you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

yeah, tons of dark skinned prominent civilizations, like libyans, indians, aztec and so on. I could consider the argument about the center and south africans beeing particularly incapable of developing any meaningful civilization, but at this point we should take also in account that the most northern europeans happily lived in primitive tribalistic civilizations until Charlemagne showed up slaughtering saxons until they were enough christianized.

On a personal note, i think that you are a strange kind of white supremacist from the '50, but that doesn't really makes sense right now. Whites (anglos) DO have the global supremacy, it's just degenerate and anti-ethnic. Common knowledge today is that you can't really compare white, blacks, yellows and any other funny color-race around, so anyone should be able to have his ethnic nation-state and be happy by himself.

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I mean with empires you have to wonder how great it is to be controlled by a huge state and whether those who tried to live outside such huge bureaucracies had the right idea.

[–]Agni777 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Across Indian history, there are 3 major groups that left the subcontinent 1. The Gypsies (Roma people) with an unclear history 2. The early indentured laborers to Caribbean in British in early 1800s 3. The Indian Americans in the last century

Apart from these 3, most population stayed in India.

To add to that population, India often hosted refuge populations. There is along history of many tribes of Jews, Zoroastrians, Arabs and Africans who came or wanted to come to India. There is also the case that a lot of Europeans tried to make voyages to its land considering it is richer than their own back then.