Why is the white population in India so low?

Join

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Messages
243
#81
No Snowflake, go read a few history books and you might see the light. BTW, have you ever been to India? have you seen the slumps and walked through the poor areas? Have you been to West Bengal where people literally sleep in boxes with families of 10+ and keep on having children even if they cannot afford 1 of them.

So tell me master of general knowledge, seeing you know everything these bad, evil bad British did to all people where they colonized. What would have happened if they didnt provide them with infrastructure, schooling, better health care and god forbid religion also? (we talking about the basics, i dont want to over complicate things for you)
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
12,397
#82
Not really, according to Manas Chakravarty, economist, academic dean, columnist at Hindustani Times.
For most of the world's history the Indian subcontinent and China have been the richest regions on the planet. Both regions also seemed to enter a "Dark Age" around the 1600s. And only now coming out of their funk
 

Knyro

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 5, 2010
Messages
28,221
#83
No Snowflake, go read a few history books and you might see the light. BTW, have you ever been to India? have you seen the slumps and walked through the poor areas? Have you been to West Bengal where people literally sleep in boxes with families of 10+ and keep on having children even if they cannot afford 1 of them.

So tell me master of general knowledge, seeing you know everything these bad, evil bad British did to all people where they colonized. What would have happened if they didnt provide them with infrastructure, schooling, better health care and god forbid religion also? (we talking about the basics, i dont want to over complicate things for you)
Paragraph 1: Arguing today when that's not I was talking about

Paragraph 2: This discussion has been had ad-infinitum on MyBB. Colonisation is not a pre-requisite to the spread of knowledge and technology.
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
23,706
#84
No, they didn't enter a Dark Age. They continued much as before, but slid down the scale as Europe reaped the fruits it had sown in the Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was a Euro spurt, not an Asian decline.
 

Knyro

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 5, 2010
Messages
28,221
#85
No, they didn't enter a Dark Age. They continued much as before, but slid down the scale as Europe reaped the fruits it had sown in the Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was a Euro spurt, not an Asian decline.
It can be argued it was both. Bit hard to worry about enlightenment when you're busy being conquered by other people.
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
12,397
#86
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.
Nice bit of straw Manning there lumping everything as the "we wuz Kang's" argument. How would the average Indian be better off under when 80% (on the low estimate) of the wealth was taken out of the country and sent to Britain?
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
23,706
#87
Bit hard to worry about enlightenment when you're busy being conquered by other people.
True.

But for 99% of the people nothing much changed at all, other than that their erstwhile domestic rulers were held to account by the colonial power.
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
12,397
#88
No Snowflake, go read a few history books and you might see the light. BTW, have you ever been to India? have you seen the slumps and walked through the poor areas? Have you been to West Bengal where people literally sleep in boxes with families of 10+ and keep on having children even if they cannot afford 1 of them.

So tell me master of general knowledge, seeing you know everything these bad, evil bad British did to all people where they colonized. What would have happened if they didnt provide them with infrastructure, schooling, better health care and god forbid religion also? (we talking about the basics, i dont want to over complicate things for you)
Oh please give us the list of historical revisionist books you been reading
 

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
32,750
#89
Nice bit of straw Manning there lumping everything as the "we wuz Kang's" argument. How would the average Indian be better off under when 80% (on the low estimate) of the wealth was taken out of the country and sent to Britain?
Where on Earth do you come up with 80% of the wealth? Even that is remotely true, how was the average Indian better off when that wealth was in the hands of a minority?
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
12,397
#90
Where on Earth do you come up with 80% of the wealth? Even that is remotely true, how was the average Indian better off when that wealth was in the hands of a minority?
The vast majority of economic growth has happened after independence and the the subcontinents economy actually contracted under British rule. So saying average Indian is better of because of hold no water at all.
What is this minority you are speaking of?
 

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
32,750
#92
The vast majority of economic growth has happened after independence and the the subcontinents economy actually contracted under British rule. So saying average Indian is better of because of hold no water at all.
What is this minority you are speaking of?
Haha. One for all I know you're pulling those figures out of your ass, in fact Arthur's article which was written by an actually Indian from India suggest that you are. Plus no one here, least of all me has suggested that the average Indian is better off, so way to show that you're actually arguing with the voices in your head.
 
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
14
#93
Where on Earth do you come up with 80% of the wealth? Even that is remotely true, how was the average Indian better off when that wealth was in the hands of a minority?
And back home in Britain, I'm guessing the wealth was equally distributed by Queen Victoria and no form of caste/class system existed?

, have you ever been to India? have you seen the slumps and walked through the poor areas? Have you been to West Bengal where people literally sleep in boxes with families of 10+ and keep on having children even if they cannot afford 1 of them.

What would have happened if they didnt provide them with infrastructure, schooling, better health care and god forbid religion also? (we talking about the basics, i dont want to over complicate things for you)
I have been to India (and other Asian countries). They are no different to South Africa. You have good and bad areas. There are malls, buildings, universities, technology in India that can measure up to places in Europe and SA.

Are you suggesting that before colonialism that schools, healthcare, infrastructure did not exist in India?

Are you aware that India had a far more ancient civilization than Europe? That reading, writing, construction of massive engineering structures, science, medicine were going on in India when most of Europe were still hunter-gatherers?

In fact European languages were derived from the ancient Indian language Sanskrit and belong to a group called Indo-European languages.

One of the largest diamonds in the world (the kohinoor diamond) was stolen from an Indian temple and is today part of the British crown jewels. Numerous other jewels and gold were looted from India, many from ancient temples which were decorated with them.

It is well accepted by historians that India was one of the wealthiest countries pre-colonialism. Every country wanted to trade with it. Poverty, illiteracy etc would not have been at the level they are today during pre-colonialism. So colonialism (European & others) did contribute to the decline of Indian civilisation pre-21st century.

Many countries in the far east were greatly influenced by Indian culture. Countries like Indonesia, Thailand, Cambodia etc, have ancient Hindu temples (e.g. Angkor Wat) and elements of Indian culture in their language and culture.

The number system (zero in particular) originated in India. The father of surgery, Sushruta was Indian. These are a only small sample of areas I have mentioned.

To suggest India would have been worse off without colonialism is ignorant.
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
12,397
#94
And back home in Britain, I'm guessing the wealth was equally distributed by Queen Victoria and no form of caste/class system existed?



I have been to India (and other Asian countries). They are no different to South Africa. You have good and bad areas. There are malls, buildings, universities, technology in India that can measure up to places in Europe and SA.

Are you suggesting that before colonialism that schools, healthcare, infrastructure did not exist in India?

Are you aware that India had a far more ancient civilization than Europe? That reading, writing, construction of massive engineering structures, science, medicine were going on in India when most of Europe were still hunter-gatherers?

In fact European languages were derived from the ancient Indian language Sanskrit and belong to a group called Indo-European languages.

One of the largest diamonds in the world (the kohinoor diamond) was stolen from an Indian temple and is today part of the British crown jewels. Numerous other jewels and gold were looted from India, many from ancient temples which were decorated with them.

It is well accepted by historians that India was one of the wealthiest countries pre-colonialism. Every country wanted to trade with it. Poverty, illiteracy etc would not have been at the level they are today during pre-colonialism. So colonialism (European & others) did contribute to the decline of Indian civilisation pre-21st century.

Many countries in the far east were greatly influenced by Indian culture. Countries like Indonesia, Thailand, Cambodia etc, have ancient Hindu temples (e.g. Angkor Wat) and elements of Indian culture in their language and culture.

The number system (zero in particular) originated in India. The father of surgery, Sushruta was Indian. These are a only small sample of areas I have mentioned.

To suggest India would have been worse off without colonialism is ignorant.
FYI European Languages share a common ancestor with Sanskrit they are not derived from Sanskrit
 

The Free Radical

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
331
#95
Turd world, just like SA.
There is a major Caucasian exodus happening in SA right now.
Africa will become another over populated place like India in the next 30 years.
 
Top