Please cirtique my writing

[Getao321]

There are a few general things I noticed:

1. This is more a speech than a prose. If you want it to be a speech, then the style is decent. If you want it to be prose, stop directly addressing the audience. The two ways you are making it a speech are
i. Taking the reader's focus off of the actual writing by including such things as this: "Let me conclude with a quote:" Don't just let them conclude; end strong, without all this fuzzy "since we are an audience together and I am in the same room, we shall begin and end together" stuff.
ii. Constantly addressing the audience with rhetorical questions. This leads me into

2. Your style is stilted and often repetitious. This is most exemplified by your rhetorical questions. Nearly every paragraph has a rhetorical question addressed to the audience within the first two, three sentences. This is generally considered a bad thing because a) you are writing a piece of prose, not a speech and b) you are boring the reader because they are lulled by the rhythmn of your speech.

In addition, you use the passive voice and are cumbersome in your construction of sentences. The major issue, however, in the technical respect, is that you cannot decide whether or not you are in a formal or informal relationship with your intended audience. For example, you always say "cannot" instead of "can't," yet you use mannerisms that are only common in daily, informal speech. This is especially noticeable in the "Big. Very big. Very, very big." section.

You use some archaic and uncommon words, as well. Specially comes to mind (in colloquial Americanese, we would use especially), as does till. I do like your large vocabulary, don't get me wrong. However, if you are trying to maintain informality, using stilted language hurts you in the long run.

Finally, vary up the general format of your paper. The way you tackle each of your "points" is boring. You go from one point to the next with no connection. Each point essentially begins "The #th question. *Insert question in case we forgot it* Answer." This would be good if you were writing a speech. The problem is . . . you're not!


For English being a second / third / millionth language, the paper is quite good.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Cort Haus

The fire in which it was consumed burnt for a full seven days.

More demagoguery, which is probably what you're after. Nice images of burning fires and a full seven days. It reminds me of The Life of Brian

"And behold, a nine bladed sword. Not two, nor five, nor seven, but nine! Which he will wield on all wretched city-sinners like you sir, there!"

Actually, as far as I recollect, it did burn for a full seven days. The library complex was huge.

The definition of modernity I am using is, of course, a Western one, but that is inevitable given our circumstances. Alternatives can, however, be developed, and that is the crying need of the day – to provide whatever gifts the West has given an Indian context, to make them suitable to our civilisational ideals.

Originally posted by Cort Haus

Others have already commented on some of the other inflammatory rhetoric. Perhaps you could end your speech by handing out armbands of your beloved swastika and leading a stirring rendition of

"Tomorrow belongs, tomorrow belongs, tomorrow belongs to me!"

Maybe I will, maybe I will ......

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian

Using terms like "civilisational enemies" and "Muslim invaders" to 17 and 18 year olds is potentially dangerous. Are you trying to incite hatred?

Of course not! The opposite, in fact. Unless your sort out your own house first, how will you conquer the world (so to speak)?

Originally posted by Arrian

Based upon other parts of your speech, I don't think so. Given that, toning down the rhetoric about the foreign devils (my words, I know, but that's the feel of it) might be appropriate.

-Arrian

For all the people to whom this essay/speech is to be distributed (basically, a few of my friends), English is a second or third language.

And I've explicitly avoided blaming the outsiders for our miserable state today. I've said that our institutions were destroyed - but I've never stated where the blame lies for that destruction. In the final analysis, we can only blame ourselves. When it first became clear that the Arabs would not stop attacking us, we should have gone and razed Medina to the ground, Mongol-style, and made it amply clear that if the raids do not stop, Mecca was next. That would have spared India the repeated vandalisations which were her lot under Islamic rule.

And I explicitly avoided the word "Muslim invaders" in the article. In India, you use Muslim to refer to the community, and "Muslim invaders" would have been like pointing fingers at the community. But "Islamic" is used instead to politely signify that barbarian invaders happened to be Muslims, and it has no negative connotation like "Muslim" does. If I had used "Muslim invaders", I might have been accused of bias, but "Islamic invaders" is more neutral and does not in any way reflect upon the character of the speaker. "Islamic" points at a religion, "Muslim" points at a people.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by BeBro
Like Arrian, I'd say terms like "civilisational enemies" are too easily misunderstood . But then it depends for what you use this stuff - for some kind of propaganda it might be the right tone. For a real analysis or so it's certainly not....

I repeat - that term was used to refer to a very, very specific set of policies followed by the British during one period of our history. It does not imply "unending civilisational conflict" or anything of the sort.

[Elok]

Originally posted by aneeshm
And I've explicitly avoided blaming the outsiders for our miserable state today. I've said that our institutions were destroyed - but I've never stated where the blame lies for that destruction. In the final analysis, we can only blame ourselves. When it first became clear that the Arabs would not stop attacking us, we should have gone and razed Medina to the ground, Mongol-style, and made it amply clear that if the raids do not stop, Mecca was next. That would have spared India the repeated vandalisations which were her lot under Islamic rule.

Wouldn't that involve crossing the Himalayas and travelling several hundred miles?

[DaShi]

But you did explicitly blame outsiders. The British and Islam.

Let us start with the first. Why did the life-force leave the institutions created with great care by our ancestors? The answer is not easy to find in today's intellectual climate, though it is obvious from a simple and unbiased perusal of Indian history. For the last thousand years, India has been under the rule of imperialists bent on wiping out India itself. When I say 'wiping out India', I refer to the attempt made by the Islamic invaders and the British to completely destroy the culture and prosperity of India, respectively.

Here you blame Indias poverty specifically on the British:

The British succeeded completely, the Islamic invaders partially. If you want to see the success of the British, witness how impoverished not just India, but also Greater India is today.

You're best and most hard-hitting proof of this is a complete non-sequitor:

The best and hardest-hitting example of British success I can give is that I am writing this essay in English, and that an English-language education is a necessity for succeeding in India today.

If this was the case, most of Europe should be impoverished by the British. China and Russia should also blame the British following your line of reasoning.

Let's look at the checklist:

1. Ethnic scapegoats - check
2. Western scapegoats, especially relating to economy - check
3. Exaggerated 'glorious' history - check
4. Subtle hints at racial superiority - check
5. Need for expansion of borders - check

Good luck creating an India for Indians.

[Cort Haus]

Yes, there is something disconcertingly "Mein Kampf" about it.

[Terra Nullius]

That's a lovely alaap.

Wake me when you get to the raag.

I see the kind of style you're aiming at, but it needs some serious cutting down.

More facts. Less izzleisationalisms.

Cut out the flowery stuff and focus on building a serious argument.

[Terra Nullius]

Let me warn you , reader , that this essay is a place for me to not just critically *and unsparingly analyse the greatest malady that our nation is afflicted by, #but also a receptacle for the emotions inspired in me by this same malady. @Our dreams, our aspirations, our hopes and expectations, $all of these can only be described as 'small', and not befitting the greatness which our nation must lay claim to as her right.

In this essay, I will critically analyse the greatest malady afflicting our nation.

* redundant
# Who cares? Make your argument first. Then you can tell us how you feel about it.
@ repetitive
$ Save your conclusion for, ummm concluding

Let me begin with our history. *We all know – or rather, have been told – that out nation has a glorious past, @that it was the most advanced and prosperous country of the world, #during the time beginning with the urban revolution and ending with the coming of the industrialised European imperialists ( clichéd as that sounds ). We all have been told that !!!ours is the culturally richest nation, and the only one with an unbroken $religious, social, political, economic, literary, and in general cultural tradition .

Let me begin with our history. Our nation has a glorious past, a rich cultural tradition. At one time it was the most prosperous country of the world.

* If we all know - why are you telling us now?
@ Confusing - This is hearsay, not evidence. So it implies that you intend to dispute what "we have been told."
# Contradicts your own timeline "For the last thousand years, India has been under the rule of imperialists"
!!! YECH!! Do not use absolutes. Very bad form.
$ Too many adjectives all in a row. And you mentioned culture already.

*This is partially true. In the same way that @the ritual remains long after its symbolism is gone, #our traditions have remained long after the institutions which developed them, $and which they in their turn nourished, have perished. Our traditions have no soul left in them, no life, no regenerative capacity. %They are, however, the last remnants of &institutions which can still be made relevant and can still restore us to the glory to which ^we are today too small to aspire, and beyond, and therefore the need today is not to stick to them blindly, but to infuse new life into them.

But our traditions have no soul left in them.

* This sentence has nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph
@ Unfounded assertion
# What institutions?
$ This sentence turns back on itself
% Who is "they?"
& What institutions?
^ It's still not time for the conclusion

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Arrian
I'm not really sure if I'm a "civilisational enemy" or not.

-Arrian

Grog is the enemy of all civilisationals.

[Arrian]

Grog smush you with Tank! Make Terra Nullis go squish! Hah!

Obviously aneeshm has no intention of toning down the anti-foreigner/non-Hindu rhetoric, because it's what he means to say. My work here is therefore done.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

But I'm not anti-foreigner, you see. The people responsible for the present situation are long since dead. Nothing can be done about them. We should learn from what was done to us, and move on, and try to make sure that it never happens again. But in order to do that, we first have to accept that something like that happened at all, which is something we are not doing!

We must learn that the world does not follow our ideals, and it probably never will, and that thus we must make allowances for that. We always assumed that the common man would be unaffected by who the king was, we assumed that learned men would be patronised irrespective of who the king was. We never thought that something as depraved and just plain wrong as the Muslim iconoclasm could happen. We thought that others would respect our gods, as we still do theirs. We assume that, like Hindu kings were towards Buddhists, even if the administration did not patronise us, it would not be actively hostile to us. We were catastrophically wrong. We have to learn from that, we have to learn the fact that we never have had a friend and probably never will have one, that the world essentially consists of enemies trying to kill us, and we have to be constantly on our guard.

This is basic common sense and pragmatic foreign policy, not anti-foreigner rhetoric.

You still don't understand the ground reality here in India. I'll try to explain it to you.

The problem is, most people are today in denial. Most of the friends to whom I distributed this essay did not know of the universities which were destroyed. They had no idea of what we have lost. Not one of them knew that if the Muslim invasions hadn't happened, we'd have an unbroken university tradition stretching back into the BC years, with libraries to match - the largest repository of culture in the world. They had no idea of the atrocities which happened at that time. And there is a policy of the deliberate suppression of that period of history, of denying that anything bad ever happened. Our history textbooks, when they say that the Muslim empires of the time invaded India, talk as if they arrived in a tourist bus, then took some photos, created some nice architecture, and then gradually faded away. There is not a single mention of the negative consequences of the invasion, there is not a single word about anything negative they did at all! Even Aurangzeb, one of India's worst iconoclasts, is said to have destroyed temples for "purely economic reasons, not because of any religious motive". It is tripe like this that disillusions people and makes them hate all the more when they learn the truth. I try to make it clear that yes, this happened, that yes, it is shocking, that yes, it is horrible that there are people still trying to sweep it under the rug, but that even after all this, hatred is not the answer, there is another way out.

In fact, I'll make another thread about how much history is suppressed in India.

My understanding is limited, but this I know: in order to come to terms with history, you have to first accept it. Sweeping it under the rug is no answer, because it will cause even more trouble when it gets out, and truth always gets out. The more you hide it, the more hatred you will inspire when it is finally shown up. Expose it to the full light of day, debate it, come to terms with it, and finally get over it. But nobody has even got to the first state.

Note that I have never said anything about the current Muslim problems plaguing the nation. I've done that deliberately, because I really have no grouse with Muslims alive today (as a group, that is - I do have a problem with such "eminences" as the Shahi Imam, or other Muslim politicians who exploit the Muslims as a vote-bank and get elected on communal tickets).

My stance towards the Muslims is simple - as long as they let us be, we should let them be. If they don't want to integrate into the mainstream (something they have had over 500 years to do), that's their problem, not ours. Reform can come only from inside, and the more insistent we are that they should reform their crappy Shariah laws, the more they will feel that they are being "swallowed up" by the Hindus in some insidious ploy. Simply remove all pressure on them which is coming from us, and watch as the regressive ulema's control over the community blow itself to bits like a beached whale. Only when they themselves get fed up of their position will they reform themselves.

During the discussion, one friend asked me whether I thought India should become a declared Hindu nation.

My answer was an emphatic NO, for two reasons. In the first place, there is the pragmatic reason, which is that the state ruins everything it touches, so for the love of God, don't let it touch religion (even though it is still doing so). The second is the principle - nations that derive their national identity from religion inevitably tend towards fundamentalism, and I don't want that to happen here (even though Hinduism is not that sort of religion, but still, why take the chance?).



A rather long post, but it explains my stances on a number of things, so I think it's worth it.

[Arrian]

My understanding is limited, but this I know: in order to come to terms with history, you have to first accept it. Sweeping it under the rug is no answer, because it will cause even more trouble when it gets out, and truth always gets out.

Be wary of mythical golden ages of the distant past. I'm not saying that is necessarily the case here, but I'm definitely getting that vibe.

And trust me, if you do not intend to incite hate vs. foreignors/Muslims, then you really do need to change the tone of that essay (or speech), because lots of people will focus on the part about how the nasty furriners destroyed/stole/etc the ancient (Hindu) institutions of India and then take the simple step of blaming their descendants for any ill they're mad about.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian


Be wary of mythical golden ages of the distant past. I'm not saying that is necessarily the case here, but I'm definitely getting that vibe.

There were roughly three golden ages in India's history: the Indus valley period, the Maurya era, and the Gupta era.

These were not mythical times, they were actual periods when the common man was content. Not great, not fantastic, merely content. These were the times when patronage was given to the arts, when there was in general a flowering of culture. Of course, the seeds of the causes of the ends of these ages were present, and probably will always be present in any Golden Age of Man, but it was in general a nice time to be alive in - isn't that, after all, the maximum that a civilisation can aspire to - that the common man is content?

Originally posted by Arrian

And trust me, if you do not intend to incite hate vs. foreignors/Muslims, then you really do need to change the tone of that essay (or speech), because lots of people will focus on the part about how the nasty furriners destroyed/stole/etc the ancient (Hindu) institutions of India and then take the simple step of blaming their descendants for any ill they're mad about.

-Arrian

I don't take that simple step, because it is patently ridiculous, foolish in the extreme, and displays a complete lack of understanding of the situation as it is and as it was. How can you blame people living today for crimes committed hundreds of years ago? Is that not the worst injustice, akin to Mohammed calling all kafirs unclean and worthy of slaughter, or the ManuSmriti calling for differential punishments for the same crime for different castes?

As I've said, the best way to deal with the Muslim issue is to simply leave them alone and watch the tamasha as reforms are finally made.

And the problem is, how precisely do I bring out the fact that this destruction did, in fact, happen? It happened, and I have to state it happened, because its consequences are central to my analysis, and I tried to do that in the way in which I would not be pointing fingers at any living community, by using the code which is standard around here. I've already tried to be as circumspect as possible. But the facts have to be stated, and they're not pleasant to state. How do I get around this difficulty (of pleasantly stating unpleasant facts)?

[Barnabas]

You didnt mention the portuguese :P