No country has ever been
colonized completely against its will
March 24, 2014, 6:12 PM
وذكر فإن
الذكرى تنفع المؤمنين
No country has ever been colonized completely against its will.
Consider two countries: X, and Y. In X there two major tribes
There are tribes A and B — fighting for control of their country. Eventually, the A wins and disarms B, and show them no mercy, inflicting cruel punishment.
The sufferings of the people of B is such that they feel pushed to the point where it simply no longer make sense to them to care about their countrymen, who have stood by and
watched while they were subjected to the horrors inflected by the victorious A tribe.
Meanwhile, Y, a common enemy — a colonizing power, if you will — has been watching
and waiting for instability and weakness to befall country X, because those conditions mean its opportunity to do what it has long wished to do: destroy X, where the warring A
and B tribe live, and seize control of it and their resources.
Where tribes A and B to be united, they would find strength in unity: such strength that Y
could not hope to win against them. However, now that the B has lost to the A, and the A are taking full advantage of their victory over them, the B tribe is weak. The country as a whole no longer has the benefit of all they could offer, including in thedefense of the borders. Y sees his opportunity, and makes his move. He communicates covertly with the B, who feel they no longer have anything to lose, and gives them aid and support.
B and Y together then destroy country X, and Y takes control.
There is an Italian proverb, "Tra i due litiganti il terzo gode":
"Two dogs strive for a bone, and the third runs away with it."
Does this sound familiar?
colonized completely against its will
March 24, 2014, 6:12 PM
وذكر فإن
الذكرى تنفع المؤمنين
No country has ever been colonized completely against its will.
Consider two countries: X, and Y. In X there two major tribes
There are tribes A and B — fighting for control of their country. Eventually, the A wins and disarms B, and show them no mercy, inflicting cruel punishment.
The sufferings of the people of B is such that they feel pushed to the point where it simply no longer make sense to them to care about their countrymen, who have stood by and
watched while they were subjected to the horrors inflected by the victorious A tribe.
Meanwhile, Y, a common enemy — a colonizing power, if you will — has been watching
and waiting for instability and weakness to befall country X, because those conditions mean its opportunity to do what it has long wished to do: destroy X, where the warring A
and B tribe live, and seize control of it and their resources.
Where tribes A and B to be united, they would find strength in unity: such strength that Y
could not hope to win against them. However, now that the B has lost to the A, and the A are taking full advantage of their victory over them, the B tribe is weak. The country as a whole no longer has the benefit of all they could offer, including in thedefense of the borders. Y sees his opportunity, and makes his move. He communicates covertly with the B, who feel they no longer have anything to lose, and gives them aid and support.
B and Y together then destroy country X, and Y takes control.
There is an Italian proverb, "Tra i due litiganti il terzo gode":
"Two dogs strive for a bone, and the third runs away with it."
Does this sound familiar?
2 / 2
ولي وطنٌ آلَيتُ أنْ لا أبيعه
وحَببَ أوطانَ الرجالِ إليهم
إذا ذكروا أوطانَهم ذكّرَتْهمُ
وأن لا أري غيري له الدهرَ مالكا
مآربُ قضّاها الشبابُ هنالكا
عهودُ الصِّبا فيها فحنُّوا لذلكا
... إلي آخره
