onthor wrote:For the farther we go from the 'when' a thing happened the harder it is to know exactly what happened because historical revisionism is ALWAYS taking place and I mean ALWAYS. Why? Because there is a POWER narrative that has to be maintained at all costs ... the key concepts is POWER - just like that the BKWSU finds itself mixed up in.
"History is written by the Victor"
For a while, at least but largely true, however, what might be called "Western liberal intellectuals" have become pretty good at deconstructing it and piecing together a better picture. I'd say it take a certain distance from the events until the fullest picture can be constructed ... and that this also applies to BKism too.
Although, some a somewhat Stalinist or Talibanist manner, the BKs have gone out of their way to destroy or re-write the past, significant enough evidence has been unconvered to expose a bigger picture. One that, somewhat arrogantly, they've still not answered and still attempt to bury.
BK history was been written or re-written by the "victors" or Imperialists within the Brahma Kumaris ... although "victors" is hardly an apt word for those who just happened to hold on for the longest (for the lack of other options in life), except in the case of Prakashmani outcasting Virendra Dev Dixit for asking too many question (who then went on to start the PBKs).
Onthor, are you Black or Black African? What was your experience of being Black or African within the BKWSU? Or, if not, how did you see Black people's experience within BKism during your time?
I would not portray the BKs as obviously racist. Certainly not "all BKs". I would have portray the early to middle period BKs as being Sindi Supremecists or SIndi Exceptionalist (as in, from "American exceptionalism"). Are Indians, in general, as racist, nationalist or classist as anyone else? For sure ... there's an old saying from Gandhi's time in South Africa that went something like, "The whites looked down on the blacks, the blacks looked down on the white, and the Indians looked down on both of them" ... but the practise of "soul conscious" or viewing others as soul beings not body would have to counter that.
I don't really know what the inner circle or elders attitudes towards lower castes and "lower races" were. That sort of thing was not spoken and a generally benign, patronising attitude adopted. Of course, in orthodox BKism, it was a simple "them" and "us" ... the whole world except for them were untouchable.
Of course, not all Blacks or Africans are "downtrodden" ... many of them never got up in the first place. I tend to see the maladoption of Christianity by Blacks as a manifestation of some kind of desire to be White, to take on the White man's robes physically and intellectually, the "White man", of course, using the church as a means of controlling and exploiting of the "lower orders" ... a role or game, particularly in the African churches, a caste of Black men are more than willing to step into and emulate.
But what then of Black or African taking on BKism? What is it they are doing? Picking up a white middle class "orientalist" path?
We write our past with the notion that we fell into BKism as an expression of "truth seeking", "god seeking", a desire to acquire some mystical power or ability etc ... but what were we really doing? Were we just odd balls, or sensitive souls, who did not fit in elsewhere, the BKs accepted us and we started to mould ourselves to them?
Of course, I suppose not all BKs were trapped by such "high minded seeking" ... they were just sad, broken, neurotic, peaceless and it was the "Peace of Mind" angle that caught them/us.
Amongst Caribbean Blacks, was there a greater acclimatisation with Indians because of the cultural mixes there?