Review Detail of Unit29 in Reborn In 17th century India with Black Technology

However, I am curious as to how the author approached the genetic and physiological differences between the people of India in that time period and today. Especially given that what we see of the people today is the result of a heavy English and MiddleEastern influence on their descendants, instead of having the physical aspects of their ancient kin, who had more of the features of those from Tibet. Most authors ignore this issue, so it would be interesting to see how this author either dealt with it or ignored it. However, suddenly thinking about how Marco Polo had started the genetic drift in India in 1292, forever changing the appearance of the local people with his offspring he left behind, I guess it wouldn't really matter by the time this novel took place. Except between the various fixed social classes, with the lowest class still looking like the ancestors...

Also... ...what most people from India think of as okay WILL get you arrested in most other countries....

you gotta have your facts checked, bruh.. don't know what gave you the impression that Bharat's populace is a closed community and its culture is totally against what's normal for the rest of the world. So much so that you went as far as to generalize the opinions and impressions of 9 billion people in the world.Don't put your words as if they are facts. At least people in Bharat don't confuse people's genders. or are not so afraid to utter a single sentence without the fear of offending anyone.This particular novel is based on the ancient culture in indian subcontinent. So they might appear strange to someone who is not an Indian. It's the same for indians when they read about the massacres the christians and muslims did in the name of religion.

Those were facts. It is the reason the genre is not favored by major publishers. Webnovel is not a major publisher, but consider a minor one, and publishing with them, not translated imports, is considered a type of self-publishing. As for the follow-up posts, that had to do with actual historical events. Saying otherwise, is ignoring what is. It also ignores India being an extreme class based society, resulting in a genetic ethnic divide between them - so much so that a person from each class look like they are from completely different nations. Bollywood and the genre focused on accurate India culture is "a closed group". A closed group meaning only people from that culture can understand the unspoken aspects behind what is written, without it being written. Others might spend decades in said culture and never realize that what they think a conversation means, doesn't mean that at all This is a fact. Not an opinion. And the majority of other cultures do not share the same values. This clash of understanding is what causes culture shock, by definition. One may think they understand something, and be completely wrong. And yes, many of those values are considered against the laws of other countries. Again, a fact. My statement wasn't in need of a fact check. It was what it was: a warning for English readers that they may not be able to understand a story " accurately" depicting the India culture. This will cause irrational thoughts or feeling (culture shock) in average English readers. Again, it is why the genre is avoided by English publishers... This was only informative.

Whoa! confused about genders?! um... You do realize the Holy Ladies/Persons (Hijra) in India - an ENTIRE CLASS OF PEOPLE - are almost all men dressed as women, right? Mostly, eunuchs, but still males. So what were you referring to? And if you are from India, do you not even know this central aspect of the culture?!

Then about your mention of religious massacres...you should learn about Battle of Kurukshetra, fought between the Kauravas and the Pandavas, recorded in the Mahabharata, as an example. Stories such as these do not come from nowhere without some historical basis.

Also, just because you seem oblivious of history: The harems of most nobles/aristocrats in ancient India - those that had harems - were often FILLED with Hijra. so explain what this would mean, hmm?

Then again, I know of at least one ancient war in ancient India involving a war princess and two princes. Ironically, the princess was to wed one of the princes. the war it turned out was because she found out the two princes were actually lovers. And this is an actual historical event, not mythology. it makes me doubt your grasp of India History. You can probably look this up. It was part of a history course in college, so should be easy to find. But like a lot of "hidden history", nations often try to hide these kinds of things.

True, but I was merely addressing your statement, not generalizing anything. However, there used to be far more religions in that area than just the one (whose deities documented history suggests may be based on a few Noble groups in antiquity - not saying it is). Religious Wars wiped the others out. Then came the regional wars, colonization, and so on for distractions. *shrug* As for the gender confusion thing, pretty much self explanatory - You said none were an issue, but India as a whole has one of the largest and oldest gay groups in the world (hijra), so... They aren't outliers, as the religion discusses them, and they take up a central aspect in history, religion, and culture. *shrug* As for harems, not the point I was making as I was pointing out the huge gay community in that culture that you essentially said didn't exist and how old it is. It was (and still is from last i knew) even supposed to be a blessing for a man to be with a hijra, whereas gay men were often stoned to death. *shrug* I merely pointed out that those that did have harems (often the ruling class) had a lot of hijra as "wives". *shrug* This basically says the guy with hijra as wives...was gay. Twist it how one will, but XY + XY always equally a gay dude...

Just to show I am not being biased, but based every issue on known facts, here's some facts about Christianity: > Everything in the bible is stolen directly from older religions, often word for word. >The guy pictured on the cross is NOT Jesus, but one of the English Kings from the time when England broke away from the Vatican. >Jesus wasn't his actual name; his family name was struck from the Hebrew Records when he was banished/exiled/excommunicated/etc. from the Jewish religion for preaching to none Hebrews when he wasn't even a "teacher"; bone baptized himself Jesus even as he preached in ancient Zeus Temples; They say Jesus means something else in Hebrew, but the local language of Greek breaks it down to something like Je Zeus - "Father God". >The Muslim religion, also, is literally a branch of Christianity mixed with the Arabic Groups local beliefs from that time peroid. *shrug* history is often not how people wish it to be...

"Males provide security, and Females provide a home..." THAT is part of what I was talking about. It is an old mindset that contains a HUGE amount of information that simply goes against the ethics of many, many modern countries. After all, it's also part of the "a woman should wed after her first moonblood" and "a man should wed when he owns a home". Essentially, when a man is almost 50 and the woman isn't even age 10. THIS mindset gets people executed. But that is only one example that can lead to cultivate shock for English readers. again, but an example.

Males provides security and women provide a home... It's also from the time period when a woman, a slave, and a cow had a set value: a slave was worth more than a woman, because you could sell the slave; a cow was worth more than a woman and a slave, because they could help provide sustenance (generally milk and farm work). Women were used for trade and business between families - but otherwise had no value, as they were merely property. It's an old mindset and full of flaws, especially since that mindset still looks down on educating women in order to keep them at home...

Cope Mleccha

True. But culture shock is an problem for English readers and publishers. *shrug* Merely explained the issues, then pointed out the severe problems with his remarks and why they were incorrect (the guy actually thought there were no gays in India - because historically gays are stoned to death - , for instance, when they have the oldest & biggest group in the world (Hijra), let alone him being ignorant of the six natural sexes a human can be born as). (Mleccha, huh. you know that word is from ancient Sanskrit/middle east/east africa and not India? neat fact.)