the world as somehow being supremacist; then the definition of colonialism and fascism must have changed wildly in the last few years to something it didn't mean originally.

I hate to break it to you, but not all cultures are on equal footing. When a young child in the Islamic world is encouraged to hate Jews, Hindus, Atheists, Christians, indeed anyone outside their faith; and grow up in an environment encouraging them to sacrifice their life to kill other people in the name of religious extremism, that is not the same as a child growing up in a system where multiculturalism, democracy, science, and equality are promoted. Moral equivalence doesn't work I'm afraid, when all cultures are put in practice. Lets have less of this and more knowledge, prosperity, discussions, and free thought.

Let it be known that I am a huge fan of many Western philosophers and thinkers. Plato's Republic and Thomas Moore's Utopia are two of my most favorite books of all time.

Yet you fail to see the logical fallacies that have pointed out about moral equivalence and relativism, how not every aspect of culture is on equal footing to another, and some are simply better.

Forgive me if I have a low opinion of your knowledge on your Indian history, but if you knew anything about Indian history, you would know that the Colonial Period was by far the most destructive period in Indian history, in terms of both human deaths as well as socioeconomic damage.

In terms of impoverishment, yes, but in terms of religious sectarianism, genocide, killings, etc... no, the Mughal dynasties proved to be far more gloating of their killing and enslavement of Hindus and Buddhists and their cultural places of worship and thought.

I have already addressed the comparison of British and Islamic influence in India in Post #98. You asked for a specifc example of Western one-sidedness? Here you have it.

lol yet you ignore the killings at the hands of Muslims, which would rival that number. Where did you get your statistics from by the way? I'd like to see your source.

No one is here is blaming India's current problems on Britain, so I have no idea why you are bringing up completely irrelevant things. Even though many of India's problems can, in fact, be traced to British policy, there is no use blaming the British now because it won't solve anything. It's best to just learn from the past, and move on.

No-one is blaming the British? I think you need to see an optometrist, there are plenty of posts here in this forum that would say otherwise; there is even a thread titled on how Britain should be blamed for everything and people there are in accordance and agreement. I'm not fond of colonialism, but there are some accusations and remarks I will not label to a system simply out of dislike; that would be an emotional response to history rather than an objective one. I do agree though that people should focus on fixing their own problems than living in the past.

My only problem is with the West's one-sided depiction of themselves and of their history. More specifically, their history of interaction with the rest of the world. The West continues to drown the world with pseudo-moralistic nonsense, even though they of all people have no right to lecture anyone on "morality", nor do they have the right to criticize any third world nation for its shortcomings, when they themselves enslaved and exploited the same third world nation.

Yet again, another generalized statement with no specific examples of how this is one-sided or supremacist in nature. The only pseudo-moralistic nonsense that has been mentioned here in this discussion is your cultural relativist approach which is far from realistic in the overall picture of the world. The last sentence here about being 'lectured on morality' just highlights the problem, you instead place a Tu Quo Que argument which serves to defeat the purpose of criticizing killings when they actually happen in modern times, such as Sudan, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, North Korea, Burma, etc... it actually reminds me of the same kind of stance the UN has, which serves to do little more than to sit on its hands when killings happen, and when those pesky Israelis, Americans, Europeans, or others criticize a country for genocide; their pleas are ignored and the now defunct period of colonialism is brought up to counter this. Some of the worlds greatest evils have been committed under the guise of a persecution or victim hood complex.

In time, of course, I expect all of this to change.

How? The UN will continue its corruption and lack of action over genocide, tyranny, and non-proliferation.

Are millions of people not being killed today? Are the genocides and wars in Darfur, Congo, and elsewhere in the world not ocurring? What is America, the world's only superpower and "shining beacon of peace and democracy", doing about these?

lol. These conflicts were left up to the UN, and if the Neocons got a look in places like Darfur and similar places; they would be met with resistance by the anti-war movement, a media that doesn't report wars accurately or properly since Vietnam (always blows them out to be disasters, drama sells I guess), and because the UN would veto any US attempt to send troops to many of these places.

Here is a classic example of how corrupt and useless the UN is today. They would veto or block the US attempt to intervene in many places, and instead spend more of their time blaming everything on the Jews:

History has shown that the occurrence of overt conflict decreases with increasing equilibrium in global geopolitics. Quite frankly, America's "invasion spree" over the past 20 years in Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan would not be possible if the USSR was still around. The Cold War was a horrifying period in many ways, but no one can doubt that it was a period of balance.

EDIT: I have no problem with China becoming a great power, as long as it is not the ONLY great power.

Yeah sure maybe less invasions, but ten times the number of people are killed. Are you aware of the number of people communism has killed alone in the last 100 years? 150 million people. What about fascism? Over 30 million. I suppose you could call that a peaceful equilibrium so long as the Americans don't get involved. I'm happy for a multipolar world, but frankly I would not like China to be a super power as it is has proven itself to be among the most homicidal regimes in human history.

The problem with a multipolar world is how exactly is it going to happen? Who is going to create an alternative international political and diplomatic arena for countries that feel neither way in the war between freedom and religious/communist tyranny? Such a movement will have no moral backbone, and will be reminiscent of the days of Nehru NAM policies that were disastrous.

I suppose though you are right that the Americans could not liberate these countries from Serbian fascism, Iraqi Baathism, or the Taliban if the USSR was around; and what a wonderful thing that would be. Never would I have thought in my entire life I would have heard from an Indian that it would be a good thing that this would occur, especially on the point of having the Taliban continue in Afghanistan.

 

[civfanatic]

The earliest known form of democracy, including having elected leaders comes from Greece and Rome, period.

That's probably true. It's also completely irrelevant.

There have been instances in other parts of the world where capitalism, democracy or similar versions of such have occurred; including India and China, but they are confined to one period/were used in small amounts. The first major movement to bring about democracy happened in modern times, particularly here in the west; whether you like to admit it or not.

Yes, Western democracy originated in the West. What a concept.

Other cultures had their own successful political systems, including democratic ones, that thrived completely independent of Western influence. All because Australian history textbooks don't tell you about the Iroquois Confederation or South Indian sangams doesn't mean that other cultures are incapable of developing their own concepts of democracy and citzen rights. It's just another symptom of one-sidedness and general ignorance.

It is very likely that democracy would have continued in other parts of the world, even if there wasn't such a vast Western influence. In many cases, the West was responsible for the destruction of cultures that had developed or were developing proto-democracies. The destruction of the Iroqouis Confederation at the hands of American troops in the 1780s is a case in point. It is truly sad that so many great cultures have perished in the Age of Colonialism and Imperialism. Their loss is also our loss, as it means far less diversity of ideas today, and far more one-sidedness.

Oh indeed, how ignorant and short-sighted of me to think that modern science, democracy, and free trade should be adopted by everyone on the planet to alleviate their own poverty, racism, superstition, tyranny, and genocide. Yet again you are throwing around vague and general descriptions but you are not alluding to anything specific that I have said that would not be helpful in all parts of this world. What better alternative can you prescribe for politics, rational thought, and economics than these three systems?

There is nothing wrong with modern science, democracy, or free trade. Most cultures in the world have already adopted them, often with their own unique interpretations. The real problem is two-fold. The first, is when the West wages wars with the laughable rationale of "spreading these values", as if war is an effective means of spreading anything besides hate, and as if the wars are motivated by some moral sentiment rather than realistic, strategic goals. The second is when they enforce their own interpretations of these concepts on foreign cultures, and expect such foreign interpretations to be accepted by the locals. A good current example is in Afghanistan; it is simply impossible for Western-style government and economics to work there, because the cultural differences are too great. In order to achieve any sort of lasting peace, there needs to be an Afghan democracy, with an Afghan economy, with Afghan science and industry. Western ideals can contribute to this, of course, but they cannot fundamentally define how Afghanistan choses to run their own country.

If you mean trying to bring an end to religious sectarianism at the hands of Islamists and other extremist religions, political democide at the hands of communists/fascists, promoting modern science, and capitalism to alleviate poverty and disease around the world as somehow being supremacist; then the definition of colonialism and fascism must have changed wildly in the last few years to something it didn't mean originally.

Spare me the moralistic hyperbole.

I hate to break it to you, but not all cultures are on equal footing.

you fail to see the logical fallacies that have pointed out about moral equivalence and relativism, how not every aspect of culture is on equal footing to another, and some are simply better.

Indeed. Western culture is the superior culture, and all others are inferior. The world would be a much better place if we all became Westerners.

The famous poem "White Man's Burden" by Rudyard Kipling comes to mind. How silly of me to question the vital role that Westerners have played in civilizing the world. Without Westerners, the world would be full of subhuman barbarians, incapable of human reasoning and thought. Kipling would be proud to know that his ideals live on, even into the 21st century.

When a young child in the Islamic world is encouraged to hate Jews, Hindus, Atheists, Christians, indeed anyone outside their faith; and grow up in an environment encouraging them to sacrifice their life to kill other people in the name of religious extremism, that is not the same as a child growing up in a system where multiculturalism, democracy, science, and equality are promoted.

Hate is not an integral part of any culture. Hate-mongering is the result of various groups pursuing their own agendas. Most Muslims do not hate the rest of the world, Western propaganda notwithstanding. There is plenty of hate-mongering that takes place in the West as well, but Western culture as a whole cannot be blamed for that.

I have also stated, in the past, that no culture has the right to oppress or enforce their own customs on another culture, and I stand by that. What cultures do among themselves is of no concern to me.

In terms of impoverishment, yes, but in terms of religious sectarianism, genocide, killings, etc... no, the Mughal dynasties proved to be far more gloating of their killing and enslavement of Hindus and Buddhists and their cultural places of worship and thought.
lol yet you ignore the killings at the hands of Muslims, which would rival that number. Where did you get your statistics from by the way? I'd like to see your source.

I am not ignoring the Islamic atrocities in India. Every Indian with a basic knowledge of history knows about them. I am a direct descendant of the kings and generals of the Kakatiya and Rachakonda Kingdoms, who fought against the Islamic invaders in this part of India. My caste, the Velamas, formed the bulk of the armies that resisted them. I am well aware of the destruction that was wrought, the people that perished, and the heroes that laid down their lives. After that, we fought against the Europeans and their native allies, especially the French and their influence in the Circars. The stories and poems of our caste's military history are a very important part of our tradition, even today. I assure you that I am much more aware of India's history that you are.

The number of 60 million dead comes from numerous sources, and is generally considered to be a low estimate only. These are not very ancient happenings, so there is an abundance of primary evidence in the form of British accounts. More specific sources (that mostly rely on primary British and Indian evidence anyway) include the Economic History of India by T. Roy, Aspects of British Rule in India by S. Bose, and Late Victorian Holocausts: The Making of the Third World by Mike Davis. There are many other sources as well. This is a fairly well-researched and established subject.

Your need to downplay the atrocities of your criminal ancestors (pun intended) is understandable, but it is unfortunate that it comes at the expense of objective reasoning.

No-one is blaming the British? I think you need to see an optometrist, there are plenty of posts here in this forum that would say otherwise

As far as I know, no Indian here has blamed the British for corruption, the caste system, debt bondage, human trafficking, or religious sectarianism. The British can, however be attributed to the general impoverishment and deindustrialization of India, which is a far more devastating problem than all the above put together, mainly because impoverishment itself results in exacerbation of existing problems. I disagree with my Prime Minister on several points, but on this one we are in full agreement:

There is no doubt that our grievances against the British Empire had a sound basis. As the painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge historian Angus Maddison has shown, India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3% at that time, to as low as 3.8% in 1952. Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th Century, "the brightest jewel in the British Crown" was the poorest country in the world in terms of per capita income.

- Manmohan Singh

The only pseudo-moralistic nonsense that has been mentioned here in this discussion is your cultural relativist approach which is far from realistic in the overall picture of the world.

You're the one arguing that the West has some kind of "moral precept" when it invades half the world, and not just strategic interests like everyone else. So much for "realistic approach"

How? The UN will continue its corruption and lack of action over genocide, tyranny, and non-proliferation.

Democracy will occur spontaneously. I have much more faith in the power of the average protestor to bring about political change than in American bombs and doublespeak. The events of this year, which saw two Western-backed dictatorships (Egypt and Tunisia) toppled by the people, support my theory.

lol. These conflicts were left up to the UN, and if the Neocons got a look in places like Darfur and similar places; they would be met with resistance by the anti-war movement, a media that doesn't report wars accurately or properly since Vietnam (always blows them out to be disasters, drama sells I guess), and because the UN would veto any US attempt to send troops to many of these places.

Weak excuse, weak reasoning. The U.N. is doing a much better job in Congo, comparatively, than the NATO forces are doing in Afghanistan. All one has to do is compare the Congo of today with the Congo of ten or so years ago, to see that change, slow as it may be, is ocurring.

As you may or may not know, India is one of the world's largest suppliers of troops to U.N. missions, and they have historically done an outstanding job. They are serving for real humanitarian purposes, and not for geopolitical purposes like NATO in Afghanistan.

Yeah sure maybe less invasions, but ten times the number of people are killed. Are you aware of the number of people communism has killed alone in the last 100 years? 150 million people.

Just 150 million? I thought that jumble of ramblings "The Black Book of Communism" gave a maximum figure of 100 million. Did 50 million people die since its publication? Why not just change the figure to 500 million, no one bothers to check the methodology anyway. It's all just the same, politicized crap.

I suppose you could call that a peaceful equilibrium so long as the Americans don't get involved.

Essentially, yes. The Americans could not win in Vietnam because of the Soviets. The Soviets could not win in Afghanistan because of the Americans. Equilibrium was achieved.

However, a mutipolar world would see far more equilibrium than a simple bipolar world (Cold War).

The problem with a multipolar world is how exactly is it going to happen? Who is going to create an alternative international political and diplomatic arena for countries that feel neither way in the war between freedom and religious/communist tyranny? Such a movement will have no moral backbone, and will be reminiscent of the days of Nehru NAM policies that were disastrous.

War between freedom and religious/communist tyranny? Please tell me you're kidding.

No such war exists, except in the minds of hallucinating neocons. The only wars are the wars between interests, which itself can take many forms. We already have an international body with a good basic layout in the form of the U.N., and the U.N. can be strengthened by adding countries like India and Brazil to the P5, which will give it a much broader representation of the world's population at the highest levels of decision-making.

I suppose though you are right that the Americans could not liberate these countries from Serbian fascism, Iraqi Baathism, or the Taliban if the USSR was around; and what a wonderful thing that would be.

Indeed, it would. Yugoslavia would have broken up anyway, due to its Civil War. Iraq was propped up by the Reagan administration in the first place as a counter to Iran, so it was merely a case of killing a pet gone wild. The Taliban would not have existed if it wasn't for American support to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and their collective efforts to drive the Soviets from Afghanistan.

Never would I have thought in my entire life I would have heard from an Indian that it would be a good thing that this would occur, especially on the point of having the Taliban continue in Afghanistan.

Lol, I never said that it would be a good thing for the Taliban to continue. But I certainly don't support American interventionism either. To be honest, I could care less whether the Taliban or America "wins" the war in Afghanistan. In the end, everything will be decided in Pakistan, another one of America's pets gone wild.

I'm sure you expected Indians to be a blindly pro-Western lot when you joined this forum. I'm sure you've realized by now, that it is not the case. We are an independent-minded nation, unlike Australia which is essentially a puppet of the US and UK. I'm sorry if your experiences didn't match your expectations.