Aohell

Central Asia: Graveyard of Empires

In the study of World History, Central Asia is an anomaly. There isn't a lot of civilization originating out of there, but a whole lot of civilizations get involved with it. It's not really entirely part of any other region because of all the influences on it. It's also one of the last things empires touch before they fizzle out into the shades of history.

The people of Afghanistan have a saying, "Nobody wins in Afghanistan, not even the Afghans." Consider:

* Medes: take it and then get overthrown by the Achaemenids

* Achaemenids: they start out with Central Asia, but it's only a matter of time for them before Al the Great cleans their clock.

* Alexander the Great: conquers Bactria, dies soon thereafter, empire collapses.

* Selucids: they can't hold the area and hand it over to the Mauryans, then get owned by the Romans.

* Mauryans: They lose Bactria to a Greek rebellion, then fall apart

* Bactria: Does not end well for them. Overrun by nomads. Not a good way to go, at all.

* Indo-Greek Empire: Conquers Bactria, then implodes due to civil war.

* Han China: gets out that way, then collapses.

* Parthia: Takes the region from the Scythians, then loses it in rebellion, then collapses as an empire

* Persia: rises in glory, conquers Central Asia, fights with the Byzantines and then is utterly destroyed by the rise of Islam

* Islamic Caliphate... gets out that way, then the Umayyads fall and their empire collapses.

* Tang Dynasty: undone after a disastrous Central Asian battle.

* Khwarezmids: They proudly conquer Central Asia in 1205. Mongols arrive in 1219, which is bad news for the Khwarezmids...

* Mongols: Like Alexander, they take Central Asia early on, then their empire fractures and fades.

* Timurids: They start off as a Central Asian empire. It does not end well for them, although one of their rulers has a great re-invention as the founder of the Moghul Empire in India... never gets Central Asia back, though...

* Safavids: They take Afghanistan, and then stir up a massive uprising there that results in the Afghans invading Persia and ruining the place... then the Persians rise up and destroy the empire of their Afghan rulers, conquer Afghanistan, then collapse as an empire utterly.

* Durranis: Local dynasty that manages to rule for about 70 years, then collapses due to infighting.

* British: They lose an entire army in Afghanistan in the 1840s and don't take over the place until the 1880s... and then their empire starts to unravel in a series of increasingly successful independence movements.

* Russia: Takes over Central Asia after running out of Siberia and Europe... completely destroyed in revolution soon afterward.

* Soviet Union: Yeah, like *they* had staying power. They didn't even last as long as the Durranis before things started to unravel for them in 1989... a collapse accelerated by their attempt to take Afghanistan.

* Taliban: Nope. They did not win in Afghanistan, and they're still ruining everyone's day over there.

* USA: oooh, this is the raw nerve... but the sad fact remains that when a nation's soldiers are being shot at by weapons soldiers traded to the resistance for drugs, it's not going to win that war.

I admit a bit of a cavalier approach in some of my assessments... stretching points here and there... but it's a nice survey of Central Asia, all the same.

Come Visit Beautiful Central Asia: Graveyard of Empires!

Racism: Alive and Well and Living in New Delhi

Nearly a sixth of India's population are untouchables. They're now called Scheduled Castes or Dalits, but those words mean the same thing. They're outcasts in society and those who attack or exploit them tend to not face prosecution for those crimes. When they do go to trial, they have a much higher chance of acquital because of the Indian legal system's bias against the Dalits.

India created fast-track courts to try and deal with the crimes against Dalits. Of the 50,000 such cases pending in Uttar Pradesh, four have been tried in the fast-track courts in the last five years. Apparently, "fast" has a different meaning in India.

In America, religious freedom does not guarantee religious practice. That's why the Mormons weren't allowed to have more than one wife, although they could believe it was their right. India needs a similar legal precedent to protect the untouchables. Of course, that would result in massive religious conflict and upheaval, but, hey... what's a little civil war among friends?

OK, so maybe that's not such a great idea. Dalits have often sought refuge in changing religion, but even among Sikhs, Christians, and Muslims, prior caste in the Hindu system follows the convert. It's cultural cruelty, with some of the cases approaching the brutality of forcing widows to die with their husbands on their funeral pyres.

When Is It Ever Otherwise?

Hyundai's boss embezzled over $100 million from his company and got a suspended sentence. Sure, he looks sullen and beat down in his courtroom photo, but the fact is that he got off much easier than some random street mugger. It's always like that. He's paid off big politicians, so he's got close ties with government and he's head of Korea's largest automaker, so it's "bad for Korea" if he actually goes to jail.

It's like there's a script for super-wealthy people. Step one: get a lot of money through crime, fraud, or inheritance. Very, very few of the super-wealthy actually do ethical things to get money like that. Step two: subvert the government through massive bribes. Call them what you will, but the donations made to political campaigns are, in the end, bribes. Laws can be passed to make them legitimate in a courtroom, but it's obvious those laws were made by the bribers and the bribed to allow them and only them to carry one with their corrupt game. Step three: if caught, get off easily. Even super-wealthy murderers get off easily compared to other murderers. They're less likely to face the death penalty and more likely to get acquitted or a hung jury.

Korea, Nigeria, Mexico, US: It's all the same. Capitalism and democracy work. They're great systems and allow for the greatest possible expression of both personal and economic freedoms. The huge problems begin when the wealthiest people in society choose to subvert the economy and government to their advantage.

My suggestion? Quit giving people respect because of their wealth. If you wouldn't respect someone who cheated at Monopoly to win, don't kiss up to those who cheated at life to win.