quote="brihaspati"]First, past is not blanketly applied without analysis for appropriateness. Past is important to find patterns of situations/attitudes/behaviours that help us understand how certain ideologies, community leaderships will tend to utilize given situations - in the future. It is criminal to neglect the lessons of history, or claim that history was relevant once - but is not going to be important for future lessons and therefore never to be revisited.
You are right.
Are we the same as our ancestors and their belief, their economic situation and their cultural equation? If it was stagnant as you state, I will agree.
On the other hand no one is taking the opposite view that we should live back in the past with respect to everything without discrimination. That is the view of Jihadi Islam. That society should be taken back to 7th century deserts of Arabia because the ideology only can be maintained or justified in that histroical context.
I feel Jihadism was OK for them in the past. Not now!
We have to take the middle road, of neither totally rejecting history and we must keep on revisiting history to get a pattern of how past experiences can indicate future scenarios. Nor should we mimic Islamists or certain schools within Christian and Judaic religious thoughts, that wants to take society back to a particular period and place in history - as otherwise their ideology becomes meaningless in any other context.
I have explained earlier. Live the times and not live on the glories of your ancestors.
I have been fighting missionaries of both Islamist and Christian traditions from an early age - specifically in their subtle obstruction to members of their community or more so in the case of tribals they hope to convert, to go for modern skill-base education and higher education. Two specific reasons ultimately always emerged - too much higher education,e specially in the science and technology or medicine dept, somehow makes such students less docile to blind submission to theologians. Second, that a higher qualification would make them economically independent and not suitable for "missionary" work.
If there is deprivation, one will clutch the straw.
So I have reasons to be dead-set against specific religious group leaders and their theologians in all their activities. Every time I have tried to introduce elements of modernization through education/higher education/ economic self-reliance and joining the productivity/"capitalist" road - I have come up against obstacles put forward using such religious control.
Too intellectual for the illiterate to understand. That is the fallacy!
I would support any authoritarian regime that would withdraw rashtryia protection for such obstacles under the excuse of "diversity". I would support any authoritarian regime that makes it compulsory for all citizens, irrespective of any consideration of origins, to be subjected to a intensive educational process that is constantly upgrading itself to keep up with changing economy and technology. A weak, pandering form of "democracy" that perpetuates "status quo" to facilitate theologians as well as protectors of "ways of life" for "indigenous" populations - simply so that certain elite groups can use such constituencies for personal power and esteem - is not the tool for necessary social transitions.