Indo-Aryan is crazy?

Discussion in 'Religion & Culture' started by Godless-Kafir, Feb 24, 2012.

  1. Godless-Kafir

    Godless-Kafir DFI Buddha Senior Member

    Aug 21, 2010
    Likes Received:
    I saw this documentary on the pillage of native ameircan Indians. Why we as a people even though we have the same brains as the tribals in South America or the forests in India are capable of not reasoning with our greed? Has greed contaminated our senses so deeply that we can no longer see it rationally because if we do we are terrified about where we have come. We cant stop now can we, or the enemy at the gates will have us done. We term it with fancy words as civilization and progress but it seldom covers up for the criminality. Our nationality is just glorified tribalism and our modern tools are but methods to get our daily bread.

    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  3. Iamanidiot

    Iamanidiot Elite Member Elite Member

    Dec 21, 2009
    Likes Received:
    G-K when did you become a bleeding in the crack enviromentalist
  4. Godless-Kafir

    Godless-Kafir DFI Buddha Senior Member

    Aug 21, 2010
    Likes Received:
    Its not bleeding in the crack idiot, i am not an environmentalist. The planet is not in any danger it can heal itself once we are gone, it has seen far worse like ice ages and volcanic extinctions a few plastic bags and deforestation do not compare to a asteroid hit. What i am pointing out is our inablity to rationalize our way of life to better our living conditions and our environment, so that we can last a few more generations in this backwater cesspool we call earth.
  5. pankaj nema

    pankaj nema Senior Member Senior Member

    Oct 1, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Unfortunately out of SEVEN billion humans only a few million must be die hard environmentalists like you

    And in fact when the economies of DEVELOPED countries go in a RECESSION then even there
    environmental concerns are thrown out and people's jobs become a top priority

    This again leads to such policies being adopted which lead to more energy consumption
    and mineral ores extraction ; BUT provide economic growth and jobs
  6. Godless-Kafir

    Godless-Kafir DFI Buddha Senior Member

    Aug 21, 2010
    Likes Received:
    I am trying to talk about social dynamics that lead mankind into this form of civilization as opposed to the one in the Video and people mistake this for some environmentalist rant.

    Stick to the topic people, what do you think lead to this form of capitalism and greed? Till the arrival of Christianity most of German and northern europe where very back ward tribals to.
  7. Mad Indian

    Mad Indian Proud Bigot Veteran Member Senior Member

    Jan 27, 2012
    Likes Received:
    Podigai Hills.
    GK when the religions were invented, people were very backward.... They were not like the athiests of today but were rather moral-less creatures who killed each other for no reasons... So religions did play a progressive part in Human development THEN.... But today, as the morality and concepts of good and bad other stuff has changed for the better, i think religions need to go.... They are dragging us down rather than letting us progress further..

    Its ok to go in a Scooter(1950 model) when you have only a Cycle, But STUPID to go in that when you have a Apache RTR 180 bike standing in your home...
  8. panduranghari

    panduranghari Senior Member Senior Member

    Jan 2, 2012
    Likes Received:
    Read this and Despair.

    Avatar, James Cameron’s blockbusting 3-D film, is both profoundly
    silly and profound. It’s profound because, like most films about
    aliens, it is a metaphor for contact between different human cultures.
    But in this case the metaphor is conscious and precise: this is the
    story of European engagement with the native peoples of the Americas.
    It’s profoundly silly because engineering a happy ending demands a
    plot so stupid and predictable that it rips the heart out of the film.
    The fate of the native Americans is much closer to the story told in
    another new film, The Road, in which a remnant population flees in
    terror as it is hunted to extinction.

    But this is a story no one wants to hear, because of the challenge it
    presents to the way we choose to see ourselves. Europe was massively
    enriched by the genocides in the Americas; the American nations were
    founded on them. This is a history we cannot accept.

    In his book American Holocaust, the US scholar David Stannard
    documents the greatest acts of genocide the world has ever
    experienced(1). In 1492, some 100m native peoples lived in the
    Americas. By the end of the 19th Century almost all of them had been
    exterminated. Many died as a result of disease. But the mass
    extinction was also engineered.

    When the Spanish arrived in the Americas, they described a world which
    could scarcely have been more different from their own. Europe was
    ravaged by war, oppression, slavery, fanaticism, disease and
    starvation. The populations they encountered were healthy,
    well-nourished and mostly (with exceptions like the Aztecs and Incas)
    peacable, democratic and egalitarian. Throughout the Americas the
    earliest explorers, including Columbus, remarked on the natives’
    extraordinary hospitality. The conquistadores marvelled at the amazing
    roads, canals, buildings and art they found, which in some cases
    outstripped anything they had seen at home. None of this stopped them
    from destroying everything and everyone they encountered.

    The butchery began with Columbus. He slaughtered the native people of
    Hispaniola (now Haiti and the Dominican Republic) by unimaginably
    brutal means. His soldiers tore babies from their mothers and dashed
    their heads against rocks. They fed their dogs on living children. On
    one occasion they hung 13 Indians in honour of Christ and the 12
    disciples, on a gibbet just low enough for their toes to touch the
    ground, then disembowelled them and burnt them alive. Columbus ordered
    all the native people to deliver a certain amount of gold every three
    months; anyone who failed had his hands cut off. By 1535 the native
    population of Hispaniola had fallen from 8m to zero: partly as a
    result of disease, partly as a result of murder, overwork and

    The conquistadores spread this civilising mission across central and
    south America. When they failed to reveal where their mythical
    treasures were hidden, the indigenous people were flogged, hanged,
    drowned, dismembered, ripped apart by dogs, buried alive or burnt. The
    soldiers cut off women’s breasts, sent people back to their villages
    with their severed hands and noses hung round their necks and hunted
    Indians with their dogs for sport. But most were killed by enslavement
    and disease. The Spanish discovered that it was cheaper to work
    Indians to death and replace them than to keep them alive: the life
    expectancy in their mines and plantations was three to four months.
    Within a century of their arrival, around 95% of the population of
    South and Central America had been destroyed.

    In California during the 18th Century the Spanish systematised this
    extermination. A Franciscan missionary called Junipero Serra set up a
    series of “missions”: in reality concentration camps using slave
    labour. The native people were herded in under force of arms and made
    to work in the fields on one fifth of the calories fed to
    African-American slaves in the 19th century. They died from overwork,
    starvation and disease at astonishing rates, and were continually
    replaced, wiping out the indigenous populations. Junipero Serra, the
    Eichmann of California, was beatified by the Vatican in 1988. He now
    requires one more miracle to be pronounced a saint(2).

    While the Spanish were mostly driven by the lust for gold, the British
    who colonised North America wanted land. In New England they
    surrounded the villages of the native Americans and murdered them as
    they slept. As genocide spread westwards, it was endorsed at the
    highest levels. George Washington ordered the total destruction of the
    homes and land of the Iroquois. Thomas Jefferson declared that his
    nation’s wars with the Indians should be pursued until each tribe “is
    exterminated or is driven beyond the Mississippi”. During the Sand
    Creek Massacre of 1864, troops in Colorado slaughtered unarmed people
    gathered under a flag of peace, killing children and babies,
    mutilating all the corpses and keeping their victims’ genitals to use
    as tobacco pouches or to wear on their hats. Theodore Roosevelt called
    this event “as rightful and beneficial a deed as ever took place on
    the frontier.”

    The butchery hasn’t yet ended: last month the Guardian reported that
    Brazilian ranchers in the western Amazon, having slaughtered all the
    rest, tried to kill the last surviving member of a forest tribe(3).
    Yet the greatest acts of genocide in history scarcely ruffle our
    collective conscience. Perhaps this is what would have happened had
    the Nazis won the second world war: the Holocaust would have been
    denied, excused or minimised in the same way, even as it continued.
    The people of the nations responsible – Spain, Britain, the US and
    others – will tolerate no comparisons, but the final solutions pursued
    in the Americas were far more successful. Those who commissioned or
    endorsed them remain national or religious heroes. Those who seek to
    prompt our memories are ignored or condemned.

    This is why the right hates Avatar. In the neocon Weekly Standard,
    John Podhoretz complains that the film resembles a “revisionist
    western” in which “the Indians became the good guys and the Americans
    the bad guys.”(4) He says it asks the audience “to root for the defeat
    of American soldiers at the hands of an insurgency.” Insurgency is an
    interesting word for an attempt to resist invasion: insurgent, like
    savage, is what you call someone who has something you want.
    L’Osservatore Romano, the official newspaper of the Vatican, condemned
    the film as “just … an anti-imperialistic, anti-militaristic

    But at least the right knows what it is attacking. In the New York
    Times the liberal critic Adam Cohen praises Avatar for championing the
    need to see clearly(6). It reveals, he says, “a well-known principle
    of totalitarianism and genocide – that it is easiest to oppress those
    we cannot see”. But in a marvellous unconscious irony, he bypasses the
    crashingly obvious metaphor and talks instead about the light it casts
    on Nazi and Soviet atrocities. We have all become skilled in the art
    of not seeing.

    I agree with its rightwing critics that Avatar is crass, mawkish and
    cliched. But it speaks of a truth more important – and more dangerous
    – than those contained in a thousand arthouse movies.

    George Monbiot
    balai_c, Mad Indian and parijataka like this.

Share This Page