Besides Egypt, is there a single most powerful civilization with Brown skin color?

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Agni777 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

India is not worse of at all now that what it was under the British. You might also want to look at British policies that used census to divide Indian society much like what they tried to do in Europe (supporting powers against French, German ….) to create infighting. You might also want to see Indian economy as a percentage of GDP 1) before the period of colonization 2) before Islamic invaders came in

Gandhi and later is what the west wanted to believe are representatives of Indian civilization. You can have them but that’s like saying Obama is the best representative of the western leadership.

There are much longer empires in India far more extensive and longer with more people under them than you might imagine. Take a look at Maurya, Chola, Vijaynagar, Maratha ….

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

India is not worse of at all now that what it was under the British.

Millions of Indians have immigrated to Western countries over the past 50 years. How many British (or other White people) have moved to India within the same period after independence?

And based on voting patterns, I've also never seen Indians attempt to stop the mass migration of their own people into Western countries. In Canada & the U.S for example, Indian citizens disproportionately vote for Left or Hard-Left parties who support open borders.

There are much longer empires in India far more extensive and longer with more people under them than you might imagine. Take a look at Maurya, Chola, Vijaynagar, Maratha ….

I'll definitely take a look into those but before I do, I want to make a prediction. The comparisons being made are with civilizations who have simply shown to be the strongest or most technologically powerful throughout history. To India's credit, I'm aware it's an ancient civilization and has perhaps influenced several of its neighbors. But, without feats that's outright match the examples I listed in the OP, I'm willing to bet still comes in a distant 2nd or 3rd place for controlling the world.

For example, Ethiopia is another Brown country that has been around since Ancient times. But just being "old" is not good enough to somehow praise them for being the best. In fact, it does raise several questions such as: why didn't India or Ethiopia join the Age of Exploration and colonize the new world before Europeans did? Or similarly, why didn't India launch Space rockets before Germany, Russia and the U.S did. I'm aware India has a Space Program today... but once again, it doesn't quite mean much if they're still playing catchup instead of outcompeting NASA in Space discovery.

[–]Agni777 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I did mention 3 major immigrations out of India. First the gypsies, second the Caribbean indentured laborers and their the Indians to west in the last 50-100 years. If you consider the third, this group of immigrants is actually the most successful class of India. The reason they move to the west is because of the most aggressive affirmative action policies that are in mandated even in private colleges of India. Do you know who created the classifications for providing affirmative action ? The ex colonizer. Not trying to say India should not own up after many years of independence but the problem is we still have entirely colonial institutions, colonial definitions that describe our society.

A lot of the urban elite class is as western as Manhattan socialite. Mostly due to education and a strong communist influence on history textbooks for the last 70 years or so. The second most influential group that misguides history ? The Catholic Church which is also one of the largest landowners in the country.

Despite all this, if you ask any Indian (including many western elites in the country) if he/she want to live in India pre or post independence ? It would be post independence mostly because the economy has been better (albeit more socialist).

I agree that the Indians who come here turn left in the countries here. But if you remove immigration as an issue, you will find they are far right than an average white man. Indians support legal limited and merit based immigration. If democrats succeed in combining illegal and legal immigration then it results in Indians voting for them for the legal immigration but. If someone makes a disctinctiom between them, as did President Trump, you will see Indians tend to support them.

One more thing is that Indians come here to universities and that’s where they are often indoctrinated into being leftists. Parents are waking up to it now.

I’ll also add that increasing number of Indians tend to go back to India once they get older around late 45-50s. if they stay, it’s only for kids schooling and soon after kids complete schooling they move back. I graduated from a university here and a lot of my classmates alreadywent back.

I understand that position might not be popular here but I dare say that Indian immigration is adding to the talent pool unlike most others.

About the reason why Indian did not conquer the world before, I do not know of any Indian ruler that had an aggressive expansionist foreign policy. To a certain extent, I think that’s common to China too, which also had a strong naval base that could have potentially conquered some bastions or Europe.

My opinion is that the fall of Constantinople and the urge to spread Christianity as a counter weight to Islam spread western civilization across the world. At the time of the age of exploration, India was ruled by Islamic invaders and they were probably more powerful than the ottomans or the European rulers. After their fall, a lot of smaller empires resulted but no one could catch up the industrial strength that Europe built up between 1700 to 1800s.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I did mention 3 major immigrations out of India. First the gypsies, second the Caribbean indentured laborers and their the Indians to west in the last 50-100 years. If you consider the third, this group of immigrants is actually the most successful class of India. The reason they move to the west is because of the most aggressive affirmative action policies that are in mandated even in private colleges of India. Do you know who created the classifications for providing affirmative action ? The ex colonizer. Not trying to say India should not own up after many years of independence but the problem is we still have entirely colonial institutions, colonial definitions that describe our society.

That makes no sense at all. If Indians could oppose the British ruling over them, why would they switch heel and want to live under British rule again in their own island?

This is just another example of the third world being ran by incompetent management. They were given a chance to rebuild on their own, but they rejected it. And if Indians don't even like their own country to actually stay in it, why would anyone trust them to potentially run global politics?

Despite all this, if you ask any Indian (including many western elites in the country) if he/she want to live in India pre or post independence ? It would be post independence mostly because the economy has been better (albeit more socialist).

Then by all means, they should elect a government that calls for the return of all Indians to their homeland. And yes, this is actually a very easy task to achieve. African countries like Ghana throw in incentives for blacks to return, and Israel obviously makes it very easy for Jews to go live there. Although notice in both examples, especially with Africa, the non-whites still find life more comfortable in the West and are hard to please?

I agree that the Indians who come here turn left in the countries here. But if you remove immigration as an issue, you will find they are far right than an average white man. Indians support legal limited and merit based immigration. If democrats succeed in combining illegal and legal immigration then it results in Indians voting for them for the legal immigration but. If someone makes a disctinctiom between them, as did President Trump, you will see Indians tend to support them.

We have more than 20 years of election data. Only White Americans have ever voted for Republicans in mass or majority numbers.

If anything, diversity & multiculturalism has shown us the "myth" of all races coming together and working in unison. Politics is much more fractured when you have to spend huge amounts of money convincing minorities to join your aside, vs a homogenous population that look similar to one another.

One more thing is that Indians come here to universities and that’s where they are often indoctrinated into being leftists. Parents are waking up to it now. I’ll also add that increasing number of Indians tend to go back to India once they get older around late 45-50s. if they stay, it’s only for kids schooling and soon after kids complete schooling they move back. I graduated from a university here and a lot of my classmates alreadywent back. I understand that position might not be popular here but I dare say that Indian immigration is adding to the talent pool unlike most others.

All of this comes at the cost of the host country. Why should any American compete against foreigners for the same jobs, housing, school etc? America (& Europeans in general) have always thrived on their own for thousands of year. If non-whites want the same thing, then be like Japan and actually build those great things on your own. But moving to a White's country, using their services but then claiming "hey buddy, you need us" is very hypocritical. Either that, or admit that colonization was a good thing since the end result is the same (wishing to live next to Whites).

About the reason why Indian did not conquer the world before, I do not know of any Indian ruler that had an aggressive expansionist foreign policy. To a certain extent, I think that’s common to China too, which also had a strong naval base that could have potentially conquered some bastions or Europe. My opinion is that the fall of Constantinople and the urge to spread Christianity as a counter weight to Islam spread western civilization across the world. At the time of the age of exploration, India was ruled by Islamic invaders and they were probably more powerful than the ottomans or the European rulers. After their fall, a lot of smaller empires resulted but no one could catch up the industrial strength that Europe built up between 1700 to 1800s.

China has never successfully won a war against Europeans to my knowledge. More often than not, they were constantly humiliated and forced to sign away land (i.e Hong Kong). If that's the example you're comparing India with, then that is less compelling reason that their empires were actually comparable with Europe in the same time.