The Empress strikes back! - Page 3

Originally posted by: _Payalj_

@Abareil

Firstly no offense taken. We are all here to discuss only.

Thank you payal😊

Next thing I think you are confusing the fictional Aryans and Dravidians shown in the show with real Aryans and Dravidians, hence the mythological references. This show doesn't touch the reality by a mile and has to be seen with the perspective that it is a totally fictional story of fictional civilisations. Only then biases will not seep in as I can easily see have seeped in your post above.

Second, about the examples you gave-

1. The rodent and the snake and the nomad.- Wrong from my perspective. Right from their as they need to survive. That's the beauty of life. There can never be one correct way. It all depends upon where you are standing.

I am not saying Dravidians in the show that is, should not have defended themselves. It was their right to try to survive.

I am saying that Aryans were not wrong also. They were not villans, they were humans who needed a home, food, water and security for their wives and children who were dying in the desert.

I never considered Aryans as villains. There are many kings and queens in aryavrath whom I still admire .

As u said it is important to think in others perspectives too but it is also true that we can only imagine standing in their shoes not actually can do it or feel it.

But still as I am going with my point y Aryans didn't build their home??? Y to take others??? I can understand they need home , food and safety. But they would have build their own home than taking others

Also, since you don't believe that survival is the first duty of humans and it is animal behaviour, next time avoid eating. Plants scream with pain when we kill them, it's just that we can't hear. Chickens and goats scream w ith pain right in front of us.

When did I tell survival is not a priority😲 but I am telling it differs in humans and animals. When Aryans claims themselves to be a more civilized clan , then y do this???

many insects, birds and other animals lose their homes when we make our houses. So we should stop that also, right?

2. Coming to The great USA. If US has been devastated by a nuke attack or some other calamaty, my answer would be yes. If it's pure greed, I would condemn them.

U mean if America has been devastated by these destructions and claim their rights on India u'll accept😲. I don't think I can , I can give them a place in my homeland but not my homeland. It makes difference ,isn't it??

As I said earlier also, in life there is nothing known as right or wrong. It solely depends upon where you are standing. Circumstances are the king and there are no thumb rules.

👍🏼

This is my POV. Please don't take offense.

Not at all payal, instead I am very glad on seeing ur reply😃

Word Count: 1

Originally posted by: _Payalj_

@Abariel To build a home in those times, one needed fertile land near the river. This is what I guess the Aryans wanted. Since that land was occupied by Dravidians, they had no option but to uproot them.

The two civilisations were so different that it was simply impossible for them the coexist. (As per the show. I am not going into reality here). If there had been a semblance of similarity the question of co existing could have been considered.

Did India not accept paarsis when they fled from Alexander's atrocities? Are they not an integral part of India today? But then there wasn't such a severe cultural gap. Can the people of USA and Syria live happily together in the sameplace today?

It is not possible for two cultures with 180 degrees apart thought process to mix and mingle, at least not in a few decades.

You can mix milk and water but not oil and water.

Regarding second point there is no connection of being civilised with survival. I am very civilised today but tomorrow if there are riots and nothing to eat with survival at risk, I can foresee myself picking up the nearest weapon to save myself and my family.

Don't think about being civilised in a peaceful current modern society. Think about survival in a society where there was no life security and the only way to be safe was to live in a fertile land surrounded by rivers. Definition of civilised also changes as per circumstances. We are not discussing 21st century. We are discussing 3000 BC.

Coming to the third point. Why would I be happy or complacent with my home being taken over. Obviously I would fight till my last breath. But that doesn't mean that people who are talking away my home for their survival are wrong.

Two people can be at exactly opposite ends and still be right from their perspective. The lion is absolutely right in hunting the deer and the deer is absolutely right in trying to save itself.