Often unconscious elements of a society offer subjective conclusions on theories that they deem are in need of conclusions if any.
During World War-1, Japan sought to tighten her relations with the Great Britain by forwarding the naval treaty. Britain and the rest of the world were aware of the Japanese attitude – an isolated island by all means, drew inspiration from china when needed, remained obnoxious at the other times. Japan’s language speaks testimony of the atavistic inspiration it managed to gain from one of the oldest civilizations in our world. Japan was faced with an insuperable challenge of outliving the western adaptation. Her isolation helped her unconsciously achieve the status of an eastern power and consequently let the whole world engender on her the impossibility of acquiring land in amounts with which she could present an even face to the tyrannical western powers. Russia was a melting pot of communism under Lenin, although the fruits of largest land power were femininely seductive, she chose to let the westerners deal with ideas they were familiar with, Communism was not her ‘cup of tea’. When countries like Russia seldom appeared in need of an intelligent theory to concert all the armed, rebellion forces and civilians to imbibe the nationalistic fervor and rise to the froth of war insignia, China on the other hand needed a utopian counselor to curtail the burgeoning impossibilities inclusive of elements with an absolute disregard to holistic theories like nationality and civilization. China’s diversity made a gargantuan task into something more inexplicable. All of china’s states had different grievances and treated them differently. In an attempt to avenge her pitiful state of inflation, numerous groups of peoples under different leaders equally able in exuding spite and vigor with exuberance owing to the differences in opinions killed each other. Many leaders tried to posture a common theme, common enemy in an attempt to form large armies that would defend the priceless antiquities of civilization. Some came close to accomplishing this feat, but the soldiers would spoil the sporting spirit – they ran away when they smelled ‘the front’ of war, all this can be unequivocally attributed to the weak structure of philosophy on which it was built. China was weak and all the nations knew it.
Japan sensed this opportunity in the midst of a portentous atmosphere, with the aid of Great Britain’s military aid, particularly the naval aid she sketched the invasion of eastern china. She was backstabbed, treatment also honored to Germany at the end of World War-1. Great Britain’s intellectuals were divided on the point. Pro-Japan saw this as an immediate necessity to improve her bases in the east, particularly Japan with a nebulous attitude, Pro-America, advised Britain to face the consequences of loosing a rich ally, a bigger one, one that could make the difference when it mattered.
Britain made a conscientious endeavor of sticking her neck out of the quagmire, which she unconsciously helped in building. A major proportion of her army was in India, nearly 60,000 military men in various armed professions inside and around India. Britain sensed the insidious causal effects of imperialism; India was more of a liability than an asset to British. Intellectuals in Britain appealed to the general public stressing more on the dichotomy between pacifism and interventionism.
George Orwell captures the mood coherently in his essays, while he was appointed a policeman in Burma, explaining the circumstances surrounding the event where he is facing an elephant with a shot gun in his hand, and all the villagers behind him pushing him hither and thither like a puppet between the beast and villagers, the unwillingness of a rational human being to kill an unarmed beast, and the certain humiliation he and the whole of British nation would be subjected to in the event of firing and not hitting the bulls eye, exasperated with himself for not being able to talk the excited villagers into turning their backs on the beast, who have come to witness the puppetry show, otherwise camouflaged as an act of gallantry for the outside world.
In the same period E.M Forster in his novel “A Passage to India”, drives home the point clear and clever. This period has seen a surge of intellectuals showing disregard to the “adjectives” like nationality, religion and institutions like marriage. Bertrand Russell was the chief among them, grand son of Britain’s prime minister, contrary to what the entrenched norms would require of him, he pursued pacifism, attained the status of a voracious writer. Russell, one of the great thinkers of the 2oth century professed ideas with overtones of free thinking. Evelyn Waugh, another writer like Orwell dealt with the utter fallacy of war. These two men shared a character that they both owe to their inclusions in the respective wars. Orwell in his book “Homage to Catalonia” delivers a strict narrative of Spanish civil war, where he clearly distinguishes the mood of the soldiers on the front to that of the nation’s press. He delivers a ride of roller coaster with him transmogrifying from a lion just released from his cage to a nomad with no point to continue in the war. Ironically for him, with realization came a near fatal death when he was shot by a fascist while he was on his morning walk which, he later lamented allegorically in “animal farm”.
Many in India would agree with the above intellectuals and possibly claim authority over seeking redressal for the Britain’s invasion. Winston Churchill in his book “second world war” refers to India as the most ‘docile nation’ on the planet. This judgment is drawn from the observational powers of the alien nation for more than a century. More importantly, this drives forward the question of shaking observations that we have made based on vapid platitudes. India is a country comparable in diversity to China and in the absence of the grip of a solid foreign power like the Great Britain; she would have dissolved into the labyrinthine stage of passionate cries of free-will, cries of emptiness, above all cries of togetherness.
India under the British enjoyed the touch and taste of power, free-will, intellect, education, administration, political structure and many more that outnumber the ill supported generalizations with regards to imperialism. The Railways, British employed in India are a manifestation of the speed with which technology flowed into the sub continent. The sanitary structure that British built in Delhi was the most superior in the whole world at the time it was built. British with its penchant for ‘laissez faire’ and free trade convinced a wealthy Indian, the Tatas into establishing industries in the country.
It’s not hard to imagine India transforming itself into a microcosm of china during the world wars in the absence of the British. This nation of docile people needs little convincing in assertions that were bred since childhood in the form of textbooks, that were undeniably the products of concerted appeals of political parties, which are not only interventionist by necessity but also foolishly prided by nature. Amartya sen in his book “The argumentative Indian” does anything but arguing for rational readers of his book. He presented facts in his book – BJP disconcerted by its inability to bring all the people of the nation into marching forward under one able theme ‘Hinduism’, which as a tool from its repertoire that proved its infallibility 50 years ago showed rational dissent owing to their dealing with educated people now. They changed the school syllabus to suit their Hindu propaganda, tinkered with subjects related to Indus valley civilization in these books to inculcate the religion into the students, when they are still young to know the truth for themselves.
Educated people tend to think freely uninhibited and in no time reach out to the grass roots with a moral condescension, dig the facts out, learn the absolutes that made the world the way we are looking at it in our time. Many facts thus learned present the educated person in new light; he learns the principles surrounding the making of ‘sky pixies’ and ‘fairy tales’ that people now refer to as ‘religion’. He delves deeper with an insatiable hunger for knowing the truths, with a penchant for the higher knowledge and learns the necessity of profound delusional attributes to altruism – ‘nationality’. Hunter gatherers never exposed themselves to the resounding themes like ‘altruism’. The transformation form hunter gatherers to farmers provided a need for ‘altruism’, but as the farming groups grew bigger new adjectives were needed, adjectives that were capable of imbibing a sea of meanings into it. These situations that gave form to all the above adjectives are causational to the transformation of hunter gatherers to farmers.
Biologists, zoologists, evolutionists, scientists, thinkers are making an endeavor into following the pattern of the causational features enlivened in the past. Richard Dawkins the famous evolutionary scientist, one of the most respected intellectuals of our time professes the normalcy in atheism and attributes the abnormal behavior of ‘living in delusional paradise’ to the transfer of ‘memes’, a cultural complimentary carried forward into the next generation outwardly just as the ‘genes’ an evolutionary agent carries the holistic life inwardly.
Many scientists have tried to delineate the differences in the nations in our time and understand the causal factors. Jared Diamond one such scientist gives a sufficient analysis in his book ‘Guns, Germs and Steel’ which is regarded with great respect in the high intellectual circles. Men as hunter gatherers migrated form Africa to Eurasia 60 thousand yrs ago, in 20 thousand yrs they spreaded out into the whole of Eurasia except for the remote corners, later migrated to Australia through the New Guinea and Indonesia islands 40 thousand yrs ago, finally into the Americas in the last 11 thousand yrs. Archeological findings agree with the above contentions.
The oldest Archeological findings suggest the presence of man first felt in Africa 1000 thousand yrs ago, why then did Africa with such a gargantuan head start end up invaded by peoples of Eurasia rather than the other way round ? Eurasia with its fertile crescent was the most fertile and gave way to the oldest civilizations known to us. Moreover Eurasia’s east-west axis was the longest of all the other continents, and the climatic changes along the latitudes are by nature constant and predictable, added to this Eurasia had the larger mass of land and became the breeding stage for a variety of mammals.
Africa on the other hand, with its relatively small east-west axis was further impeded with the presence of desert plains like Sahara. Americas faced the same situation of having the longer north-south axis. As a rule, the climatic changes along the longitudes are widely variant as compared to that of latitudes owing to the east-west revolution of earth. Sun shines equally bright along the latitude, but does so in different flavors along the longitudes, seasons follow the sun, thereby acting as a natural hindrance to the progressing of a civilization along north-south and making it relatively easier along east-west.
Eurasia enjoyed a surplus of mammals, while Americas didn’t have any bigger ones left after the last ice age decimated them completely. Mammals coupled with the plantation in Eurasia were the breeding grounds for a variety of germs. Neighboring civilizations in Eurasia were exposed to limited suspense with regards to germs compared to the civilizations in Americas, where Mexican crops were completely incapable of growth down south because of the wide differences in the climates, timings of seasons also varied across the north-south and eventually different germs ruled in the neighboring civilizations across north-south and any civilization attempting to make an invasion over the neighboring one in Americas were granted severe loss in lives of people due to the spread of new diseases that the locals were immune to, and the foreigners were susceptible to.
Eurasia’s invasion over countries of other continents resulted in the death of natives due to diseases more than the deaths due to guns. The system was not fully reciprocative, because the Eurasian people had the larger reserves of mammals and plants; consequently immunity to more germs, when presented themselves before natives of other continents, more natives died, number of deaths on Eurasian’s side was numerically negligible.
This head start gained by the Eurasian countries granted them an impetus to invade the whole of other worlds. Greeks in the Fertile Crescent ended up as progressive as we are today. Great mathematicians, thinkers and intellectuals did everything that was in their time phenomenal, they had libraries, arts flourished, many scientists had designs for some of the astounding machines we are aware of today. Later, the dubious and contriving attempt of emperors resulted in the complete decimation of the Greece civilization.
We are doing just as good today as they did 2000 yrs ago; we are left with limited findings from the Greece period as all the national libraries were burnt down by senseless emperors in a hopeless attempt to curtail the knowledge transfer into the next generations.
Judging by whatever is left from the Greece period, their knowledge would have attributed to an additional 2000 yrs of technological advancement today. In other words, greed, hatred, bigotry proved very expensive for us – 2000 yrs.
Are we not repeating the same mistakes? Our time will end too; next generations would begin the whole cyclic process from inventing a language first to making inventions later. This would take another 2000 yrs, by that time a bovine archeologist would find limited elements to speak testimony for our existence before them, and they would lament for wasting their 2000 yrs on our imbecility.
During World War-1, Japan sought to tighten her relations with the Great Britain by forwarding the naval treaty. Britain and the rest of the world were aware of the Japanese attitude – an isolated island by all means, drew inspiration from china when needed, remained obnoxious at the other times. Japan’s language speaks testimony of the atavistic inspiration it managed to gain from one of the oldest civilizations in our world. Japan was faced with an insuperable challenge of outliving the western adaptation. Her isolation helped her unconsciously achieve the status of an eastern power and consequently let the whole world engender on her the impossibility of acquiring land in amounts with which she could present an even face to the tyrannical western powers. Russia was a melting pot of communism under Lenin, although the fruits of largest land power were femininely seductive, she chose to let the westerners deal with ideas they were familiar with, Communism was not her ‘cup of tea’. When countries like Russia seldom appeared in need of an intelligent theory to concert all the armed, rebellion forces and civilians to imbibe the nationalistic fervor and rise to the froth of war insignia, China on the other hand needed a utopian counselor to curtail the burgeoning impossibilities inclusive of elements with an absolute disregard to holistic theories like nationality and civilization. China’s diversity made a gargantuan task into something more inexplicable. All of china’s states had different grievances and treated them differently. In an attempt to avenge her pitiful state of inflation, numerous groups of peoples under different leaders equally able in exuding spite and vigor with exuberance owing to the differences in opinions killed each other. Many leaders tried to posture a common theme, common enemy in an attempt to form large armies that would defend the priceless antiquities of civilization. Some came close to accomplishing this feat, but the soldiers would spoil the sporting spirit – they ran away when they smelled ‘the front’ of war, all this can be unequivocally attributed to the weak structure of philosophy on which it was built. China was weak and all the nations knew it.
Japan sensed this opportunity in the midst of a portentous atmosphere, with the aid of Great Britain’s military aid, particularly the naval aid she sketched the invasion of eastern china. She was backstabbed, treatment also honored to Germany at the end of World War-1. Great Britain’s intellectuals were divided on the point. Pro-Japan saw this as an immediate necessity to improve her bases in the east, particularly Japan with a nebulous attitude, Pro-America, advised Britain to face the consequences of loosing a rich ally, a bigger one, one that could make the difference when it mattered.
Britain made a conscientious endeavor of sticking her neck out of the quagmire, which she unconsciously helped in building. A major proportion of her army was in India, nearly 60,000 military men in various armed professions inside and around India. Britain sensed the insidious causal effects of imperialism; India was more of a liability than an asset to British. Intellectuals in Britain appealed to the general public stressing more on the dichotomy between pacifism and interventionism.
George Orwell captures the mood coherently in his essays, while he was appointed a policeman in Burma, explaining the circumstances surrounding the event where he is facing an elephant with a shot gun in his hand, and all the villagers behind him pushing him hither and thither like a puppet between the beast and villagers, the unwillingness of a rational human being to kill an unarmed beast, and the certain humiliation he and the whole of British nation would be subjected to in the event of firing and not hitting the bulls eye, exasperated with himself for not being able to talk the excited villagers into turning their backs on the beast, who have come to witness the puppetry show, otherwise camouflaged as an act of gallantry for the outside world.
In the same period E.M Forster in his novel “A Passage to India”, drives home the point clear and clever. This period has seen a surge of intellectuals showing disregard to the “adjectives” like nationality, religion and institutions like marriage. Bertrand Russell was the chief among them, grand son of Britain’s prime minister, contrary to what the entrenched norms would require of him, he pursued pacifism, attained the status of a voracious writer. Russell, one of the great thinkers of the 2oth century professed ideas with overtones of free thinking. Evelyn Waugh, another writer like Orwell dealt with the utter fallacy of war. These two men shared a character that they both owe to their inclusions in the respective wars. Orwell in his book “Homage to Catalonia” delivers a strict narrative of Spanish civil war, where he clearly distinguishes the mood of the soldiers on the front to that of the nation’s press. He delivers a ride of roller coaster with him transmogrifying from a lion just released from his cage to a nomad with no point to continue in the war. Ironically for him, with realization came a near fatal death when he was shot by a fascist while he was on his morning walk which, he later lamented allegorically in “animal farm”.
Many in India would agree with the above intellectuals and possibly claim authority over seeking redressal for the Britain’s invasion. Winston Churchill in his book “second world war” refers to India as the most ‘docile nation’ on the planet. This judgment is drawn from the observational powers of the alien nation for more than a century. More importantly, this drives forward the question of shaking observations that we have made based on vapid platitudes. India is a country comparable in diversity to China and in the absence of the grip of a solid foreign power like the Great Britain; she would have dissolved into the labyrinthine stage of passionate cries of free-will, cries of emptiness, above all cries of togetherness.
India under the British enjoyed the touch and taste of power, free-will, intellect, education, administration, political structure and many more that outnumber the ill supported generalizations with regards to imperialism. The Railways, British employed in India are a manifestation of the speed with which technology flowed into the sub continent. The sanitary structure that British built in Delhi was the most superior in the whole world at the time it was built. British with its penchant for ‘laissez faire’ and free trade convinced a wealthy Indian, the Tatas into establishing industries in the country.
It’s not hard to imagine India transforming itself into a microcosm of china during the world wars in the absence of the British. This nation of docile people needs little convincing in assertions that were bred since childhood in the form of textbooks, that were undeniably the products of concerted appeals of political parties, which are not only interventionist by necessity but also foolishly prided by nature. Amartya sen in his book “The argumentative Indian” does anything but arguing for rational readers of his book. He presented facts in his book – BJP disconcerted by its inability to bring all the people of the nation into marching forward under one able theme ‘Hinduism’, which as a tool from its repertoire that proved its infallibility 50 years ago showed rational dissent owing to their dealing with educated people now. They changed the school syllabus to suit their Hindu propaganda, tinkered with subjects related to Indus valley civilization in these books to inculcate the religion into the students, when they are still young to know the truth for themselves.
Educated people tend to think freely uninhibited and in no time reach out to the grass roots with a moral condescension, dig the facts out, learn the absolutes that made the world the way we are looking at it in our time. Many facts thus learned present the educated person in new light; he learns the principles surrounding the making of ‘sky pixies’ and ‘fairy tales’ that people now refer to as ‘religion’. He delves deeper with an insatiable hunger for knowing the truths, with a penchant for the higher knowledge and learns the necessity of profound delusional attributes to altruism – ‘nationality’. Hunter gatherers never exposed themselves to the resounding themes like ‘altruism’. The transformation form hunter gatherers to farmers provided a need for ‘altruism’, but as the farming groups grew bigger new adjectives were needed, adjectives that were capable of imbibing a sea of meanings into it. These situations that gave form to all the above adjectives are causational to the transformation of hunter gatherers to farmers.
Biologists, zoologists, evolutionists, scientists, thinkers are making an endeavor into following the pattern of the causational features enlivened in the past. Richard Dawkins the famous evolutionary scientist, one of the most respected intellectuals of our time professes the normalcy in atheism and attributes the abnormal behavior of ‘living in delusional paradise’ to the transfer of ‘memes’, a cultural complimentary carried forward into the next generation outwardly just as the ‘genes’ an evolutionary agent carries the holistic life inwardly.
Many scientists have tried to delineate the differences in the nations in our time and understand the causal factors. Jared Diamond one such scientist gives a sufficient analysis in his book ‘Guns, Germs and Steel’ which is regarded with great respect in the high intellectual circles. Men as hunter gatherers migrated form Africa to Eurasia 60 thousand yrs ago, in 20 thousand yrs they spreaded out into the whole of Eurasia except for the remote corners, later migrated to Australia through the New Guinea and Indonesia islands 40 thousand yrs ago, finally into the Americas in the last 11 thousand yrs. Archeological findings agree with the above contentions.
The oldest Archeological findings suggest the presence of man first felt in Africa 1000 thousand yrs ago, why then did Africa with such a gargantuan head start end up invaded by peoples of Eurasia rather than the other way round ? Eurasia with its fertile crescent was the most fertile and gave way to the oldest civilizations known to us. Moreover Eurasia’s east-west axis was the longest of all the other continents, and the climatic changes along the latitudes are by nature constant and predictable, added to this Eurasia had the larger mass of land and became the breeding stage for a variety of mammals.
Africa on the other hand, with its relatively small east-west axis was further impeded with the presence of desert plains like Sahara. Americas faced the same situation of having the longer north-south axis. As a rule, the climatic changes along the longitudes are widely variant as compared to that of latitudes owing to the east-west revolution of earth. Sun shines equally bright along the latitude, but does so in different flavors along the longitudes, seasons follow the sun, thereby acting as a natural hindrance to the progressing of a civilization along north-south and making it relatively easier along east-west.
Eurasia enjoyed a surplus of mammals, while Americas didn’t have any bigger ones left after the last ice age decimated them completely. Mammals coupled with the plantation in Eurasia were the breeding grounds for a variety of germs. Neighboring civilizations in Eurasia were exposed to limited suspense with regards to germs compared to the civilizations in Americas, where Mexican crops were completely incapable of growth down south because of the wide differences in the climates, timings of seasons also varied across the north-south and eventually different germs ruled in the neighboring civilizations across north-south and any civilization attempting to make an invasion over the neighboring one in Americas were granted severe loss in lives of people due to the spread of new diseases that the locals were immune to, and the foreigners were susceptible to.
Eurasia’s invasion over countries of other continents resulted in the death of natives due to diseases more than the deaths due to guns. The system was not fully reciprocative, because the Eurasian people had the larger reserves of mammals and plants; consequently immunity to more germs, when presented themselves before natives of other continents, more natives died, number of deaths on Eurasian’s side was numerically negligible.
This head start gained by the Eurasian countries granted them an impetus to invade the whole of other worlds. Greeks in the Fertile Crescent ended up as progressive as we are today. Great mathematicians, thinkers and intellectuals did everything that was in their time phenomenal, they had libraries, arts flourished, many scientists had designs for some of the astounding machines we are aware of today. Later, the dubious and contriving attempt of emperors resulted in the complete decimation of the Greece civilization.
We are doing just as good today as they did 2000 yrs ago; we are left with limited findings from the Greece period as all the national libraries were burnt down by senseless emperors in a hopeless attempt to curtail the knowledge transfer into the next generations.
Judging by whatever is left from the Greece period, their knowledge would have attributed to an additional 2000 yrs of technological advancement today. In other words, greed, hatred, bigotry proved very expensive for us – 2000 yrs.
Are we not repeating the same mistakes? Our time will end too; next generations would begin the whole cyclic process from inventing a language first to making inventions later. This would take another 2000 yrs, by that time a bovine archeologist would find limited elements to speak testimony for our existence before them, and they would lament for wasting their 2000 yrs on our imbecility.
Comments