Form: Quote Commentary

(from elsewhere)

Being conquered by accounting, rule of law, guns germs and steel is something that must be learned from.

I suppose you make the same statement about being conquered by the Indo-iranians, the Greeks, the mongols, and the muslims, right? In the past century, why did Indians import the thinking of the French and the Russians rather than the british and amerians?

The question is, what did your people do wrong, such that they failed to invent such things and prevent conquest by so many others?

Why have you failed for so much of history?

You see, when you criticize the british, who certainly were parasitic, we see a long series of Indian failures to create sovereignty, for thousands of years.

And when you criticize the British most, we think of Mao’s statement “If india had been a french colony, gandhi never would have been an old man.” The british could not abide by the immorality of their occupation, despite the profits. Who else has done that?

What is troublesome is not that the British occupied the indian continent with so few men. But that the indian continent has always be conquered by others with superior technology using so few men.

Why do Indians always fail?

When you answer this question you will looking the mirror and question yourself, not that of others.

All men are fools. Conquerors and Conquered alike.