This is more of a rant rather than a post so read at your own warning.
— Sturgeon's Law (@Sturgeons_Law) September 20, 2018
I was hurt by the reference to Iran (our father Darius called himself a King of Kings but the King in Persia) but Browns should never squabble in front of outsiders, we did that mistake before and it cost us the Golden Centuries under perfidious Albion.
As an aside another interesting example of Cultural Appropriation:
I was on the board of Tamasha (the leading British Asian theatre company) for nearly a decade and I can tell you for a fact that coloureds have the hardest time finding work in British theater/film (especially with the fetish for period pieces). So to see Bharatnatyam performed by blondes is a bit grating; let’s just pray that they’re Kashmiri Pandits or something like that..
Back to the main topic I cannot make sense of Sturgeon’s Law’s ethnicity but I do think it has some salience on the debate. Unless Sturgeon’s Law is a Hindu by ancestry I don’t see how they have the right to insult the Hindu religion by claiming it didn’t exist, those of Coloniser stock should have humility when speaking about India (hopefully William Dalrymple is reading this piece).
FWIW I love white people and I’m a High Tory (strong Monarchist to boot) but what offends me is when Colonisers refuse to acknowledge the magnitude of their crimes in India. That’s when it’s important to call out injustices.
HM the Queen must return the Koh-i-Noor to India.
I made a some chaotic tweet as per below but my point is that it’s absurd to claim that Hinduism is such a young religion when it is older than any other including potentially Zoroastrianism.
Shiva was a Hindu deity then and before; I can understand why a proto-Shiva figure circa 1k BC would probably not be a fully "Hindu deity" since Hindu culture was amalgamating at that time (Vedic, Dravidian). My timeline could be wrong of course but my point isn't..
— Zac X (@XerxestheMagian) September 20, 2018
I’m completely confused about Hindu history (blame Pak Studies for overly glamorising Mecca, Medina & Mohammad Bin Qasim) but I imagined it must have crystallised in the immediate centuries following the Aryan migration.
I refuse to use the term Aryan Invasion Theory as that is a Coloniser tactic to justify their period of enslaving us – personally I’m agnostic as to whether the Aryans were indigenous or immigrants to India (I’m linking to this piece but I have no idea what it means except that India could have seeded the world).
I prefer the indigenous theory since it seems pretty obvious that India has had an outsized role in human history. However I would caution that India’s glory should not come at the expense of Iran or Islam since that would necessarily fray any potential allies in Urdu speakers who are sensitive about such heritages. Instead the joint focus should always be on rolling back the Coloniser’s influence and hopefully expunging their language from the Subcontinent in favour of perhaps a Sanskritised Urdu. I shared on the Brown Pundits Whatsapp Group some interesting tweets:
Two sides from a panel painted by Yuchi Yiseng/Viśa Īrasangä from the E. Iranic Saka kingdom of Khotan, in what is now Xinjiang, China, during the early Tang Dynasty (600 CE). On the left is the "Hindu" god Shiva. On the right is the Persian hero Rustam from the Shahnameh. pic.twitter.com/6qk2If4BL5
— Sturgeon's Law (@Sturgeons_Law) September 19, 2018
That's the standard theory. Theories are stories that get overturned from time to time with new information.
— Subhash Kak ☀️ (@subhash_kak) August 16, 2018