28-May-17 World View -- More violence in Kashmir after another militant leader is killed

[John]

28-May-17 World View -- More violence in Kashmir after another militant leader is killed


India declares nationwide prohibition on sales of cattle for slaughter

** 28-May-17 World View -- More violence in Kashmir after another militant leader is killed
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e170528


Contents:
India declares nationwide prohibition on sales of cattle for slaughter
More violence in Kashmir after another militant leader is killed
India's army exults over the successful killing of Sabzar Ahmad Bhat


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, India, cow slaughter, Narendra Modi,
Kashmir, Sabzar Ahmad Bhat, Burhan Wani, Hizbul Mujahideen,
BS Raju, Ashok Patel

[Geoffrey Britain]

It seems to me that Generational Dynamics only partially explains humanity's conflicts and wars. There are no cyclic wars between the US & Canada, between England & France, Poland and Hungary, Australia & New Zealand.

India is not a territorially aggressive society. Muslim societies are governed by a theological imperative that commands territorial expansion. If on Kashmir's border resided Canada, rather than Pakistan... would India be in an adversarial relationship with neighboring Canadians? I think not. But if instead of India, Canada were Pakistan's neighbor, would the same never really ending conflict exist? I'd bet on it. Perhaps consideration might be given to the proposition that the rise of Indian nationalism that resulted in Modi's election is a reaction to Pakistan's cyclic aggression?

At least some of the time, Generational wars seem to be between societies that seek to dominate and societies that resist domination. I.E. predators seek prey and view a lack of aggression as an invitation to aggression.

Not to denigrate Generational Dynamic's validity but I think there's more going on here than simply generations 'forgetting' the horrors of war.

[Guest]

It seems to me that Generational Dynamics only partially explains humanity's conflicts and wars. There are no cyclic wars between the US & Canada, between England & France, Poland and Hungary, Australia & New Zealand.

India is not a territorially aggressive society. Muslim societies are governed by a theological imperative that commands territorial expansion. If on Kashmir's border resided Canada, rather than Pakistan... would India be in an adversarial relationship with neighboring Canadians? I think not. But if instead of India, Canada were Pakistan's neighbor, would the same never really ending conflict exist? I'd bet on it. Perhaps consideration might be given to the proposition that the rise of Indian nationalism that resulted in Modi's election is a reaction to Pakistan's cyclic aggression?

At least some of the time, Generational wars seem to be between societies that seek to dominate and societies that resist domination. I.E. predators seek prey and view a lack of aggression as an invitation to aggression.

Not to denigrate Generational Dynamic's validity but I think there's more going on here than simply generations 'forgetting' the horrors of war.

Islam bashing. What a surprise. Was Hitler Muslim? Was Stalin? Are the Japanese Muslim? Germany, Russia, and Japan have long histories of aggression,and they are not Muslim countries. Hindus attack Sikhs and Christians because they are not Hindus.

You're wrong. This is the same argument pouring out of the Alt-right.

The countries to look out for now are China, Russia, North Korea, and.....drum roll, please....America.

[Geoffrey Britain]

Addendum: It seems to me that a useful addition to Generational Dynamics is "r/K selection theory". An explanatory theory of the impact that ecological conditions have on the predominant political ideology that societies embrace. r/K selection theory arises out of the field of evolutionary ecology.

As example, Pakistan is a 'wolf' society (ecologically scarce resources) and India is a 'rabbit' society (abundant ecological resources). These terms describe the basic, polar-opposite, evolutionary strategems that societies develop in reaction to ecological abundance and scarcity. An resource abundant ecology encourages a high birth rate 'rabbit' strategem. A scarce resource ecology encourages a low birth rate 'wolf' stratagem. There are obvious repercussions when these two strategems interact.

[Geoffrey Britain]

Guest,

It is not Islam "bashing" to point out Muslim aggression. No, Hitler and Stalin were totalitarians just like Muhammad.

Germany became a nation in the 19th century, Germany like England and France was reluctantly dragged into WWI by treaty commitments. Hitler was an anomoly, arguably the result of the harsh conditions imposed on Germany after WWI. Russia was not expansionist until it fell under the sway of communism. A totalitarian system that like all totalitarian ideologies is expansionist. Putin's annexation of Crimea and attempted annexing of the Ukraine is defensive. The Japanese are a 'K' society, industralization combined with lack of oil resulted in territorial expansion to secure oil resources and to achieve the dominance K societies naturally gravitate toward. America's expansionism essentially ended once it had achieved continental domination. It is a singularly unique society being a melting pot of both r & K societies. All its wars since reaching 'sea to shining sea' have been at base defensive resistance to aggression.

[John]

In the world's oceans, high tide and low tide occur in the same way in
each region, no matter what species of fish live in each region.

[Geoffrey Britain]

John,

Then why do many peoples not succumb to generational conflicts? Neither Canadians, nor Australians have fallen prey to generational conflicts. Their involvement in world wars has been tangential rather than as the primary combatents. Many other nations have long avoided major internal and external conflicts over multiple generations. How does Generational Dynamics account for this reality?

[John]

> John, Then why do many peoples not succumb to generational
> conflicts? Neither Canadians, nor Australians have fallen prey to
> generational conflicts. Their involvement in world wars has been
> tangential rather than as the primary combatents. Many other
> nations have long avoided major internal and external conflicts
> over multiple generations. How does Generational Dynamics account
> for this reality?

Kansas was also only tangentially involved in the world wars. I guess
you would claim that Kansas hasn't "fallen prey" to generational
conflicts either.

[Geoffrey Britain]

How disappointing. Ask a serious question and get a defensive, frivolous response. That reveals an ego more interested in intellectual status, than in a deepening understanding of reality. Adieu and enjoy your little pond. Perhaps someday you'll be ready to outgrow it.

[John]

> How disappointing. Ask a serious question and get a defensive,
> frivolous response. That reveals an ego more interested in
> intellectual status, than in a deepening understanding of
> reality. Adieu and enjoy your little pond. Perhaps someday you'll
> be ready to outgrow it.

Well, good riddance, but it wasn't a frivolous response. It was the
whole point. Your claim that Australians and Canadians were only
tangentially involved in the world wars was completely moronic. Just
ask an Australian or Canadian if he agrees with you. The same
principle applies to Kansas. You're a complete idiot. As I said,
good riddance.