Is history education in schools distotred to fit a political agenda ?

[SlowwHand]

Despite the old saying, Rome was built in a day.





Nah, I'm lying on that one.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Gibsie
Seems strange to me: in a country that is so vastly Hindu, how does the education system end up favouring Islam and monotheism?

Aneeshm is a Hindu Nationalist. Anything that doesn't back his view is favoring Islam and monotheism.

[q=anneshm]I have never understood this charge . Can you please cite a specific example of what you consider to be my "Hindu nationalism" , instead of making blanket statements ?[/q]

This is like Sloww saying, he's never understood being called a 'right wing American'. Hell, when just about every thread you start talks about how great the Hindus are and how the Muslims suck, we tend to connect the dots.

The fact that most of us agree with the charge only goes to show how pervasive it is.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Sikander


If you masturbate the traditional way rather than like this then only your mommy has to see your mess.

I found it was a nice summing up of aneeshm's first post.

At least I didn't descend to fecal, err, spermical language.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Aurangzeb was a total bastard. It should be pointed out that even his muslim governors hated him, the end result being the breakup of the Mogul empire. He did his best to eradicate pre-Mogul Indian history - which is probably one reason why the presentation of ancient Indian history is so disjointed. Big chunks of the records no longer exist thanks to emporer A******.

How long has it been since the Congress party dominated Indian politics, two decades? I woulkd think that by now their "communist" influence on Indian school books would be gone.

Ditto. I find A's post deeply disturbing.

Moreover, India's eductional system's point-of-view is way out of step with their geopolictical situation. Russia is no longer a communist power but rather is becoming a capitalist power. Their main threats are an Islamic power, Pakistan, and a communist power, China. Their growing ally in many ways is the United States. Teaching thier kids to be pro-Islam and pro-Communist is stupid in such an environment.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


I found it was a nice summing up of aneeshm's first post.

At least I didn't descend to fecal, err, spermical language.

I'm interested in India among other things, and I'm glad to have him here. In truth I wish there were more Indians / Chinese / Japanese etc. posters here, but I don't think that's going to happen if we're rude out of hand to them. Not that I'm anything short of a complete a$$hole myself if given half a reason to go off.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Aneeshm is a Hindu Nationalist. Anything that doesn't back his view is favoring Islam and monotheism.

As said before , please provide a concrete example , if you can , which I doubt .

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

[q=anneshm]I have never understood this charge . Can you please cite a specific example of what you consider to be my "Hindu nationalism" , instead of making blanket statements ?[/q]

This is like Sloww saying, he's never understood being called a 'right wing American'. Hell, when just about every thread you start talks about how great the Hindus are and how the Muslims suck, we tend to connect the dots.

I defy you to find me one post where I have said that Hindus are great , or that Muslims suck . Hindus are people . Muslims are people . And people behave like people . But ideas can differ . My stance throughout has been that the orthodox definition of Islam , and the behaviours arising from following that definition , suck . I think this is a point that we all can agree upon .

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The fact that most of us agree with the charge only goes to show how pervasive it is.

If only truth were dependent on popularity . . . . . . . . .

[Lorizael]

Truth is defined by popularity. If most of the people here believe you fit a definition that most of the people here agree on, then you are whatever it is they say you are. That may or may not be meaningful, however.

[RGBVideo]

AFAIK, the nazis did not want to go to war with England and France.

I think you're right, sorry.

Please feel free to provide an explanation as to the differences (in the context of what we are discussing).

I don't think the mainstream history books are trying to defend nazis in any way. They're just trying to seek the background of their motives.

Russia is no longer a communist power but rather is becoming a capitalist power. Their main threats are an Islamic power, Pakistan, and a communist power, China.

Finally someone who realizes the cold war is over

Too bad Bush's neo-cons are driving Russia towards China with their naïve ideology-driven foreign policy

Truth is defined by popularity.

Truth is, facts are not.

[Ecthy]

Realistically speaking, Russia cannot be certain about future motives of western European countries.

[Ecthy]

Who says I won't push buttons in case the currently existing western security mechanisms cease to exist.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned


Ditto. I find A's post deeply disturbing.

Moreover, India's eductional system's point-of-view is way out of step with their geopolictical situation. Russia is no longer a communist power but rather is becoming a capitalist power. Their main threats are an Islamic power, Pakistan, and a communist power, China. Their growing ally in many ways is the United States. Teaching thier kids to be pro-Islam and pro-Communist is stupid in such an environment.

OMG! NED'S BACK!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Odin


OMG! NED'S BACK!

Hi Odin. Thanks for the welcome!

[Q Classic]

Welcome back. Just to get everything out of the way, though, Ned:

omg ur wrong!!!!!1111

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
Welcome back. Just to get everything out of the way, though, Ned:

omg ur wrong!!!!!1111

Why of course, Q!

[Ned]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is history education in schools distotred to fit a political agenda ?

Originally posted by SpencerH


My point was that the apologists, who seem to write history textbooks, use the "Treaty of Versailles" as an unwritten excuse for nazi-germanys aggression. The "Treaty of Versailles" influenced the political climate in Germany since it's excesses gave credence to revolutionary thinking which in turn led to the growth of the communist and nazi parties. That is a separate issue from "events that led to WWII". If the nazis had not been bent on conquest, WWII would not have happened, "Treaty of Versailles" or no "Treaty of Versailles".

Spencer, you are obviously a Brit as you have it exactly backwards. Hitler was trying to undo Versailles. British propaganda had them intending to conquer the planet.

Britain also lied when it said it declared war on Germany to protect Poland. Even at the time they told Poland they would protect it months before September, they had no intention of doing so. They were trying to provoke Germany to war in Poland in order to provide a pretext to themselves declare war on Germany. (After Munich, Churchill seemed to have the upper hand on setting foreign policy.)