Ridiculous Mon Paradigm Quotation #2

If only Aung-thwin had devoted his career to publishing pre-colonial sources. Instead he consumed the texts of colonial intellectual intermediaries, and cannot escape from this. Take the ridiculous historical bias in the following:

"The Mon Paradigm as we have seen, was not created by any single individual. It began with King Dhammazedi attempting to legitimate his reign and programs, continued with U Kala for reasons not entirely clear..." (p. 283, Mists of Ramanna).

1.Indigenous sources becoming gradually more and more factual and less mythological is the normal pattern of development in historical texts, Mon, Burmese, Roman,... Why pretend that only Mon sources exhibit this characteristic?

2. Modifying historical texts to legimitate rule is the norm, not the exception, in both the Mon and Burmese historical traditions.

3. Every Burmese king as well as Mon king king tried his hardest "to legitimate his reign and programs," not only the Mon King Dhammazedi. Contemporary politics even does this.

4. U Kala took Mon history from Dhammazedi? Obvious implication from above. Ridiculous.

5. The formula that guides your analysis is ridiculous and obviously opaque to you. Conspiracy theory for Dhammazedi, but for U Kala, the Burmese historian, it's not clear why he committed the Mon Paradigm. The history of Dhammazedi and the Kalyani inscriptions need to be published in the form of:

a. The original documents, so that people can examine the evidence for themselves without you holding their hands and leading them down ridiculous pathes of reasoning.

b. A comparison with other historical traditions, e.g. Tai, Burmese, to show that how Dhammazedi utilized the Kalyani inscriptions to legitmate his power was the norm, not an exception. Get the basic facts straight before you start weaving conspiracy theories.