Why is the white population in India so low?

ForceFate

Honorary Master
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
15,806
#43
It might be so, however my great granddad was one of 3 brothers, my granddad was one of 4 children, and within my own family im one of 3 children. We like to keep it "economical" where you can at least give a future to a child when you have one, unlike some other races that just keep breeding like there is no tomorrow and cannot afford or give a child a future without getting handouts from goverments or ngo's. (should send them a TV, maybe it will help keep them busy).
Lol. Which "races" would that be? Is your rant specific to this country? Of course the wars of the past 150 years were fought by humans. Where do you think they came from? Add to that the flu and cholera pandemics of the 20th century, then you'll see the bigger picture.
 

garp

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
6,880
#44
I think it’s a shocking state of affairs. Don’t they know that diversity is good for them? They should actively promote immigration of all other ethnic groups and look at quotas in all spheres until they achieve at least the same level of diversity as major western countries. The same applies to China and Japan. They are way too Chinese and Japanese with very little cultural diversity. Something needs to be done. I suggest a strenuous Twitter campaign.
 

Join

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Messages
242
#47
Lol. Which "races" would that be? Is your rant specific to this country? Of course the wars of the past 150 years were fought by humans. Where do you think they came from? Add to that the flu and cholera pandemics of the 20th century, then you'll see the bigger picture.
If I rant of races in this country, you will be the first to know.
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
23,705
#48
Why? In imperial times, a sense of cultural superiority that must be expressed in cultural dominion, which is not possible in India.

In the heyday of the Empire, a 19th C joke in the style of "Fog in Channel" (edit, now below) illustrates:

On returning to England after his first trip abroad, a fortnight in Paris, John Bull was asked about his impressions. "Glad I'm home. Dreadful place -- full of foreigners. And the tea undrinkable."

In similar style:

Q: What would you be if you weren't English?
A: Ashamed.

Newspaper headline: "Fog in Channel. Europe isolated."
 
Last edited:

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
32,659
#51
You do realise that India was one of the richest places on earth before they got colonised by the British? The British were only there to rob it blind like the majority of their colonies. Even the word "loot" comes from Sanskrit.
And you do realise that a place having wealth does not equate to it having an egalitarian society? India still has wealth.
 

Kornhole

Blackburn Fan
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
29,126
#52
I really don't know the history but England only controlled small important parts? Was it not a violent uprising and hence they left? This calls for a YouTube doc now
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
23,705
#53
Hi You do realise that India was one of the richest places on earth before they got colonised by the British? The British were only there to rob it blind like the majority of their colonies. Even the word "loot" comes from Sanskrit.
Not really, according to Manas Chakravarty, economist, academic dean, columnist at Hindustani Times.
 

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
32,659
#56
Not really, according to Manas Chakravarty, economist, academic dean, columnist at Hindustani Times.
Ja, Knyro's view is basically what I call "we wuz Kings" revisionism: the assumption that the British took wealth from it's colonies is taken to mean that the average native was better off before the Brits arrived, but actually your average whoever tends to forget that the majority of us descend from people who were at the bottom of the pile. China, Africa and India specifically all had hierarchical societies, which means the majority of whatever wealth was concentrated amongst a minority elite in cultures with next to zero social mobility. The reason the British were able to dominate a vast country like India with a tiny colonial force was that they allied themselves with the existing social elite. India had a ready made system of dominance and control (one that had been exploited by the Mughals for centuries before the arrival of Europeans) - the Brits didn't have to create one. The Brits didn't take very much more from the average Indian than the Indian elites already did. Really the main contribution to poverty in the "developing" world by the European colonialists was modern medicine that facilitated a population boom at the socioeconomic, bottom end of those societies.
 

Knyro

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 5, 2010
Messages
28,215
#59
Not really, according to Manas Chakravarty, economist, academic dean, columnist at Hindustani Times.
This guy touches on a few points of exploitation by the British, for people that still don't get that the primary reason for colonialism is to extract wealth from the colonised land.

 

Daruk

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
36,400
#60
You're talking nonsense I never said. I'm talking about India as a whole, was exploited by the Brits. Didn't say antything about the common man.
To be fair, Indians continue to exploit each other daily to this day... on a grand scale. Some nations just make it easy for others bad actors to justify themselves.
 
Top