After a brief prologue on the said Journalist and the Armenian massacres, Arundhati proceeded to introduce the concept of genocide, wikipedia style. There is nothing wrong in setting out a framework, except that if you twist the data to fit the framework, it starts getting a little weird.
Arundhati Roy deeply feels for American Indians. Her version of the story is as simple as those jerky moving images that passed for motion pictures prior to the invention of talkies.
- White people invaded America
- They slaughtered all Indians
- They occupied the land
The fact is much more complex than that. Even if you completely ignore the American invasion part, the Indians were hardly a homogeneous and peaceful tribe. Perhaps there were hundreds of different tribes, scattered all around. Their men lazed around (while not hunting) and smoked pot while the women did plenty of housework and child rearing. The chiefs kept a lot of women to themselves. They would start working on the girls of the clan as soon as they attained puberty. There was disease, often not much to eat, no TV, no AC. Most importantly, they fought bitter battles among themselves. Some of the tribes were particularly fearsome. After massacres, they would brandish skulls of enemies on their spears (almost like Gujarat!). If there are one set of people who love genocide, it is the tribes and primitive people all over the globe. Right now we have several going on in Africa, perhaps elsewhere too.
Yet, Arundhati perhaps advocates leaving them as they were.
These facts should be sobering for the Arundhati Roy and the band of renegade intellectuals that make rounds of the lecture circuit and constantly express deep resentment at the state of the world. If they assume themselves as intellectuals with some higher ability to define and create a new world, what difference do they have with the white people of their own fables?
Arundhati expresses disgust at genocide denial while stating this:
As genocides go, the Gujarat genocide cannot compare with the people killed in the Congo, Rwanda and Bosnia, where the numbers run into millions, nor is it by any means the first that has occurred in India. (In 1984, for instance, 3,000 Sikhs were massacred on the streets of Delhi with similar impunity, by killers overseen by the Congress Party.) But the Gujarat genocide is part of a larger, more elaborate and systematic vision. It tells us that the wheat is ripening and the grasshoppers have landed in mainland India.Was the Sikh riots really the first genocide to happen in India? Really Ma'am? Who is in denial here?
Come to think of it, it is pretty amazing that we still have a town called Aurangabad and a city called Ahmedabad. Recently there was a demand for the Bharat Ratna for the last Moghul emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar. Meanwhile soon after the Brits left, we fell over each other in our haste to rechristen every English name of cities, monuments and streets. We renamed Bombay to Mumbai, Calcutta to Kolkata and more recently Banagalore to Bengaluru. But we do have Aurangabad, certain people will continue to have their first claim on resources and Arundhati will continue to chastise us.
Arundhati takes huge poetic liberties with facts and data in her lecture but we can't question her. She has run up the hill in her romanticized fantacy land where tribals gather around fire at night and have roasted roots of dead plants (no killing, see?). From the top of her hill she shouts profanities at us.
The question remains that if all of us are evil and this is all a mirage, how do we trust her intentions? Is she really what she claims to be or merely an agitpropagandist hell bent on destroying a certain set of people?
Come to think of it, there are a lot of people on the secular brigade whose behavior raises such suspicions.
8 comments:
talking of secular brigade, please vote on the *dhimmi indian for year 2007* in dhimmiindia dot blogspot dot com
This will ensure greater exposer on the net to the nefarious dhimmis in our nation.
Steven Pinker thinks otherwise. According to him we are probably living in the most peaceful time in human history, or atleast we are better off than in the past. Of course this doesn't go well with our bleeding hearts who hanker after an imaginary glorious past and look down upon everything modern. Look at the contempt in Roy words for Progress. She would rather we all lived in forests.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/163
Savage tribes were killing and raping each other anyway, so the white man really put an end to their misery and delivered them, huh? Indeed, the white man benevolently provided deliverance to so many savage tribes all over the world, we should really kneel down and pray to massa. And you talk about social justice? Pull your head out of your arse and you'll be alright again.
she delivered this speech in Turkey...right? what about the Armenian genocide carried out by the Turks. Apparently, that (Armenian genocide) was precursor to the holocaust. But then I guess Arundhati Roy Roy cannot mention it while in Turkey. So much for being anti-eatablishment.
She did talk about the Armenian genocide. It was a speech delivered to a limited audience, call it the Turkish liberal establishment.
Of course Turkey is currently ruled by a theocratic party. For some reason that is not really important. Presumably because the grasshoppers took a detour and landed in India instead.
I take objection to calling Our Lady of Labored Lamentation an "intellectual". She's fake, living off on her celebrity status and gift of the gab. She is no thinker. She does not have a single, original idea truly her own. Even the strategy she has chosen to keep herself in circulation -- getting on a high horse and giving her peeve of the day a tongue lanshing -- has by now become monotonously formulaic. I get depressed when I see people taking this drama queen seriously and "analyzing" her masterpieces in all earnestness. There's only one guy who understood the phoneyness of A Roy in all its glory. Please listen to him:
"And she is a fraud. A literary careerist who has parlayed an overwritten melodrama into unearned fame; a child of privilege whose early experiments in poverty were no more than a smart career move; a Yuppie whose real job was aerobics instructor, not slum bottle-recycler; a world-travelled, overeducated dilettante posing as a regional writer; and a fake saint who ****** her way to fame and survives, in spite of her complete lack of talent, because her crude scolding warms the heart of old British lefties who love it when their tame Indian slaves get up on their hind legs to denounce the bloody Americans, who oppress the world so much less skillfully than they used to."
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6487&IBLOCK_ID=35
Native Americans may well have been barbaric, but that doesn't mean that that they should have been removed from their lands or killed. Indeed, had Europeans interacted with them on more equal terms, over time Native Americans might well changed their ways, yet might have retained some of their distinctive character (In the same way Indians today are able to keep their Vedas and their traditions, yet adopt ideas from the West). In the case of Native Americans, an exchange on equal terms was never allowed - the land of North America was too precious - and that's where the problem lies.
Seek medical help you autistic mental case
You're not 'Aryan' you deluded prick.
In fact with the tone you're writing in you don't even sound Indian, which minority are you and why are you merely *pretending* to be Indian?
To cause more rifts?
I'm not secular or into any of that wasteful bull crap named Indian politics so don't try to tag me as such
Forget the doctor advice as a person like you is way above medical help
Saw your worthless comments on that Fair and Lovely crap too
Fucking Bobby Jindal 2.0
Post a Comment