Shouldn't this be in the history books?

[KrazyHorse]

(and against)

Not just intellectual dishonesty, then...

[KrazyHorse]

I've decided one thing now - in the next few days, I'm going to go out and buy the CBSE history textbooks for the twelve years of school, and search out every anti-Brahmin and anti-Hindu reference I can find, and put it on the internet in one compiled report. That will act as a nice resource, and will give you guys a concrete idea of what I'm talking about.

When I was a child, with no preconceived notions, I read those books, because I was taught them. Because I was Brahmin, I did not develop a sense of hatred for upper castes after reading them. Later, when I thought about what I had learnt, I realised that a sense of hatred is precisely what they will encourage everyone except the upper castes to develop. Now I'm looking for proof of this.

Isn't that how the scientific method functions?

Observation (reading for the first time, without bias)
Hypothesis (that they are biased against upper castes)
Experimentation to convert hypothesis into theory (me going looking for evidence confirming my views).

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

It is a conflict whenever the wishes of one group clash violently with the wishes of another group. Do they bother to teach you English there?

By this definition, there would never be genocide, because it would be redefined as a conflict. The wishes of the massacred to live was in violent opposition to the wishes of the perpetrators to kill them, so it's become a conflict.

That's a logically horrible and completely useless definition.

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

An unbiased source for historical fact does not busy herself with making moral judgments.

Why not?

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

You practice the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty. Whenever a source says something to reinforce your worldview you accept it unquestioningly. Worm.

I don't. Whenever the claims of the nationalists seem over the top or exaggerated, I try to find out more and to confirm it against other sources. There seems to be, however, no contrary opinion about the Moplah rebellion and its massacres of the British and the Hindus of the region.
















But more generally, you've missed the point completely. My objection was that this event, which was, death-toll wise, much more significant that the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, is not mentioned AT ALL. I don't want a mention of the death toll, I don't want a detailed account, I want nothing except that it be acknowledged that it happened. I'd be happy with a single reference in one line which lists uprisings of the time. But even that is not done. This is not unbiased history writing.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by aneeshm


By this definition, there would never be genocide, because it would be redefined as a conflict.

The two are not mutually exclusive, you idiot.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


The two are not mutually exclusive, you idiot.

But one is not a subset of the other either, you buffoon.

[KrazyHorse]

(Looking at a picture of an animal)

Me: It's a mammal
Hindu freak: NO! IT'S A CAT!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by aneeshm


But one is not a subset of the other either, you buffoon.

Yes, they are.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Again, you missed the bit when I said that I read the books the first time without bias, formed my conclusions, and then went for evidence supporting my idea.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Again, you missed the bit when I said that I read the books the first time without bias, formed my conclusions, and then went for evidence supporting my idea.

You obviously still don't get it. You have to be willing to change your mind at every point. And more than that, you have to look for things which might change your mind.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Yes, they are.

Ignoring the atrocious grammar of this post, let me say that redefining things to suit your argument is an exercise in pointlessness, because everyone can do it, and in the end it amounts to nothing.

[aneeshm]

Let me quote myself, in case you didn't get the message the first time:

But more generally, you've missed the point completely. My objection was that this event, which was, death-toll wise, much more significant that the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, is not mentioned AT ALL. I don't want a mention of the death toll, I don't want a detailed account, I want nothing except that it be acknowledged that it happened. I'd be happy with a single reference in one line which lists uprisings of the time. But even that is not done. This is not unbiased history writing.

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by aneeshm
I started out unbiased, formed my conclusions based on unbiased observation, then then tried to find evidence which supported them.

You still don't have a clue

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Again, you missed the bit when I said that I read the books the first time without bias, formed my conclusions, and then went for evidence supporting my idea.

... you really, really miss the point.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


You obviously still don't get it. You have to be willing to change your mind at every point. And more than that, you have to look for things which might change your mind.

If I find that the current textbooks do not, in fact, support my hypothesis, then I'm willing to drop it even now. But unfortunately, the old bias persists, The words "upper caste" are never used except in a negative context or without the word "oppression" occurring in the same sentence or paragraph, sadly. I've gone through the new books, and it's the same old hate material.

If the upper castes are mentioned positively even once, I'm willing to drop the hypothesis. That is, I think, rigorous enough as a test.

[Last Conformist]

aneeshm selfpwnage FTW!