Not being too rich or too poor allows engineers to become identity conscious, and being engineers they have enough analytical mind (plus time) to think & plan ways to attack the 'enemies of their religion & culture'. Remember that for bright kids in immigrant families and in developing countries, career in engineering is an easier path for upward mobility.
Lawyers and doctors aren't too rich or too poor to become identity conscious, and these professions are more typical paths towards upward mobility for immigrants.
So many Antarctica expeditions were carried out by various countries but when you read English language dominated internet, you get the impression that only Anglo world had explorers. Shackleton tried and failed to reach south pole but there are more books and articles on his failed expedition than the guy who actually succeeded―Norwegian Amundsen.
The Trans-Antarctic Expedition, the loss of Endurance and the subsequent 800 mile journey in an open boat (in Antarctic waters!) to rescue his crew is the stuff of legend. A true hero and an inspiration.
Plenty of books have written in Norwegian. Why would you expect a culture to be celebrating other culture's victory when they are competing instead of their own? Would we end care about the south pole genre without Shackleton? There are so many things that Norwegians do that don't make headlines here. A story that transcends culture and interests the entire world is rare.
People can't verify all the info they come across and start trusting some sources as reliable. Many Indians used to trust facts/opinions from Western media as reliable and neutral but after the arrival of social media, lot of prejudices and fake news from the same sources are exposed so the trust deficit makes almost all the opinions questionable. There is also a section driven by ideology or biases due to past history.
>>While Hindus described this state as basically "everything", buddha and later many prominent buddhists described it as "nothingness" which appears as inconsistent with each other
Similar are thoughtless (awareness) and mindfulness. Both may appear contradictory on the first glance but are same thing. These concepts are not easy to describe so often they are expressed multiple ways.
> People waking up to the fact that the West and the East are equally bad
The West has resources and well-oiled propaganda machinery in place to control the dissent that's why they don't need to use violence as openly as not-so-rich countries. When their monopoly is threatened, they act equally ruthlessly.
> The West has resources and well-oiled propaganda machinery in place to control the dissent that's why they don't need to use violence as openly as not-so-rich countries.
Disregarding the fact that proving your angle is super hard.
So what? It sure beats beating and killing people.
> When their monopoly is threatened, they act equally ruthlessly.
Ok, but if they don't have to do that all the time, it <<still>> makes them better.
It's a tough pill to swallow, go check military casualties for wars. Get back to me after reading Wikipedia pages (so nothing super fancy) for 50-100, chosen randomly, and tell me how many have higher casualty rates for the Western party.
My back of the napkin analysis says that at most 10% of those wars have more Western casualties.
At the end of the day, that's what it boils down to. If you find ways to avoid violence and when you do have to become violent your stuff is better armorer, moves faster, shoots farther, flies higher, well, that's because someone ultimately, to some degree, maybe because they were forced by public consensus, respected citizens' lives.
It doesn't much matter how you get to that respect if you do get there more than your perceived rivals.
> The West has resources and well-oiled propaganda machinery in place to control the dissent
Can you elaborate on this? Resources I agree with - but that boils down to controlling dissent by just removing a source of it which is not the same as controlling dissent by cracking down
> controlling dissent by just removing a source of it which is not the same as controlling dissent by cracking down
You will have to elaborate on how these two phrasings mean different things i.e. what's the difference between "cracking down" on the sources of dissent and "removing" the sources of dissent, and why you support one and condemn the other (if you do.)
Cracking down - the government suppresses dissent by force.
Removing the source of dissent - this means solving the underlying issue that would otherwise cause the dissent. This would be government/society providing for the needs and desires of it’s population.
I think most would agree that the first is much worse than the second.
I don't think so, I don't think it is fear. I have watched BBC for a long time and they were uniformly critical/negative of everything in India. Other than one or two positive series, their news have been uniformly negative and so obviously biased that I've stopped watching them.
Personally, given the amount of negativity that they have thrown around, I'm glad Modi gave them the shock treatment - I think they have earned it and in spades.
And just in case this is seen as a pure BJP persective, Indira Gandhi had also done so long ago and that straightened them out for a while.
This is a terrible analogy. RT.com is a reliable purveyor of conspiracy theories and incendiary lies. The BBC's examination of Narendra Modi's well-documented behavior leading up to, during and after the Gujarat riots is well-supported by other media and academic sources.
