--- On Thu, 14/5/09, ss <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: ss <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [silk] Imperialistic countries
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Thursday, 14 May, 2009, 10:18 AM
> On Monday 11 May 2009 6:08:34 pm
> Bharat Shetty wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I've not read History regarding the transformations of
> countries very
> > much. But there is doubt that lingers in my head
> during recent
> > discussions I've had. Is it true that the internal
> conflicts
> > transcending over various factors like religions,
> caste coupled with
> > bad governance, mismanagement didn't help India to
> develop after
> > Independence ?
> >
> > Why are European countries like Germany, France, UK
> are developed well
> > ? Because they were imperialistic or because of good
> governance after
> > hitler rule in Germany and imperalistic rules in other
> places ? What
> > is causing Bulgaria to develop well ? Poland which was
> under communist
> > rule is developed country ? If these are developing
> rapidly why is it
> > so ? Because of lesser conflicts compared to India ?
>
>
> Let me give you a wacko reason.
>
> These countries were initially ruled by the Church which
> punished offenders
> severely and taught people to live by the rule book.
>
> The same people overthrew the Church and wrote rule books
> for themselves,
> which they continue to follow like they used to when the
> Church imposed its
> rule by force.
>
> In India a man threw some seed by the riverbank and grain
> and flowers grew out
> of them. He ate some grain, which was mixed with some pot
> and devloped a
> liberatian philosophy in which government could always be
> questioned.
>
> Hence we have India.
>
> The reason people do not stand in single file queues in
> India is because some
> moron idiotically defined "queue" as a single file line
> with a strict order
> of who comes forst and who came later. This is unantural.
> Watch a herd of
> cows at a gate and you will se that they form a pyramidal
> queue in whcih
> hierarchy is mainatined approximately, but not in a rigid,
> dictatorial,
> Swedish style. Indians, in true "natural" style herd up
> like cows in the
> true, natural definition of "queue"
>
>
> shiv
There was nothing wacko about this post except its first line.
Two points.
The way he has put it, people will actually read it and laugh about it, and
therefore, it may be hoped, remember it. In different phraseology, it might be
said that most countries cited by Bharat were Westphalian democracies where one
religious order ruled, and smacked down those who didn't belong. The others
went wherever they found a welcome. That's why you find some Admirals of Nelson
with French names, battling the French, and famous French Marshals who were
obviously Scots, or eminent Frenchmen with German surnames.
Those are not countries which have a plethora of identities to contend with.
Those are also not countries where the accepted Established ideology, in this
case, the religious theology adopted by the ruler, could be flouted lightly,
likewise, the rules set under the uniform dispensation also could not be
flouted lightly. So you called it a queue, and lined up in an I, just because
the state said that a Q was an I. The contrary of what the two of them together
are.
Second point: what Shiv fails to point out, exercising his old world tact
towards guests, hospitality and charm - you have to remember that when we refer
to old world in his case, we are talking millennia, not years - is that Indian
cows and Indians recognise exactly what a Q looks like, and do queue up, in
that literal shape. We, unlike vodka-besotted Scandinavians, can sort out our
Ps from our Qs, and our Is from both of them. It is important to see these
things straight.
Given Shiv's chosen vocation, I am very, very thankful that he can indeed see
straight. This is a blessing and a benediction.
Now surf faster and smarter ! Check out the new Firefox 3 - Yahoo!
Edition http://downloads.yahoo.com/in/firefox/?fr=om_email_firefox
