patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,196,427 comments by 14,073 users - rocketjoe79 online now
Youtube Ban Part I; the Brits in India Thread
invite response
2019 Jun 5, 12:39pm 3,638 views 87 comments
« First « Previous Comments 81 - 87 of 87 Search these comments
81
indc
2019 Jun 9, 7:57am
Rin says
Believe me, I would have agreed with them few years back. Then I was red pilled. Indians are taught same history that was taught in British India. Even 60% of my friends believe the same. You understand that for 100+ yrs same oppressor history is taught. We are just realizing that all this history is created by christian missionaries.
indc saysLike I said wait for few more years, when we have our own history then we can debunk those racist theories.
If you want to know how this 'racist' theory came to me, it wasn't from some Anglo-Saxon lecturer at Oxbridge. It was actually from a few Indians. In particular, a Brahmin, whose family came from New Delhi, and a Parsi, whose family once lived in Bombay/Mumbai.
It was their grandparents and relatives who'd told 'em that the so-called fair skin ppl were always coming into India, throughout history. And yes, these fellas were definitely whiter than any Indians I'd ever seen before. And conversely, Dravidians, which includes Tamil Nadu & neighboring regions never went the other way into Central Asia. If anything, South Indian migration went the other way towards the Malay peninsula. So that's their take on the whole enchilada.
As for true history, even a South India...
Believe me, I would have agreed with them few years back. Then I was red pilled. Indians are taught same history that was taught in British India. Even 60% of my friends believe the same. You understand that for 100+ yrs same oppressor history is taught. We are just realizing that all this history is created by christian missionaries.
82
indc
2019 Jun 9, 8:30am
Rin says
HaHaHa. Even british historian will die laughing about it. Did you even ask him any proof ? This is first time I am hearing persians believe that about ashoka.
Do you believe a guy who says people go both ways, or do you believe a guy who says only his people conquering his neighbors.
indc saysNow you are saying that buddhism is owned by outsiders.
Or you mean buddhist outsiders attacked india back even though they are buddhists?
Do you even know that most of India was buddhist at one time
Nope, the only "owners" are Zoroastrians because that's central to the identity of the Persian Empire.
Buddhism can exist anywhere and yes, I know about Ashoka in India though the Parsi guy says that he's also a Persian descended conqueror of India. So there you have it, even without the British, you have racist theories within your own borders.
HaHaHa. Even british historian will die laughing about it. Did you even ask him any proof ? This is first time I am hearing persians believe that about ashoka.
Do you believe a guy who says people go both ways, or do you believe a guy who says only his people conquering his neighbors.
83
Rin
2019 Jun 9, 10:37am
Rin
2019 Jun 9, 10:37am
So here you have, fair skinned North Indians who feel that their ancestors conquered India and thus, the British were simply the last in the line of white rulers.
With that in mind and the fact that South Indians live in high numbers in Malaysia/Singapore but not so for the northern white ones in SE Asia, hints that medieval India lived under some makeshift apartheid for ages where yes, whiter Indians plausibly ruled over darker ones, but in a less exact way than South Africa, making is better for the Dravidians, to emigrate to Malay for better opportunities in running trade and commerce.
FYI, my friend from Chennai dislikes north Indians and believes that white Indians made sure that records never survived to protect their land grabs over the ages.
So where you do stop that? I'd say, start with Bollywood. Start tossing out those white ppl and start representing real Indians in place of Soviet Armenian look-a-likes.
Real Indian
Bollywood's "Soviet Emigre" facsimile
And then, you'll actually have something for your red pill.
With that in mind and the fact that South Indians live in high numbers in Malaysia/Singapore but not so for the northern white ones in SE Asia, hints that medieval India lived under some makeshift apartheid for ages where yes, whiter Indians plausibly ruled over darker ones, but in a less exact way than South Africa, making is better for the Dravidians, to emigrate to Malay for better opportunities in running trade and commerce.
FYI, my friend from Chennai dislikes north Indians and believes that white Indians made sure that records never survived to protect their land grabs over the ages.
So where you do stop that? I'd say, start with Bollywood. Start tossing out those white ppl and start representing real Indians in place of Soviet Armenian look-a-likes.
Real Indian
Bollywood's "Soviet Emigre" facsimile
And then, you'll actually have something for your red pill.
84
indc
2019 Jun 9, 12:19pm
Rin says
Hey dumba**. The first picture you shared is from actress in bengal close to bangladesh.
Second picture is of a tamilian actress who later started working in bollywood. Stop commenting on things you dont even understand.
Is your friend from chennai a rice bag convert.
east India was always trading with south east asia.
west india was always trading with arabia and africa.
.
Hey dumba**. The first picture you shared is from actress in bengal close to bangladesh.
Second picture is of a tamilian actress who later started working in bollywood. Stop commenting on things you dont even understand.
Is your friend from chennai a rice bag convert.
east India was always trading with south east asia.
west india was always trading with arabia and africa.
85
Reality
2019 Jun 9, 5:11pm
Indian Subcontinent has an area that is comparable to the entire Western Europe, and for most of human history likely had a larger population than all of Western Europe (due to more solar energy hitting the landmass enabling more crop production). It's silly to talk about "India" as if it were some kind of country or entity (instead of a general direction, like "Orient" or "West Indies") prior to the British rule.
Prior to the Railroads, it was likely cheaper to ship 100 tons or 10 tons of goods from Goa or Bombay to Europe (several thousands of miles) than it would be to ship the same goods inland for a few hundred miles. Likewise, before the arrival of horse-drawn carts or even the wheel, it was likely less expensive to ship 1 ton of goods from the banks of Indus River to the Persian Gulf and to Egypt (Red Sea shore) than it would be to move the same ton of goods in land more than a few dozen miles. The coast was more economically related to the other shores hundreds if not thousands of miles away than it was integrated with the continental interior.
Hrappans may or may not have invented the wheel on their own. In any case, shortly after the perfection of the multi-spoke wheeled cart drawn by horses, inland logistics took such an enormous leap forward (a one-time jump, but later would be choked off by land route tolls in a few decades) that the nomads from the north and the inland mobs quickly drove out the coastal commercial settlements of the Indus Valley. The situation was rather similar to the Railroads enabling the rise of Prussia (in its war against Austrian and French Empires) in the late 19th century and Russia as a threat to the entire Western Europe in the 20th century.
It's a little anachronistic to call the Hrappans "Indians" or even Dravidian. Hrappan bullfighting / bull-jumping culture was spread to both the Dravidians of Tamil (southeastern India today) and the Levant, ancient Minoans as well as today's Spain (all of which traced the spread of "Phoenecians").
Trade usually goes both ways, but In the pre-industrial world invasion and conquest on a continental land mass usually went one-way: the less prosperous and more barbaric invading and conquering the more prosperous and less barbaric. The entire recorded Eurasian history consisted of the civilized people on the continental peripheries getting their clock cleaned periodically by the barbarians coming out of the continental heart-land:
1. In ancient Greece, it was the most barbaric state among them, the Macedonians (to the north, towards continental heartland), that conquered all of ancient Greece;
2. Germanic/Frankish tribes/barbarians dismantling Rome were once again coming from the continental heartland, dismantling the high civilization built on the periphery;
3. Napoleon, Hitler, and Karl XII (of Sweden) before them, all invaded Russia and lost their armies . . . yet it was the Mongols who had conquered Russia, by invading from even further deeper in the continental heartland and waging campaign in the dead of winter.
4. Likewise for Indian Subcontinent and Far East Subcontinent ("China"). Both the Vedic homeland in Bactria (today's Afghanistan) and the State of Chin (the northwest corner, the poorest part, of "China proper") were the most barbaric and least prosperous regions of their respective sub-continents . . . and they further benefited from coming from the high ground part of dry highlands.
5. In the case of Roman Empire and Far East, the relatively more prosperous people building their civilizations actually successfully resisted their nomadic continental interior neighbors in their earlier centuries, then fell to massive invasion later as their own civilizations developed into high civilizations
There are several reasons for such civilization-reversion cycles on a large continental land mass:
1. Wars usually took place due to economic hardship, usually caused by global cooling in the agrarian societies, so people living in the continental interior accustomed to colder winters could do better during massive total wars;
2. Logistic became easier when an advancing army could pillage the land. So it was easier for an army from a resource-poor region to invade a resource-rich region, instead of reverse; especially if the two populations have different daily water consumption requirements due to difference in native environment. An army on the march requires enormous amount of food and water, both for the men and the horses.
3. The poor were just more motivated to rape and pillage than the rich were.
4. High level of economic development often led to demographic collapse: women refusing to reproduce (making the cost of reproduction too high) and men preferring paying prostitutes instead of having wives and children.
A side note on why land transportation technology did not bring long-lasting prosperity or economic development compared to sea-borne transportation routes:
1. Major breakthroughs in land transportation, such as the horse-drawn carts and the Roman roads, could bring one-time major profit proposition, enabling military conquest, territory expansion, etc., but could not last long. Examples include the Roman roads (paved roads), Vedic conquest of India (horse drawn chariots and horse-back riding), "Silk Road" historically linking Far East to Central Asia then onto Europe.
2. Unlike sea routes that could easily switch destination ports to a nearby port if the more established port's authorities decide to raise taxes, land routes are much more inflexible and beholden to local rulers' whim. Since they are all local monopolies all along the land routes, over time, the appetite of the rulers and their offspring quickly surpass what the land trade routes could deliver . . . not to mention profit attracts competition; in the case of land routes, competition meant very expensive warfare fighting for the control of the routes.
3. That's why civilization advancements usually take place on islands and coastal peripheries of continents, where people get to enjoy the fruit of a longer period of sustained economic growth (due to lower effective taxes for longer time period) . . . until the barbarians coming knocking on the door of course! OTOH, getting "invaded" and liberated by island powers was the best thing that could happen to continental peripheries living under the yoke of inland barbarians . . . but of course, the advocates of post-modern nationalism have to embrace the national flag like the proverbial scoundrels that they are. Little do they realize that life as a mongol sucked even as the Mongol army built the largest land empire. The recording of history is a self-selective process in itself: when the more prosperous civilization manage to defend itself against the barbarians and the barbarians wallowing in their own shit holes, such "norm" didn't warrant much of an entry in recorded history, but major cataclysmic invasions and sacking by continental interior barbarians did have their own entries in history records . . . just like the stock market crashes make history records whereas the long-term rise usually doesn't.
Prior to the Railroads, it was likely cheaper to ship 100 tons or 10 tons of goods from Goa or Bombay to Europe (several thousands of miles) than it would be to ship the same goods inland for a few hundred miles. Likewise, before the arrival of horse-drawn carts or even the wheel, it was likely less expensive to ship 1 ton of goods from the banks of Indus River to the Persian Gulf and to Egypt (Red Sea shore) than it would be to move the same ton of goods in land more than a few dozen miles. The coast was more economically related to the other shores hundreds if not thousands of miles away than it was integrated with the continental interior.
Hrappans may or may not have invented the wheel on their own. In any case, shortly after the perfection of the multi-spoke wheeled cart drawn by horses, inland logistics took such an enormous leap forward (a one-time jump, but later would be choked off by land route tolls in a few decades) that the nomads from the north and the inland mobs quickly drove out the coastal commercial settlements of the Indus Valley. The situation was rather similar to the Railroads enabling the rise of Prussia (in its war against Austrian and French Empires) in the late 19th century and Russia as a threat to the entire Western Europe in the 20th century.
It's a little anachronistic to call the Hrappans "Indians" or even Dravidian. Hrappan bullfighting / bull-jumping culture was spread to both the Dravidians of Tamil (southeastern India today) and the Levant, ancient Minoans as well as today's Spain (all of which traced the spread of "Phoenecians").
Trade usually goes both ways, but In the pre-industrial world invasion and conquest on a continental land mass usually went one-way: the less prosperous and more barbaric invading and conquering the more prosperous and less barbaric. The entire recorded Eurasian history consisted of the civilized people on the continental peripheries getting their clock cleaned periodically by the barbarians coming out of the continental heart-land:
1. In ancient Greece, it was the most barbaric state among them, the Macedonians (to the north, towards continental heartland), that conquered all of ancient Greece;
2. Germanic/Frankish tribes/barbarians dismantling Rome were once again coming from the continental heartland, dismantling the high civilization built on the periphery;
3. Napoleon, Hitler, and Karl XII (of Sweden) before them, all invaded Russia and lost their armies . . . yet it was the Mongols who had conquered Russia, by invading from even further deeper in the continental heartland and waging campaign in the dead of winter.
4. Likewise for Indian Subcontinent and Far East Subcontinent ("China"). Both the Vedic homeland in Bactria (today's Afghanistan) and the State of Chin (the northwest corner, the poorest part, of "China proper") were the most barbaric and least prosperous regions of their respective sub-continents . . . and they further benefited from coming from the high ground part of dry highlands.
5. In the case of Roman Empire and Far East, the relatively more prosperous people building their civilizations actually successfully resisted their nomadic continental interior neighbors in their earlier centuries, then fell to massive invasion later as their own civilizations developed into high civilizations
There are several reasons for such civilization-reversion cycles on a large continental land mass:
1. Wars usually took place due to economic hardship, usually caused by global cooling in the agrarian societies, so people living in the continental interior accustomed to colder winters could do better during massive total wars;
2. Logistic became easier when an advancing army could pillage the land. So it was easier for an army from a resource-poor region to invade a resource-rich region, instead of reverse; especially if the two populations have different daily water consumption requirements due to difference in native environment. An army on the march requires enormous amount of food and water, both for the men and the horses.
3. The poor were just more motivated to rape and pillage than the rich were.
4. High level of economic development often led to demographic collapse: women refusing to reproduce (making the cost of reproduction too high) and men preferring paying prostitutes instead of having wives and children.
A side note on why land transportation technology did not bring long-lasting prosperity or economic development compared to sea-borne transportation routes:
1. Major breakthroughs in land transportation, such as the horse-drawn carts and the Roman roads, could bring one-time major profit proposition, enabling military conquest, territory expansion, etc., but could not last long. Examples include the Roman roads (paved roads), Vedic conquest of India (horse drawn chariots and horse-back riding), "Silk Road" historically linking Far East to Central Asia then onto Europe.
2. Unlike sea routes that could easily switch destination ports to a nearby port if the more established port's authorities decide to raise taxes, land routes are much more inflexible and beholden to local rulers' whim. Since they are all local monopolies all along the land routes, over time, the appetite of the rulers and their offspring quickly surpass what the land trade routes could deliver . . . not to mention profit attracts competition; in the case of land routes, competition meant very expensive warfare fighting for the control of the routes.
3. That's why civilization advancements usually take place on islands and coastal peripheries of continents, where people get to enjoy the fruit of a longer period of sustained economic growth (due to lower effective taxes for longer time period) . . . until the barbarians coming knocking on the door of course! OTOH, getting "invaded" and liberated by island powers was the best thing that could happen to continental peripheries living under the yoke of inland barbarians . . . but of course, the advocates of post-modern nationalism have to embrace the national flag like the proverbial scoundrels that they are. Little do they realize that life as a mongol sucked even as the Mongol army built the largest land empire. The recording of history is a self-selective process in itself: when the more prosperous civilization manage to defend itself against the barbarians and the barbarians wallowing in their own shit holes, such "norm" didn't warrant much of an entry in recorded history, but major cataclysmic invasions and sacking by continental interior barbarians did have their own entries in history records . . . just like the stock market crashes make history records whereas the long-term rise usually doesn't.
86
Rin
2019 Jun 9, 9:48pm
Rin
2019 Jun 9, 9:48pm
indc says
The purpose of showing Indian women pics with contrasting skin tones has apparently been lost.
As my Chennai friend said, women in Bollywood bleach their skin to look like some other ethnicity in eastern European. The reason for it is that that's the way of north Indians and the south has to deal with it because in India, the standard of beauty is fair skin.
https://www.bollywoodshaadis.com/articles/dusky-bollywood-divas-who-went-for-skin-lightening-treatment-3107
http://www.glamtainment.com/8-bollywood-divas-who-opted-for-skin-lightening-for-makeover
And no, he's not a Christian but a Hindu with family in India, Malaysia/Singapore, Canada, USA, and UK. And of all the countries the only 'groups' he dislikes are bigoted North Indians and Chinese who look down upon South Indians in SE Asia. And his relatives in Malaysia are quite successful and assimilated because non-Chinese Malays don't discriminate against them just because of skin tone, though there's obviously a bias towards Muslims over Hindus but that's expected for an Islamic society.
The first picture you shared is from actress in bengal close to bangladesh.
Second picture is of a tamilian actress who later started working in bollywood. Stop commenting on things you dont even understand.
Is your friend from chennai a rice bag convert.
The purpose of showing Indian women pics with contrasting skin tones has apparently been lost.
As my Chennai friend said, women in Bollywood bleach their skin to look like some other ethnicity in eastern European. The reason for it is that that's the way of north Indians and the south has to deal with it because in India, the standard of beauty is fair skin.
https://www.bollywoodshaadis.com/articles/dusky-bollywood-divas-who-went-for-skin-lightening-treatment-3107
http://www.glamtainment.com/8-bollywood-divas-who-opted-for-skin-lightening-for-makeover
And no, he's not a Christian but a Hindu with family in India, Malaysia/Singapore, Canada, USA, and UK. And of all the countries the only 'groups' he dislikes are bigoted North Indians and Chinese who look down upon South Indians in SE Asia. And his relatives in Malaysia are quite successful and assimilated because non-Chinese Malays don't discriminate against them just because of skin tone, though there's obviously a bias towards Muslims over Hindus but that's expected for an Islamic society.
87
indc
2019 Jun 9, 10:29pm
Rin says
Even african american actresses bleach their skin. East asian actresses put makeup to look exotic(transparent skin tone).
You cannot compare actresses aspirations to that of ordinary people. They are not trying to look european or anything. Its other way around europeans are coming to India and trying for entry to indian movie industry with their indian looks.
People looking down on you based on color doesn't mean a thing because that is what has been taught to them for 100s of years. Even north Indians treat their own people of different color differently, it has nothing to do with race it is just prejudice.
what some white people doing to black people is different case.
It is getting better now after more interaction and education of indian values.
Even african american actresses bleach their skin. East asian actresses put makeup to look exotic(transparent skin tone).
You cannot compare actresses aspirations to that of ordinary people. They are not trying to look european or anything. Its other way around europeans are coming to India and trying for entry to indian movie industry with their indian looks.
People looking down on you based on color doesn't mean a thing because that is what has been taught to them for 100s of years. Even north Indians treat their own people of different color differently, it has nothing to do with race it is just prejudice.
what some white people doing to black people is different case.
It is getting better now after more interaction and education of indian values.
« First « Previous Comments 81 - 87 of 87 Search these comments
https://news.yahoo.com/youtube-ban-hateful-supremacist-videos-170733974.html
So if you make a video about veterans deserving superior treatment, that's hateful? Or elderly people?
Of course, I'll be shocked if they don't pull all the Praeger U. videos while leaving up the "Men should be castrated" "Whiteness is Toxic" and "Anti-Termite" videos will remain.
Regulators, mount up!