Many Hindus,as a friend noted,have a tendency to confuse the sthūla with the sūkṣma even in matters of directions of narrative weaving and geopolitics when it comes to narratives of our history,and the core reasons behind them. A particular example is the tendency to freak out on any suggestion that Aryans migrated to India(never mind that the seeing of the mantras of the śruti occurred all within the Indian subcontinent,which no one can deny). Of course,the (understandable) reason for the uneasiness with this is that it is used as a stick to beat Hindus with,calling them murderous Nazis,invaders,racial bigots(or some form of that) from the very beginning of their existence(or theses that extend in that direction). Most of them do not notice that even if OIT was proved beyond any doubt,the direction of the narratives purveyed by mlecchas and those who imbibe their ideologies would not change one bit at all. They will still continue to either blame brahmins or the entire society. Two examples in case would be DD Kosambi,who(along,or despite,or because of his belief in the fact that Indo-Iranians came from outside),noted about the genesis of brahmins
It seems that Kosambi was a little uncertain about the origin of the brahmanas, but he firmly and consistently held that they originally belonged to non-Aryan cultures and were very probably drawn from the Indus valley priests.
None of this prevented him from calling the intellectual production of āstika brahmins and everyone else like that of a mistletoe,which was beautiful but parasitic.
Or Hegel,who held an Out of India theory,but whose descriptions of Hindu philosophy are a manual on how to misinterpret and misunderstand Indian philosophy.
What needs to be needed is a properly oriented narrative,regardless of whether it is established that the descendants of Indo-Iranians/Indo-Aryans populated India or the Indian subcontinent was the Urheimat of the Indo-Europeans.
The question on how to interact with Westerners or even those who are deeply influenced by post-enlightenment,Christianized ideals is an important one to deal with. How should they be accepted in sampradAyas/institutions belonging to sampradAyas?
From my brief survey of some institutions,the institutions that have heavily accepted westerners have had massive degradations that have negatively affected the sampradAyas overall. Like ISKCON and the insiduous Abrahamic strains(like suggesting that jIvas fall from vaikunTha,despite baladeva’s bhASya on the last sutra of the brahma-sutras,and too many other things that can’t be spoken about here now and the other splinter groups. Or Yogananda distorting the Kriya Yoga paramparA.
From these examples(one may also refer to the mass influx of Jatts within Sikhi or briefly the post Banda Bahadur period to note that mass influx of people who haven’t had a perparatory period isn’t really a helpful thing). On the other hand,we also have to contend that we really can’t stay shut up in cocoons in the West all the time. Still,we have to deal with its secularizing tendencies while we are there. We’re losing both our men to its secularism and our women to both secularism and marriage to other traditions,which very frequently result in a much reduced ability to pass down our traditions to our children.
This is a problem,which doesn’t seem to have any easy solution,frankly. The most successful and orthodox orgs in the West seem to have been those related with the Saiva Siddhanta Church(not that I am recommending or pushing for them,anyway). A few disciples of Swami Dayananda maybe also? Maybe one or two students of Lakshman joo? We don’t even have the fire of Sridhar Ketkar who married a Jewish wife,bringing her into the Hindu fold.
Rupa Goswami’s advice : saGga-tyAgo vidUreNa bhagavad-vimukhaira janaiH/ziSyAdy ananuvandhitvaM mahArambhAdy anudyamauH (One should keep a distance from those who are averse to the Lord, avoid accepting too many disciples(emphasis mine) and not be overly enthusiastic about initiating great projects) seems to ring truer than ever.