The contraditions are fair game, I suppose..

Post #13,618 by Ashton 10/16/01 3:29:08 PM Reply	The contraditions are fair game, I suppose.. But let's not make the same massive error as Pols everywhere here, cannot avoid making hourly: The Murican Peepul think ____ I have no idea what The Indian Peepul think, but they are smart enough not to use that phrase (I think - no telling what modernization has produced) Gandhi was.. Gandhi - his most powerful 'weapon of influence' (when all other suasion wasn't enough) was simply: to fast towards death. It worked at least twice - both (all) sides with whatever axes to grind, realized that he was an actually indispensable! person if Any side was to exercise influence in a semi-stable and new 'country'. A nuke wouldn't have been an option for G. IMhO. Are you chiding the present country / rulers - for not having a / acting like a -- Gandhi? If so - which Great One are We emulating, these days, locally.. ? (Personally I'd prefer to live amongst relatively sane and peaceful shanties than - in a Titanium office tower with PHBs stalking hallways and arbitrarily screwing with peoples lives hourly - for (just their) fun & profit. If those were the only two choices) We're fucking well the Biggest and the Baddest kid on the block, but 'wisdom' we're in short supply of - as is India sans Gandhi - and lots of other places run by slogans and spin, chasing more toys than the neighbor has. A.
Post #13,649 by kmself 10/16/01 5:44:46 PM Reply	Pacifism is a weapon of conscience It works. If the opponent has a conscience. `-- Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com] What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?`
Post #13,654 by marlowe 10/16/01 6:21:50 PM Reply	Even then it's risky. Witness the massacre at Amritsar. One biographer (Ashe?) strongly suggested that the Raj et al were in a very bad emotional state because of the World War. Gandhi pushed them too far and they snapped. Which of course, is no excuse. There can be no excuse. But it is an explanation. And definitely something to keep in mind. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #13,679 by kmself 10/16/01 9:06:48 PM Reply	Chatham Islands: Moriori v. Maoiri The Brits won the battle but lost the war: India gained freedom. Amritsar was seen as a pivotal event. A better example would be the [link\|http://www.culture.co.nz/moriori/moriori4.htm\|Chatham Islands], where 900 Maoiri (New Zealand natives) obliterated the native Moirori of some 2000 individuals. Though of common stock, the two cultures were enemies. And had entirely different cultural responses to conflict. The story is told in [link\|http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond/diamond_p1.html\|Jared Diamond]'s [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/15/reviews/970615.15shreevt.html\|Guns, Germs, and Steel]. [A] ship carrying 500 Maori armed with guns, clubs, and axes arrived [on November 19, 1835, followed by] a shipload of 400 more Maori. Groups of Maori began to walk through Moriori settlements, announcing that th eMoriori were now their slaves, and killing those who objected....[T]he Moriori had a tradition of resolving disputes peacefully...[and] decided in a council meeting not to fight back but to offer peace.... Before the Moriori could deliver that offer, the Maori attacked en masse...[T]hey killed hundreds, ... cooked and ate many of the bodies, and enslaved all the others, killing most...over the next few years.... [Explaining cultural differences, Diamond writes on the environmental impacts on culture.] Maori tropical crops could not grow in the Chatham's cold climate, and th ecolonists had no alternative except to revert to being hunter-gatherers.....[T]he Chathams are relatively small and remote islands, capable of supporting a total population of only about 2,000 hunter-gatherers. With no other accessible islands to colonize, the Moriori had to remain in the Chathams, and to learn how to get along with each other. They did so by renouncing war, and they reduced potential conflicts from overpopulation by castrating some male infants. The result was a small, unwarlike population.... In contrast, the....Maori who remained in New Zealand [grew to a population of] 100,000.... They developed locally dense populations chronically engated in ferocious wars with neighboring populations. In this case, according to Diamond, two cultures emerged, one warlike, one not. Conscience wasn't at play. The outcome was inevitable. `-- Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com] What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?`
Post #13,714 by dmarker2 10/17/01 12:54:15 AM Reply	Re: The outcome is ... That the All Blacks have a fearsome reputation as rugby players. The NZ army is approx 60% maori based & also has a fearsome reputation (the N Viets avoided them like the plague). NZ whites never actually defeated the Maori tribes in war (the Maoris usually won battles) so by mid 1800s resorted to signing treaties that the whites later ignored & over time took the country by stealth - in recent years much land has been handed back and billions in reparations paid over, because it was so blatant as to how the white take-over was carried out. The Maoris were comprable in a sense, to the Japanese but about 800 years behind in refining their life style. Both are tribal & warlike. Both treat women like sh**. Maori language is riddled with militaristic terminology due to the constant warfare that made up their lives. In fact most Maoris I knew remembered their own history in terms of tribal alliegences and great battles. The northern tribe called the Ngati Whatua (sp) are still hated by the Waikato tribes (middle of Nth Island) over a battle fought in the early 1800s where the 1st tribe led by famous chief Te Hongi, used muskets for the 1st time & slaughtered his unprepared tribal enemies. & so on & so on. The Moriori story is a very sad one. Cheers Doug

Welcome to IWETHEY!