Jamdhar katari - a theory

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

While the wild eastern countries were thinking about the royal power and the royal hunts, highly cultured western countries began to hunt the eastern countries themselves.

Better not take that road, don't you agree ? .

[kai]

Better not take that road, don't you agree ? .

Ok, Fernando, you beat me to it...

[fernando]

So back to (katar/katari) business .

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by fernando

Better not take that road, don't you agree ? .

That is just history. Europeans misunderstanding of Eastern culture always led to mistakes. As in the case of wars and in the case of ... katars.

A rather plausible approach.

Thank you. But this is not an approach. This is a conclusion.

This certainly is not a West vs. East thing: Some of the most extensive political entities build upon imperialist approaches were decidedly "East" by whatever definition: Ottomans, Egypt, Persia, Mongols, China, Japan just to name a very few of the obvious contenders. Like European kingdoms, the kingdoms on the Indian subcontinent where also not exactly peaceful nor abstinent from colonial aspirations. Heck, show me any culture that has a proven track record of not preying upon neighboring ethnic groups and, if given a decent chance, possibly more distant peoples - and you'll have found a very rare and possibly short-lived exception to the rule...

Could you check the difference between Colonization and Colonialism?

[kai]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Could you check the difference between Colonization and Colonialism?

Aye, aye, Sir!

According to Merriam-Webster:

Colonization: an act or instance of colonizing
Colonizing: to establish a colony

Colonialism
1 : the quality or state of being colonial
2 : something characteristic of a colony
3a : control by one power over a dependent area or people
3b : a policy advocating or based on such control


Unless you colonize barren land not even utilzed by hunterers and gatherers, chances are very high that you'll subdue the local populace and also exploit it and its resources. (Limited and mutually agreed upon trade colonies may be an exception; however, if there are no checks and balances, chances are that conflict will arise, especially if the resources are considerable and/or the power unequally distributed.)

In reality, it often may only be a matter of perspective: The European settlers in northern America may well have thought they were colonizing the "new" world for good (and god); for the native nations it certainly was pure colonialism and bigotry. When the Vikings settled on Greenland during the limited spell of warm climate, it may be possible that the Inuit had already left; in most other cases, there hasn't been any relevant amount of "empty spots" to fill with gentle colonization during the last millennia...

Regards,
Kai