Difference Between Nations

[Panther 57]

I came across this piece of write up. I think its worth sharing.

To reflect and... act.

The difference between the poor and rich nations is not the age of the Nation.
This can be demonstrated by countries like India and Egypt, which are more than
2000 years old and are still poor countries.
On the other hand, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which 150 years back were insignificant, today are developed and rich countries.
The difference between the poor and rich nation does not also depend on the available natural resources.
Japan has limited territory, 80% mountainous, unsuitable for agriculture or farming, but is the second in worlds economy. The country is like an immense floating factory, importing raw material from the whole world and exporting manufactured products.
Second example is Switzerland, it does not grow cocoa but produces the best chocolates in the world. In her small territory she rears animals and cultivates the land only for four month in a year, nevertheless manufactures the best milk products. A small country which is an image of security which has made it the strongest world bank.
Executives from rich countries who interact with their counterparts from poor countries show no significant intellectual differences.
The racial or colour factors also do not evince importance: migrants heavy in laziness in their country of origin are forcefully productive in rich European countries.
What then is the difference?
The difference is the attitude of the people, moulded for many years by education and culture.
When we analyse the conduct of the people from the rich and developed countries, it is observed that a majority abide by the following principles of life:
1. Ethics, as basic principles.
2. Integrity.
3. Responsibility.
4. The respect for Laws and Regulations.
5. The respect from majority of citizens by right.
6. The love for work.
7. The effort to save and invest.
8. The will to be productive.
9. Punctuality.
In the poor countries a small minority follow these basic principles in their daily life.
We are not poor because we lack natural resources or because nature was cruel towards us.
We are poor because we lack attitude. We lack the will to follow and teach these principles of working of rich and developed societies.
WE ARE IN THIS STATE BECAUSE
WE WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OVER
EVRYTHING AND EVERYONE.
WE ARE IN THIS STATE BECAUSE
WE SEE SOMETHING DONE WRONG
AND SAY - “LET IT BE”

WE SHOULD HAVE A SPIRITED MEMORY
AND ATTITUDE…
ONLY THEN WILL WE BE ABLE TO CHANGE OUR PRESENT STATE.
If you do not forward this e-mail nothing is going to happen to you. Your prized animal is not going to die, you wont be sacked from your job, you wont be having bad luck for seven years, nor are you going to get sick.
But, if you love your
COUNTRY
Try and circulate this message so that as many people can reflect on this and CHANGE.
Think about it...

 

[livingdead]

All these qualities in people and society of rich countries came after they became affluent

 

[EasyNow]

Excellent write up and so bitterly true - I only wish our Muslim countries could see the obvious truth that rote madrassah reading is not enough.


"These qualities in people and society of rich countries came after they became affluent"

Not true - Malaysia is a prime example of a country that used education, hard work and honesty to become one of the largest economies in Asia within 25 years.

Similar progress can also be seen in parts of India, where literacy rates and work ethics are strong...

 

[Solomon2]

All these qualities in people and society of rich countries came after they became affluent

Just about every rich society started out as a poor one. As one example, consider the Swiss. Nobody says the Swiss aren't rich today, yet the Swiss valued most of these listed principles since the days their dirt-poor militia of pikemen won independence from horse-mounted feudal lords.

I see your claim as a form of excuse: "I'm not rich yet, so I have the right to commit whatever crimes I want to become rich."

Two thumbs down.

 

[Ayush]

india is 2000 years old.

 

[livingdead]

Just about every rich society started out as a poor one. As one example, consider the Swiss. Nobody says the Swiss aren't rich today, yet the Swiss valued most of these listed principles since the days their dirt-poor militia of pikemen won independence from horse-mounted feudal lords.

I see your claim as a form of excuse: "I'm not rich yet, so I have the right to commit whatever crimes I want to become rich."

Two thumbs down.

And I see your attempt to look down upon natives of few countries as a form of racism. Even in rich western countries, there are areas of deprivation where you will see lot of opportunistic crime, lack of trust in community or other people etc. Many folks here explain it away just by saying 'oh they are blacks or oh they are from xyz what do you expect'?

 

[Solomon2]

And I see your attempt to look down upon natives of few countries as a form of racism.

I suggest you get over it. If you believe all societies are equally good or bad, why not trade places with a convict in your local prison?

 

[BATMAN]

IMO, geography plays the most important role and second is brain washing.
In all developed and semi developed state, the child is brain washed to take ownership of state, in Pakistan political parties teach children and youth to break state infrastructure.
What PTI did in its last long march to get CJ re-instated was a worst example and hint at the objectives of the bunch, that rules it.
Pakistan is kind of over free, in developed states you can't bad mouth your security (don't try it) and in Pakistan, it is promoted by foreign funded media, supported by politicians and sanctioned by judiciary.

 

[Alpha1]

WE ARE IN THIS STATE BECAUSE WE SEE SOMETHING DONE WRONG AND SAY - “LET IT BE”

I think this is very true in Pakistan's case

 

[livingdead]

I suggest you get over it. If you believe all societies are equally good or bad, why not trade places with a convict in your local prison?

I never suggested all societies are equally good or bad, and even if I did, why would I trade places with local convict. You make no sense.

 

[Solomon2]

I never suggested all societies are equally good or bad, and even if I did, why would I trade places with local convict. You make no sense.

You accused me of "racism". I say that "racism" is only a cover. Moral standards are not universal, even between countries that are poor. Consider Pakistan and South Korea. In the early 1960s South Korea was poorer than Pakistan. It even sent its agricultural experts to Pakistan to learn how to improve things; my Encyclopedia Britannica has the pictures. Yet by 1980 South Korea had pulled way ahead. Different cultural values and political adjustments made the difference: culture before advancement.

(Possibly we are using the same term but with different meanings. A hundred years ago the British would say, "Race is everything." They pretty much meant culture, as different races then were considered to have cultures separate from one another. Hence the care the Brits took to draft soldiers only from Indian "races" with war-friendly cultures. )

 

[Panther 57]

india is 2000 years old.

age does not matter sanity and maturity does. Unfortunately both are absent in both.