Monday, October 26, 2009

History 2

“History of period A, written in period B, and read in period C will "reveal" the conditions in periods B and C, as well as the characters of the writer relative to the reader” –

Prof N de S, On History I

I don’t exactly see how a history of period A written in period B and read in period C could possibly reveal conditions in period C unless what Prof N de S meant was that the reactions in period C to the history of period A written in period B will reveal the conditions in period C.

However what’s incontestable is that the history of period A written in period B and read in period C will indeed reveal the conditions of period B to the reader in period C even if the writer in period B was full of sinister agendas and couldn’t be trusted an inch about what he writes about period A.

This is so because the writer in period B has the readership of period B at the forefront of his mind when he writes this history of period A and if the readership of period B sees that a natural extrapolation of this history does not lead to period B, this fabled readership of period B would tend to turn to the front cover of the history book to see if the book was a parallel world fantasy and then if the front cover doesn’t identify the book as belonging to the parallel world subgenre in the fantasy genre, this reader of period B would turn to the back cover of the book to check if the writer has recently checked out of an institution for the psychiatrically challenged.

There I hope you are happy now. I have broken all kinds of writing standards and produced a sentence in which the start of the sentence has only a long distance relationship with the end of the sentence. Still I think it is fairly clear. The key word here is extrapolation. An extrapolation of a history of period A written in period B will naturally arrive at period B. It is like a National Law. This is what’s meant by relativity of knowledge.

This is why a history of period A written in period B ends up revealing to the reader of period C much more accurate info about period B than period A.

Now if a writer in period B writes a history of period A, the natural extrapolation of which does not lead to period B this suggests a level of psychological manipulation so mind blowing that the only thing left to do is to try dramatic reconstruction and role play, well known educational and analytical tools used in primary education and crime detection.

And I do have other evidence to back my theory. May I refer you to my er brilliant post above where I show that while staying within the knowledge system of Prof NdeS (an ethnic group called Tamil came into existence only during the Brit era, a Tamil consciousness had failed to emerge until recently, etc.) you can’t accuse Pulavar and other scholars of the 15th 16th centuries of racial bias because a racial consciousness and identity is a prerequisite for race bias. There are other ‘evidence’ to back my theory.

Among them

1) Pulavar was not an imported Vellala laborer

2) Pulavar’s twist on the Vijaya legend was not done with malicious intent

3) The folly of approaching historical sources with the same attitude that one shows a lying spouse/partner (If he lied to me about this how can I ever trust anything he says again?)

I will elaborate on these very soon. I beg of you to wait patiently.

No comments:

Post a Comment