Paradoxes like Gandhi's funeral

Jul 2013
758
Germany
Well, it's been a long time...

There are not many things that really capture my attention in history, but if there are some - they are very paradox.

I recently read Aldous Huxley's text on Gandhi's funeral and it really struck me how it went. Gandhi is known as the dove of peace in the world, he has neglected violence and examined in a neat fashion the strains caused by the colonial power.

Huxley says his funeral was accompanied by military wagons and all imaginable Indian forces. Clearly, it seems to be paradox that he was seen off like that, considering Gandhi's appeal to spiritual force.


What similar paradox events or biographic elements are known to you?

Shukriya.
 

Black Dog

Ad Honorem
Mar 2008
9,990
Damned England
In England's lake district, an area of natural beauty, there is a long path, littered with cafes and tourist shops and similar commercial efforts to take money from people. They have called it "The Wordsworth Way", after the poet William Wordsworth.

The irony is, Wordsworth went to the Lake District to escape to an underpopulated wilderness area, with few people and no aspects of modern life for his age.

He would have HATED the "Wordsworth way".

Another was Margaret Thatcher getting a state funeral. She HATED the state running anything. We should have put her funeral out to a private company, or had it sponsored by private businesses, like burger king (frying tonight) or JCB. The latter could have provided the excavators for her grave.

It's what she would have wanted ;)
 
Sep 2012
1,644
London, centre of my world
Another was Margaret Thatcher getting a state funeral. She HATED the state running anything. We should have put her funeral out to a private company, or had it sponsored by private businesses, like burger king (frying tonight) or JCB. The latter could have provided the excavators for her grave.

It's what she would have wanted ;)
You bad man :lol:

I nominate any war that was waged by people professing a religious faith that promotes peace.
Too many to mention; but I'll single out the First Crusade, ending as it did with the Crusaders approaching the Holy Sepulchre with their horses up to their fetlocks in blood.
 
Jan 2016
471
Macedonia
In England's lake district, an area of natural beauty, there is a long path, littered with cafes and tourist shops and similar commercial efforts to take money from people. They have called it "The Wordsworth Way", after the poet William Wordsworth.

The irony is, Wordsworth went to the Lake District to escape to an underpopulated wilderness area, with few people and no aspects of modern life for his age.

He would have HATED the "Wordsworth way".

Another was Margaret Thatcher getting a state funeral. She HATED the state running anything. We should have put her funeral out to a private company, or had it sponsored by private businesses, like burger king (frying tonight) or JCB. The latter could have provided the excavators for her grave.

It's what she would have wanted ;)
I doubt she would prefer any type of private funeral, she was a state figure after all.
 

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,866
USA
Another was Margaret Thatcher getting a state funeral. She HATED the state running anything. We should have put her funeral out to a private company, or had it sponsored by private businesses, like burger king (frying tonight) or JCB. The latter could have provided the excavators for her grave.

It's what she would have wanted ;)
She could have willed it to be done that way, which she didn't. So she could have been a hypocrite in some aspects.
 
Jan 2016
1,146
Victoria, Canada
I nominate any war that was waged by people professing a religious faith that promotes peace.
Too many to mention; but I'll single out the First Crusade, ending as it did with the Crusaders approaching the Holy Sepulchre with their horses up to their fetlocks in blood.
Wouldn't the Muslim expansions be a better choice? especially considering they were what caused the crusades in the first place.
 
Jan 2016
471
Macedonia
Wouldn't the Muslim expansions be a better choice? especially considering they were what caused the crusades in the first place.
which Muslim expansions? Arab or Seljuk? Because the first did indeed bring peace to the region.

Anyway, both Muslim conquests and Crusades were waged for the resources, religion was only the pretext.
 
Jan 2016
1,146
Victoria, Canada
which Muslim expansions? Arab or Seljuk? Because the first did indeed bring peace to the region.

Anyway, both Muslim conquests and Crusades were waged for the resources, religion was only the pretext.
The Arab conquests didn't bring peace, they were unprovoked acts of violence. They killed millions and subjugated more. they forced new religion and culture, let infrastructure fall into disrepair, and brought a more oppressive government.

The seljuk expansions were the official reason the crusades were called, but the Muslim expansions in general were the reason any nations heeded the call.

The first roman-islamic and only sassanid-islamic wars were opportunistic wars yes, but religion was a major factor. The only reason they could muster enough troops to take any of those places over was because the troops were fighting for their religion.
 
Jan 2016
471
Macedonia
The Arab conquests didn't bring peace, they were unprovoked acts of violence. They killed millions and subjugated more. they forced new religion and culture, let infrastructure fall into disrepair, and brought a more oppressive government.
For the Syrians and Egyptians no government was more oppresive than the Romans. Religious sectarian oppression combined with heavy taxation. No wonder these populations welcomed the Arabs.

"Millions killed" is a huge exaggeration (not to say anything worse). The Arab conquests were for the most part fast and bloodless. If an Arab conquest was full of blood, it was that of Persia. The conquest of the Roman provinces was bloodless for the most part.

For 400 years there was peace in the region, religiously and politically. The Seljuks altered this, but no acts of violence against Christian pilgrims are reported to have happened under the Umayyads or Abbasids.

The Crusades were principally for resources and political hegemony. Of the three dominant parties of the Old World during the Middle Ages (Catholic Christianity, Eastern Christianity, Islam) the Crusades were the attempt of the first party to subdue the other two.
 
Last edited:

JoanOfArc007

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,101
USA
The Arab conquests didn't bring peace, they were unprovoked acts of violence. They killed millions and subjugated more. they forced new religion and culture, let infrastructure fall into disrepair, and brought a more oppressive government.

The seljuk expansions were the official reason the crusades were called, but the Muslim expansions in general were the reason any nations heeded the call.

The first roman-islamic and only sassanid-islamic wars were opportunistic wars yes, but religion was a major factor. The only reason they could muster enough troops to take any of those places over was because the troops were fighting for their religion.
What wars are not violent?

The Crusaders and the Muslim forces of the middle ages shaped the world we live in today. Wars have been fought many a time through history, but out of it all the Muslims and Christians came out to today become half of the worlds population.