Originally posted by JS357Arjun,the warrior,had qualms about the blood of relatives he was about to shed. The Lord tells him that the issue between the opposite camps had come to a fighting a battle, and he as a warrior must do his duty which was to kill. The Lord is quite hard on him in the beginning and asks him to stop behaving like a eunuch. Regarding his arguments about the consequences of the bloodbath, the Lord tells to stop acting like a know-all. He tells him to stop assuming that it was " he, Arjun " who was going to kill. The Lord says that the enemy were destined to die anyway and Arjun was only the instrument. Of course the perils of following the straight and narrow path of duty were known to the Lord. So the Lord has suggested a way out but of that later.
During WWII and for a time after, the common understanding of the Eastern religions ("Oriental" was the word, at the time) was that they didn't value human life. This was propaganda, generated to explain the Japanese kamikaze attacks and to justify ruthlessness in response, including the use of the A-bomb based on the idea that the Japanese, soldier and civili ...[text shortened]... , even in those of us who 'know better,' might be part of the resistance that is seen.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeHmph. It's not a matter of the secular Progressives letting anyone do anything. As if...
You mean they don't persecute pagan's and don't let majority religions do it either...
Incidentally yes, I'll concede that they don't persecute pagans; however the point is, generally speaking they do persecute Christians and Jews.
Call it double standard, or hypocrisy. Either way you slice it, it stinks.
Originally posted by JS357I don't follow. I do not see the connection between colonialism, Eastern religions and Pearl Harbour.
That's true, but Western colonialism of the East (GB in India, France in Indochina, USA in the Philippines, etc.) was seen by the majority in the West as morally justified, and was seen by the East as something to be resisted on moral grounds. Hence, Gandhi. Hence Pearl Harbor. This is the background, IMO, of a basic problem for Eastern religions in the West, and my point concerned that.
Originally posted by Conrau KThe West's expansionism in India, (Britain), the Phillipines (USA), and Indochina (France) brought with it a derogatory attitude toward the non-Christian religions of the local populations. Maybe you don't see the connection, but Japan did. Japan used the expansionism of the West in their propaganda program to justify their own expansionism in the Eastern sphere, among their own population and the populations they controlled. The derogatory attitude toward Eastern religions persists in large sectors of the Western population, at least in the USA. Dasa's efforts to promote his religion face this kind of resistance. That's all I was saying.
I don't follow. I do not see the connection between colonialism, Eastern religions and Pearl Harbour.
Originally posted by JS357I don't deny that the West has historically viewed the East negatively. It's something that can be found in historiography from the time of Classical Greece through to Edward Said's writings on Orientalism. I don't deny that suspicion of Eastern religion was part of a campaign of colonial legitimation. I do not, however, see any connection to Pearl Harbour, since this was an act of aggression against Westerners, not the Japanese, and the Japanese were not subject to colonial powers anyway. Pearl Harbour was not a case of uprising against partitioning. I am not sure what point you are making.
The West's expansionism in India, (Britain), the Phillipines (USA), and Indochina (France) brought with it a derogatory attitude toward the non-Christian religions of the local populations. Maybe you don't see the connection, but Japan did. Japan used the expansionism of the West in their propaganda program to justify their own expansionism in the Eastern sphe ...[text shortened]... asa's efforts to promote his religion face this kind of resistance. That's all I was saying.
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KI don't see why the attack on Pearl Harbor should be undecipherable as a response to a perceived threat of Western economic and cultural (read: religious) colonialism. But if you don't see it the same way, so be it.
I don't deny that the West has historically viewed the East negatively. It's something that can be found in historiography from the time of Classical Greece through to Edward Said's writings on Orientalism. I don't deny that suspicion of Eastern religion was part of a campaign of colonial legitimation. I do not, however, see any connection to Pearl Harbour, ...[text shortened]... ur was not a case of uprising against partitioning. I am not sure what point you are making.
Originally posted by JS357Well, apart from the fact that is a bit more complex than that, I just do not see how this point fits in with the rest of what you are saying. I think it's just nit-picking now, but I just don't see how Japanese military aggression is a sign of how the West perceives the East.
I don't see why the attack on Pearl Harbor should be undecipherable as a response to a perceived threat of Western economic and cultural (read: religious) colonialism. But if you don't see it the same way, so be it.
Originally posted by JS357If I remember correctly, on capture of Singapore in the WWII, the Japanese army made Sir Brooke Popham, the ex-governor of Singapore and his other officers sweep the streets of Singapore. As a sort of tit-for-tat for all the insults the native Asians had suffered under the British rule till then.
The West's expansionism in India, (Britain), the Phillipines (USA), and Indochina (France) brought with it a derogatory attitude toward the non-Christian religions of the local populations. Maybe you don't see the connection, but Japan did. Japan used the expansionism of the West in their propaganda program to justify their own expansionism in the Eastern sphe ...[text shortened]... asa's efforts to promote his religion face this kind of resistance. That's all I was saying.
1 edit
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoThe Japanese then proceeded to tie clusters of "native Asians" together by the neck with something similar to piano wire and throw them, hands tied behind their backs, in the sea to drown together. I think it's a bit Sports Forum-ish to argue that the Japanese army was doing anything "for" the Singaporeans with their gesture involving Sir Brooke Popham.
If I remember correctly, on capture of Singapore in the WWII, the Japanese army made Sir Brooke Popham, the ex-governor of Singapore and his other officers sweep the streets of Singapore. As a sort of tit-for-tat for all the insults the native Asians had suffered under the British rule till then.
Originally posted by FMFThe Japanese were cruel in the extreme in those years, as I still remember a picture of a Japanese soldier bayoneting two helpless Chinese prisoners, handcuffed behind their backs, in the Sino-Japanese war right in front of huge crowd of other soldiers, as a part of what was said to be bayonet practice !
The Japanese then proceeded to tie clusters of "native Asians" together by the neck with something similar to piano wire and throw them, hands tied behind their backs, in the sea to drown together. I think it's a bit Sports Forum-ish to argue that the Japanese army was doing anything "for" the Singaporeans with their gesture involving Sir Brooke Popham.
I remember, too, the Life magazine pictures of Lt. William Law Calley's platoon shooting down young girls and infants of My Lai.
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoYes, rvsakhadeo, so the lesson we learn - surely - from the hideous nature of militarized colonialism and industrial scale slaughter is not to coo pretentiously over Ministry of Propaganda type anecdotes about what the Japanese army made Sir Brooke Popham do, nor Americans cooing obliviously over their 200 years of 'just wars'.
The Japanese were cruel in the extreme in those years, as I still remember a picture of a Japanese soldier bayoneting two helpless Chinese prisoners, handcuffed behind their backs, in the Sino-Japanese war right in front of huge crowd of other soldiers, as a part of what was said to be bayonet practice !
I remember, too, the Life magazine pictures of Lt. William Law Calley's platoon shooting down young girls and infants of My Lai.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by sumydidReally? in what way do liberal progressives 'persecute' Christians and Jews...
Hmph. It's not a matter of the secular Progressives letting anyone do anything. As if...
Incidentally yes, I'll concede that they don't persecute pagans; however the point is, generally speaking they do persecute Christians and Jews.
Call it double standard, or hypocrisy. Either way you slice it, it stinks.
I am fascinated to know how you think you are being persecuted by liberals.
Originally posted by FMFI was happy when, as a youngster, I read in a book about Brooke-Popham sweeping the streets. I am still happy and will be happy about it, till I die. I was angry about the My Lai pictures when I saw them. I am still angry about them and will be angry about them till my death. You see the Asiatic's history memories are still fresh.
Yes, rvsakhadeo, so the lesson we learn - surely - from the hideous nature of militarized colonialism and industrial scale slaughter is not to coo pretentiously over Ministry of Propaganda type anecdotes about what the Japanese army made Sir Brooke Popham do, [b]nor Americans cooing obliviously over their 200 years of 'just wars'.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoSuit yourself. Japan's Asian solidarity "tit-for-tat" with Brooke-Popham? Good grief! Any suggestion that the Japanese were in any way genuinely concerned about the historical suffering and sensitivities of "native Asians" - or making people like you smile - in places like Singapore and Indonesia, where they may have worked as many as 2,000,000 people to death, strikes me as mere ugly partisanship. No offence.
I was happy when, as a youngster, I read in a book about Brooke-Popham sweeping the streets. I am still happy and will be happy about it, till I die. I was angry about the My Lai pictures when I saw them. I am still angry about them and will be angry about them till my death. You see the Asiatic's history memories are still fresh.
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoWhen I was young we played war games with fake weapons, always picking some of our gang to be Japanese soldiers, not Nazis, because, we were taught that the Japanese would never surrender, so we could have to-the-death fights (Herding surrendered Nazis around was no fun.) We carried that belief over to the Vietnamese, at least those fighting for the North. My age cohort went to Vietnam. I didn't, thanks to being hit by a car at age 9. The prevailing belief was that due to their religion, they had no respect for human life. Of course, the East could say that there was a "convert or die" message coming from the West. The interaction of the religions of the West and the East, used to justify political and military action, is a serious hurdle to reaching any kind of harmony. This has been my point.
I was happy when, as a youngster, I read in a book about Brooke-Popham sweeping the streets. I am still happy and will be happy about it, till I die. I was angry about the My Lai pictures when I saw them. I am still angry about them and will be angry about them till my death. You see the Asiatic's history memories are still fresh.