patrick.net

FYI, this is not for the OP but for others ...

The region of British India and the former Imperial Russia/Soviet Union is divided by a thin line across a mountain crescent circa modern era Tajikistan. Now, here's a sample of how their ppl look (in modern times) ...



Holy cow! There are white ppl, on the border, opposite British India? How could this be? I thought that the notion of 'white' was only from the British Empire?

Wait a minute, so whitey boys and girls were around, perhaps before the British arrived and finally, when the border crossing was locked down by the two Empires (British vs Russian) at odds with each other, that one side stayed 'white' majority and the other, a mix of white and non-white, after two centuries?

OccasionalCortex says

indc says

Which statement did I lie in all this discussion.

I already told you. Learn English.

indc says

OccasionalCortex says
In this case, you are attacking the messenger with smears.

Is this what you talking about? Showing that I am lying? Ok I got new definition of lying now. thanks for enligheting me.

Rin says

FYI, this is not for the OP but for others ...

The region of British India and the former Imperial Russia/Soviet Union is divided by a thin line across a mountain crescent circa modern era Tajikistan. Now, here's a sample of how their ppl look (in modern times) ...



Holy cow! There are white ppl, on the border, opposite British India? How could this be? I thought that the notion of 'white' was only from the British Empire?

Wait a minute, so whitey boys and girls were around, perhaps before the British arrived and finally, when the border crossing was locked down by the two Empires (British vs Russian) at odds with each other, that one side stayed 'white' majority and the other, a mix of white and non-white, after two centuries?

Rin thanks for joining in. Share the video with your persian friend and tell me his reaction.
You have a myopic view of how indians look and keep bringing it up. Travel to india and you will know how many skin tones are there. Dont take input from 1 guy.
You know the definition of race? When there are people same race but with different skin tone is their prejudice against one other still considered racism? For exampe a britisher and italian?

I gave you examples which other race's actress bleach their skin. It is requirement of the profession. To look better on camera.
How can you generalize based on 0.00001% of population choices.

If you really want an indian actress aping western look. Maybe check this.



Again get into your thick brain none of the actresses in india want to look russian or western. Maybe talk to more enlighten indians.
Like I said before there is enough research done till now showing there is no difference between north and south indians. That is a myth propagated by British to divide indians. Skin tones are different because of different environments people live in. If you bother see the map of india tropic of cancer passes through middle of india.

indc says

Dont take input from 1 guy.

Actually, add him and ten other Tamils/Keralans from Kuala Lumpur and Singapore to the list.

indc says

Again get into your thick brain none of the actresses in india want to look russian or western. Maybe talk to more enlighten indians.
Like I said before there is enough research done till now showing there is no difference between north and south indians. That is a myth propagated by British to divide indians. Skin tones are different because of different environments people live in. If you bother see the map of india tropic of cancer passes through middle of india.

Considering that all of the other South Indians I know, see themselves as separate from the North, doesn't exactly give me the warm and fuzzies. If it's not race, is it a nationality thing where they see South India as not an extension of New Delhi Inc?

The word is that Nehru/Indira Gandhi dynasty failed 'em and in reality, if it weren't for corporate America's massive cash inflow into Banglalore, that India would never have become the IT offshoring capital that it had become.

OccasionalCortex says

Rin says

Perhaps racism exists everywhere and different societies deal with it differently and that Malays, on the whole, once you factor out Islam vs { Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity }, aren't so racist after all?

Hell, they even have CASTES -- which still are a social-economic-political factor despite all the Virtue Signalling Indians say otherwise on the subject. And women BLEACH THEIR SKIN in order to be 'whiter'.

Another myth spread by british. Caste is not a term from india. British try to impose it on India. There were different group of people divided according to their profession. No one considered one superior to other which was what castism means. British decided who were upper caste and who were lower caste. And people had to accept their terminology because that was the only way they could secure jobs. And stupid indian governments try to follow the same even after independence.

I don't understand how does anything discussed here related to the video I posted. When people have nothing to counter that is when they rant.

Also, did the British create the current separatist/terrorist problems in Kashmir/Jammu and Assam/Manipur? Or was it Indira Gandhi's govt?

I've heard from Assamese and others, that the whole region was in peace, before Indira Gandhi screwed it up? And Assam is basically, split between India and Myanmar, not really a part of either.

Rin says

indc says

Dont take input from 1 guy.

Actually, add him and ten other Tamils/Keralans from Kuala Lumpur and Singapore to the list.

indc says

Again get into your thick brain none of the actresses in india want to look russian or western. Maybe talk to more enlighten indians.
Like I said before there is enough research done till now showing there is no difference between north and south indians. That is a myth propagated by British to divide indians. Skin tones are different because of different environments people live in. If you bother see the map of india tropic of cancer passes through middle of india.

Considering that all of the other South Indians I know, see themselves as separate from the North, doesn't exactly give me the warm and fuzzies. If it's not race, is it a nationality thing wh...

Why are you taking input from people living outside India? I am south indian and most of my friends are Nobody complain about discrimination. My family lives in delhi, mumbai they dont face any discrimination.
Yes your point of Nehru/Indira gandhi is true. I will give you points for knowing about them. Wrong governance policy does not mean ordinary people discriminate against each other.
North-east indians face racism in other parts of india. They look mongoloid(chinese) and ordinary indians are vary about chinese.

indc says

But chemistry and astronomy? Indians were first to prove Sun was at the center of solar system.
zinc was refined only in India until 15th century: https://www.rheinzink.com/en/quality/the-history-of-zinc/

Careful there. Someone will claim that the Vedic tradition comes from... humm... indo-aryans.

Rin says

Also, did the British create the current separatist/terrorist problems in Kashmir/Jammu and Assam/Manipur? Or was it Indira Gandhi's govt?

I've heard from Assamese and others, that the whole region was in peace, before Indira Gandhi screwed it up? And Assam is basically, split between India and Myanmar, not really a part of either.

That is what happens when people come into power based on family instead of policy acumen. Now the congress party which is by nehru family is completely gone from north-east india. They had communist and socilaist ideology making everyone loose their roots.

indc says

Yes your point of Nehru/Indira gandhi is true. I will give you points for knowing about them. Wrong governance policy does not mean ordinary people discriminate against each other.
North-east indians face racism in other parts of india. They look mongoloid(chinese) and ordinary indians are vary about chinese.

Ok, here's the thing. These 'diasporic' South Indians have a new homeland in Malaysia, with work visas in Singapore, and in Malaysia, they're equals with the locals whereas in Singapore, they deal with bigotry from the Chinese majority which is kinda expected.

As a result of being happy in Malaysia, they have no interest in returning to India because their parents' memories of the Nehru/Indira era is at the fore front of their minds and don't see a future there outside of the usual Bangalore Inc/Silicon Valley thing.

So the question is this ... did the British create this havoc for only India but left its other holdings, like Malaysia, Bahrain, etc, alone? Because I have a hard time believing that the British engineered a social catastrophe for one nationality and left the others to their own devices.

And the only Indians I know in India, are ones who'd studied/worked abroad, since my work never took me there directly.

indc says

North-east indians face racism in other parts of india. They look mongoloid(chinese) and ordinary indians are vary about chinese.

I don't know, the ones in the US look like they're either ordinary Indians or Filipinos.

indc says

That is what happens when people come into power based on family instead of policy acumen.

This I concur with.

Rin says

indc says

Ok, here's the thing. These 'diasporic' South Indians have a new homeland in Malaysia, with work visas in Singapore, and in Malaysia, they're equals with the locals whereas in Singapore, they deal with bigotry from the Chinese majority which is kinda expected.

As a result of being happy in Malaysia, they have no interest in returning to India because their parents' memories of the Nehru/Indira era is at the fore front of their minds and don't see a future there outside of the usual Bangalore Inc/Silicon Valley thing.

So the question is this ... did the British cre...

Talking about them is like touching a hornet's nest. That lady(indira gandhi) was under russia's influence and wanted to suppress everyone. She declared emergency(total control) of country and started kidnapping and killing people who were against her. So many people left the country who were afraid. I think that's when they left. Its been 44yrs now. Its easier for them to blame north indians. Even north Indians were affected because of her. The present prime minister of India went into hiding when police came after him.
Victimhood kicks in when you are in self-preservation mode.
I agree with people living outside the country, they dont have anything to go back to now. If they want to have same life-style they can go only to big cities. And even people in smaller cities are migrating to bigger cities because that is what modernization( for lack of better word ) does. Few pockets of wealth.
India has landmass 1/3 of US so you can say it is still a big country. To rule it british created a divide and rule policy. And it was easy for them to use any differences to control people. British have been teaching people in south that they are different from north for 100+ years. And these differences still drive people today.

Regarding the north-east thing:
Once we were visiting a theme park in LA and my wife was just chatting with some lady and asked her if she was from India and the lady said yes from the north and they chatted. After she stopped chatting, there was another lady sitting there. That lady asked my wife why didn't you ask where I am from. My wife said oh I thought you are from china or some other place. She said no I am indian and from manipur.

Rin says

Holy cow! There are white ppl, on the border, opposite British India? How could this be? I thought that the notion of 'white' was only from the British Empire?

It's Siobhan O'Connell. Or Chanelle d'Arcy. Or Rita Cippiano. Or Renee de Lluis

IMHO, the real problem with India (and China and Russia) is that they don't have enough regionalism. If Europe had not been regionalistic, either Napoleon or Hitler would have "united" Europe . . . then European history in the past couple centuries would have been just as dark and benighted as that of 19th century India and China.

indc says

British have been teaching people in south that they are different from north for 100+ years. And these differences still drive people today.

When the British arrived, the south and the north of the sub-continent had different countries. The people living on the sub-continent obviously saw themselves as different from each other. It's a good thing the British did not try to wipe out that regional difference like Chinese and Russians did in their respective imperial expansion. Britain itself is better off to have retained the identity to leave EU, and the Scots to have retained the identity to secede from the UK. Regional self-government makes for more responsive government than imperial rule. If you think Indira Ghandi was corrupt for causing conflict to win votes, what do you think of Modi bombing Pakistan on the eve of the most recent election to win votes?

Reality says

When the British arrived, the south and the north of the sub-continent had different countries. The people living on the sub-continent obviously saw themselves as different from each other.

This is what I'm trying to discern, listening to members of various South Asian diasporas vis a vis ...

Reality says

If you think Indira Ghandi was corrupt for causing conflict

a corrupt matriarchy and her numerous screwups?

Sure, I'm certain that ppl in modern times are trying to make a difference and mend fences but I can't buy into this idea that India was originally united, in terms of both race & culture, and it was only the British who did the dastardly deeds when it's clear that both Bahrain and Malaysia are better off, in terms of tolerance & general cohesiveness, over their regional counterparts of Saudi Arabia or Indonesia which had nothing to do with the British Empire.

Reality says

indc says

British have been teaching people in south that they are different from north for 100+ years. And these differences still drive people today.

When the British arrived, the south and the north of the sub-continent had different countries. The people living on the sub-continent obviously saw themselves as different from each other. It's a good thing the British did not try to wipe out that regional difference like Chinese and Russians did in their respective imperial expansion. Britain itself is better off to have retained the identity to leave EU, and the Scots to have retained the identity to secede from the UK. Regional self-government makes for more responsive government than imperial rule. If you think Indira Ghandi was corrupt for causing conflict to win votes, what do you think of Modi bombing Pakistan on the eve of the most recent election to win votes?

Do you have any proof that south and north were 2 different countries or kingdoms? I just posted India's 1760 map on other thread did you even bother to check it? why is that important because that is when british started to visit india and start foothold in bengal.
What do you mean indira gandhi caused conflict. Are you a pakistani talking about 1971 war?
Pakistan is a breeding ground for terrorists. They sent out a terrorist and killed 44 soldiers with a car bomb.. Modi decided to retaliate and kill terrorists in their training camps so that they will not dare to attack again.
USA kills terrorists half way around the world. India should not defends its own borders.
Dont worry Modi will find a solution for Kashmir by clearing pakis out of gilgit baltistan.

Rin says

Reality says

When the British arrived, the south and the north of the sub-continent had different countries. The people living on the sub-continent obviously saw themselves as different from each other.

This is what I'm trying to discern, listening to members of various South Asian diasporas vis a vis ...

Reality says

If you think Indira Ghandi was corrupt for causing conflict

a corrupt matriarchy and her numerous screwups?

Sure, I'm certain that ppl in modern times are trying to make a difference and mend fences but I can't buy into this idea that India was originally united, in terms of both race & culture, and it was only the British who did the dastardly deeds when it's clear that both Bahrain and Malaysia are better off, in terms of tolerance & general cohesiveness, over their re...

You want proof that India is same race and culture: You ask me about it.
There are 12 rivers in India from north to south. Every year 1 river is celebrated in 12 year cycle. If the cultures are different why would one region respect others?
There was a religious reformer atleast in 500 BC. He setup religious places of knowledge in 4 corners of present day India. And other smaller religious places called peeta in 26 places some of them are in present day pakistan and bangladesh.

indc says

Do you have any proof that south and north were 2 different countries or kingdoms? I just posted India's 1760 map on other thread did you even bother to check it? why is that important because that is when british started to visit india and start foothold in bengal.

I'm not the least bit interested in any map provided by "epic"-worshiping nationalistic liars like you. There are plenty reliable historical maps of the sub-continent on the internet. Maps of all countries change over time. The British East India Company was formed on December 31st, 1600. There were far more than two countries on the Indian sub-continent in 1601 and in 1760.

What do you mean indira gandhi caused conflict. Are you a pakistani talking about 1971 war?

No. I was talking about the conflict that you said she caused within India itself. And no, I'm not from the sub-continent at all, just quite familiar with the history of many parts of the world.

Pakistan is a breeding ground for terrorists. They sent out a terrorist and killed 44 soldiers with a car bomb.. Modi decided to retaliate and kill terrorists in their training camps so that they will not dare to attack again.
USA kills terrorists half way around the world. India should not defends its own borders.
Dont worry Modi will find a solution for Kashmir by clearing pakis out of gilgit baltistan.

Why don't you go fight and die for that cause and stop pestering us here with your nonsense. Modi's election eve bombing exercise was transparent political theater, and the execution was terrible (losing a war plane and almost a pilot).

indc says

You want proof that India is same race and culture: You ask me about it.
There are 12 rivers in India from north to south. Every year 1 river is celebrated in 12 year cycle. If the cultures are different why would one region respect others?
There was a religious reformer atleast in 500 BC. He setup religious places of knowledge in 4 corners of present day India. And other smaller religious places called peeta in 26 places some of them are in present day pakistan and bangladesh.

Such revanchism is proof that most of the world's brown countries, even their alleged intellectuals, are living in the pre-1648Westphalian world (i.e. intellectually pre-modern, literally atavistic). Obviously, the manufactured claim you are copying is essentially laying territorial claims to all of Pakistan and Bangladesh (either that, or the prophets thousands of years ago already foresaw precisely the map of British division of the subcontinent in 1948! so you might as shut up). The number happen to be 12 because the editor of that collection redundantly counted major rivers and their tributaries selectively, therefore goal-seeking 12 (perhaps they worked for the government statistics bureau of a prehistorical "India"; LOL!) .

By such silly logic, because Celtics used to occupy all the land in Western Europe, Central Europe and Balkan frontiers of the Roman Republic, should Ireland today lay claim to all of Western and Central Europe north of the Alps (perhaps even the Po Valley south of the Alps)? Kicking out all the French and Germans?

What you have there is even worse: pure myth and superstition of relatively recent invention trying to rewrite history. The South-Asia subcontinent population consisting of one race and culture? Are you kidding me? What the heck happened to the invasion corridor from the north? When are you going to lay territorial claims to Indochina after you are done with taking over Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka?

Reality says

indc says

Do you have any proof that south and north were 2 different countries or kingdoms? I just posted India's 1760 map on other thread did you even bother to check it? why is that important because that is when british started to visit india and start foothold in bengal.

I'm not the least bit interested in any map provided by "epic"-worshiping nationalistic liars like you. There are plenty reliable historical maps of the sub-continent on the internet. Maps of all countries change over time. The British East India Company was formed on December 31st, 1600. There were far more than two countries on the Indian sub-continent in 1601 and in 1760.

What do you mean indira gandhi caused conflict. Are you a pakistani talking about 1971 war?

No. I was talking about the conflict that you said she caused within India itself. And no, I'm not from th...

So you are another of those "shit brained" liberals who dont have any logic. Did you hold placards outside white house asking US govt not to kill osama?
Liberals in India are worst They held placards and asked govt to not to kill terrorists arrested in India. India is no ones bitch anymore.
Around 900AD ghazwa-e-hind was declared and india was attacked troops 4 different kingdom came together and beat the troops so bad that caliphate disintegrated.
Which is not taught in any history book, not even in India.

Reality says

indc says

You want proof that India is same race and culture: You ask me about it.
There are 12 rivers in India from north to south. Every year 1 river is celebrated in 12 year cycle. If the cultures are different why would one region respect others?
There was a religious reformer atleast in 500 BC. He setup religious places of knowledge in 4 corners of present day India. And other smaller religious places called peeta in 26 places some of them are in present day pakistan and bangladesh.

Such revanchism is proof that most of the world's brown countries, even their alleged intellectuals, are living in the pre-1648Westphalian world (i.e. intellectually pre-modern, literally atavistic). Obviously, the manufactured claim you are copying is essentially laying territorial claims to all of Pakistan and Bangladesh (either that, or the prophets thousands of years ago already foresaw precisely the ...

Another comment with no logic or pure lies. What do you mean recent invention. The celebrations were happening atleast for 5000 yrs with recorded history.
Celtics can claim if they were still doing that even today. They ran away because of other tribes. Indians did it even under muslim and british rule.
pakistan, bangladesh were carved out of "british india". Nepal and tibet had treaties with british India. After british left India did not occupy nepal. But China occupied tibet.
Its high time that people outside India stop tell it how to behave.
No one calls tiammen square massacre conflict it is pure oppression of ones citizens. that is what Indira gandhi did.
Is europe considered 1 race? They are all caucasoids I think.
No one will say all of India is one race. People came to India all the time because of its riches. But it is like adding a bucket of water to ocean. That water also becomes salty.

indc says

So you are another of those "shit brained" liberals who dont have any logic. Did you hold placards outside white house asking US govt not to kill osama?
Liberals in India are worst They held placards and asked govt to not to kill terrorists arrested in India.

Osama who? Why would someone who died in a cave of likely kidney failure in 2001-2002 matter at all a decade later?

India is no ones bitch anymore.
Around 900AD ghazwa-e-hind was declared and india was attacked troops 4 different kingdom came together and beat the troops so bad that caliphate disintegrated.
Which is not taught in any history book, not even in India.

hmm, India was no one's bitch anymore because of some story from 900AD? Have you heard of the British India Company founded in 1600 and the British Raj after that? I suppose it is easy to fool the average IQ=82 population when the native politicians ran the economy to the ground after the British left.

indc says

Another comment with no logic or pure lies. What do you mean recent invention.

It's a recent invention by recently selectively picking and choosing a few pieces from a sea of myths. It's just like when you start with 2000 stock pickers, after 5 years, you are likely to find one of them to be a "consistently high performing" stock picker in the previous 5 years . . . then in the 6th year he is likely to fail: because he was a lottery winner through the picking-and-choosing process, not his own competence.

The celebrations were happening atleast for 5000 yrs with recorded history. Celtics can claim if they were still doing that even today. They ran away because of other tribes. Indians did it even under muslim and british rule.

You can't even keep track of something that happened less than 20 years ago (the death of Osama), what makes you a reliable examiner of alleged "5000 yrs with recorded history"? Did a few Nazi leaders' worship of Odin and Ocult make entire Europe the land of the Celts today?

pakistan, bangladesh were carved out of "british india".

There was no "India" as a state (as opposed to a geographic concept/genera-direction like "Europa," "Orient," "West Indies") before "British India."

Nepal and tibet had treaties with british India.

The post-1948 state of India is not the sole sucessor state to "British India." Pakistan, (Bangladesh), Nepal, Sikkim and Burma were all successor states to British India. India already took over Sikkim, and is in the process of taking over Nepal, along with declared intention of over-running the 1948 cease-fire line in Kashmire, which became a quagmire because India would not allow regional/national self-determination in Kashmir through open public voting on the issue. Why do you think there is a constant armed rebellion/resistance in Indian occupied Kashmir for the last 70+ years, but no such rebellion/resistance in the other half? Just like Chinese should have allowed Tibetan self-determination, perhaps India should have likewise allowed Kashmiri self-determination?

After british left India did not occupy nepal. But China occupied tibet.
Its high time that people outside India stop tell it how to behave.
No one calls tiammen square massacre conflict it is pure oppression of ones citizens.

Where have you been? Have you been hiding under a piece of rock for the past 30yrs? Your own nationalistic claims to the entire South-Asian sub-continent is even more ridiculous than the Communist Chinese claim to Tibet. The Communist Chinese are making claim to Tibet based on itself being the successor state to the Manchu Empire some 120-150 years ago, instead of allowing post Westphalian and post-WWI national self-determination; you are making your claim based on alleged history before British arrival 400 years ago, and likely nothing more than myths and "epics" thousands of years ago. The Manchus at least had well kept court records as well as external treaties with the British, among others . . . whereas the "epics" and myths that you are talking about are little more than oral traditions that are re-interpreted and reinvented every generation as they are currently being done.

Is europe considered 1 race? They are all caucasoids I think.
No one will say all of India is one race.

Yet, that's exactly what you said when you stated "You want proof that India is same race and culture: You ask me about it.
There are 12 rivers in India from north to south. Every year 1 river is celebrated in 12 year cycle. If the cultures are different why would one region respect others?" You were claiming the south asian sub-continent was not only one race but also one culture ("India is same racee and culture")

Not united. This doesn't show the scores of tiny states, semi-independent vassals, city-states, etc.



In 1500, Vasco da Gama had made his first trip to India and barely made it. He landed in Kozhikode, where he met the KING of Kozhikode (Calicut), where the Muslim Merchants tried everything possible to prevent him from trading. Yes, Calicut had it's own King and the Portugese interfered with the rivalry over the throne to beat the Muslim Merchants who did not want Christians spoiling their monopoly. As you can see, Calicut was supposedly part of the Empire of Vijayanagar according to the map but de facto independent - no united India. Eventually the Brits would back Mysore in conquering Calicut.

When Da Gama entered India, the Muslim world panicked; their usual bullshit about climbing huge mountains and risking their lives ("Oh, my cousin Jamal DIED in the hands of the Roc") to get pepper and cinamon and saffron, hence the outrageous prices, collapsed.

By Da Gama's fourth trip, Europeans were involved in battling Muslims and using their vastly superior ships to move the needle for the friendliest Indian Leaders, playing off the various Indian States against each other while elbowing the Jihadis out of the Indian Trade.

Reality says

indc says

So you are another of those "shit brained" liberals who dont have any logic. Did you hold placards outside white house asking US govt not to kill osama?
Liberals in India are worst They held placards and asked govt to not to kill terrorists arrested in India.

Osama who? Why would someone who died in a cave of likely kidney failure in 2001-2002 matter at all a decade later?

India is no ones bitch anymore.
Around 900AD ghazwa-e-hind was declared and india was attacked troops 4 different kingdom came together and beat the troops so bad that caliphate disintegrated.
Which is not taught in any history book, not even in India.

hmm, India was no one's bitch anymore because of some story from 900AD? Have you heard of the British India Company founded in 1600 and the British Raj after that? I suppose it is easy to fool the average IQ=...

Only if you tell it its history. If someone else tells it, its a story?
That his-story I was explaining to Rin because he says India was always conquered by outsider. And I wanted to point out the lies in that narrative.
You talk about low IQ and point out that EIC formed in 1600 and immediately started occupying the world...
British became a political power in 1757 when they defeated the bengal kings.
If osama was dead in 2002, why were 6trillion $ of tax-payer money mine and your spent hunting him. And only before obama was done with his presidency he was killed miraculously.
https://www.britannica.com/place/Bangladesh/The-British-period-c-1700-1947

Jesus. 44 comments on India as a topic. Did wet bulb get mentioned? How about Guam? Either way, I'm sure it's all Trump's fault.

WookieMan says

Jesus. 44 comments on India as a topic. Did wet bulb get mentioned? How about Guam? Either way, I'm sure it's all Trump's fault.

Both america's left and right are against india, so they come out of the woodworks when their narrative is challenged. Trump is one of the few good men, he loves the hindooos.

OccasionalCortex says

indc says

Ok I got new definition of lying now.

Except that is part of the old definition of lying. But I can see how someone who just trolls thinks he can re-invent the dictionary.

indc says

Another myth spread by british. Caste is not a term from india. British try to impose it on India. There were different group of people divided according to their profession. No one considered one superior to other which was what castism means. British decided who were upper caste and who were lower caste. And people had to accept their terminology because that was the only way they could secure jobs. And stupid indian governments try to follow the same even after independence.

wow! So much bullshit!

Brits used it, sure. But it was already in place long before they got there.

Just like Indians d...

Ok I take back my smear, you dont have shit for brains...

You may think I am bulshitting about Caste. But in india there are 4 castes or varna in Indian context. And everyone thought they were superior.
Brahim because they were keeper of Knowledge,
Kshatriya because they were keeper of Political power,
Vaishayas because they were keeper of money and trade.
Shudras because they were keeper of physical labor.

OccasionalCortex says

indc says

You may think I am bulshitting about Caste.

You are bullshitting that they were a construct of the Brits.

But once caught, you tried to avoid that. Just like you totally avoided the uncivilized open defecation issue.

SInce you are saying that I am bullshitting... let me explain the way you will understand maybe.
If you see saw harry potter there are four houses:
Gryffindor
Hufflepuff
Ravenclaw
Slytherin
They were having a ball of a time. They consider others i.e. muggles(untouchables).

Then dementors (british) I am trying to be funny here, come in and say. Hey there teams I dont want you to be merry I will fix you guys, because how can 4 teams which are different be friendly to each other, we suggest this:
Gryffidor is the best
Hufflepuff is the next best
Ravenclaw is the third best
Slytherin is the last
muggles are the worst.

But the 3 houses complained asking why gryffindor is the best. And to this day Dementors say we gave culture to you by stratifying you.

I never deny open defacation is a problem. But you cannot provide proper toilets to everyone, and the corrupt governments never do it.
The present prime minister is much better he helped build 40million toilets. It will take sometime and push from government to fix the problem. Then people like Reality come in and say you hindu nationalist party war mongerer why dont you have a status quo of a slave as before.

indc says

Only if you tell it its history. If someone else tells it, its a story?
That his-story I was explaining to Rin because he says India was always conquered by outsider. And I wanted to point out the lies in that narrative.
You talk about low IQ and point out that EIC formed in 1600 and immediately started occupying the world...
British became a political power in 1757 when they defeated the bengal kings.

The stories you were telling were simply fantastic and not believable, not surprising considering that you are more into "epic" (i.e. fantasy stories) instead of real history. When the British EIC arrived in India (i.e. when British arrived in India), the sub-continent was fragmented into numerous independent states. In 1760, the subcontinent still had several independent states . . . entirely in contradiction to your claim that the sub-continent was a united people before the British arrived or took power.

If osama was dead in 2002, why were 6trillion $ of tax-payer money mine and your spent hunting him. And only before obama was done with his presidency he was killed miraculously.

What are you talking about? The money was spent on building military bases all over the world in anticipation of future wars against possibly Russia, China and/or India . . . along with the acquisition of equipment and training of personnel. It's the cost of maintaining a Thalassocracy (and breaking up or preventing the rise of big land-based monopolies). Obama wheeled out Osama for his re-election; too bad the body didn't preserve well in deep freeze for over a decade, so some body had to be dumped at sea instead of being offered up for public display.

indc says

I never deny open defacation is a problem. But you cannot provide proper toilets to everyone, and the corrupt governments never do it.
The present prime minister is much better he helped build 40million toilets. It will take sometime and push from government to fix the problem. Then people like Reality come in and say you hindu nationalist party war mongerer why dont you have a status quo of a slave as before.

After the British left the sub-continent, the Hindustanis and the Pakistanis have turned the sub-continent into sh*t under the banners of socialism and nationalism. When Hindustan finally started economic reforms in the 1990's, it's a replay of Da Gama and British EIC arriving at the seaports, and the native Hindustanis flocking to trade with the foreign sea-borne merchants, breaking free from the continental land-based monopolists (aka the Hindustani government bureaucrats this time, just like the various Muslim and Hindu princely rulers the last time). What the BJP and Modi have been doing is rather similar to what Hitler did a century ago: even as German people moved from the east side of Germany to the west side in pursuit of commercial opportunities (even Hitler's own parents and grandparents moving from the east side Austro-Hungarian Empire to Linz located on the west side of Austro-Hungarian Empire), his advocacy of Lebensraum / "living space" in the east served as a political platform for catching the idiot votes. What Hindustani today would want to move to Kashmir? instead of the coastal cities to get higher paying jobs? Yet, the nationalistic Lebensraum political ploy gets the idiot votes in the streets. The idiots in the streets just want to vote themselves into being slaves of the land-based monopolists (aka, the government of Hindustan), even as their daily economic choice shifts towards trade on the coast.

As for building toilets, how does wasting money running a police state and occupying Kashmir help build toilets in Hindustan? How many Hindustanis want to use toilets in Kashmir and get their asses shot up in the crossfire between "freedom-fighters"/"terrorists" vs. "security"/"enslavers"/"occupiers"?

Reality says

indc says

I never deny open defacation is a problem. But you cannot provide proper toilets to everyone, and the corrupt governments never do it.
The present prime minister is much better he helped build 40million toilets. It will take sometime and push from government to fix the problem. Then people like Reality come in and say you hindu nationalist party war mongerer why dont you have a status quo of a slave as before.

After the British left the sub-continent, the Hindustanis and the Pakistanis have turned the sub-continent into sh*t under the banners of socialism and nationalism. When Hindustan finally started economic reforms in the 1990's, it's a replay of Da Gama and British EIC arriving at the seaports, and the native Hindustanis flocking to trade with the foreign sea-borne merchants, breaking free from the continental land-based monopolists (aka the Hindustani government bureaucrats t...

All your comments are lies or half truths but I am bored with replying to each one of them. So here is a video if you bother to see about your kashmir comments.
www.youtube.com/embed/_aoYNQrOOu0

To all you guys yapping about single india.

Here is its map durig 2 different but important kingdoms.



And here is a map of europe even in 1000AD.




And even roman senators were complaining about trade deficit with India and they were talking about southern ports of India.

indc says

All your comments are lies or half truths but I am bored with replying to each one of them. So here is a video

I'm not going to contribute to view count of videos that you send when you are too lazy to present your arguments.

indc says

Here is its map durig 2 different but important kingdoms.

260BC and 400AD maps? What the heck do they have anything to do with the reality on the ground circa 1600-1900AD? For all we know, Mongols and their Timurid successor state armies could have killed off entire populations on that piece of land around 1200-1500AD. In case it's not obvious on that 1000AD map, the turks were still thousands of miles away from Asia-Minor Peninsular (modern Turkey) . . . so those ancient maps don't prove anything: different time, different people, different culture.

A little comment on those map masturbation exercise: education and especially map fantasy can be one of the most disturbing destroyers of previously prosperous civilizations . . . because maps give the false impression that the ruler "owns" every human being on that piece of land when in reality every single human being is capable of making his/her own calculations. Greek city states had prosperous commerce, then Plato's Academy eventually led to Aristotle's student Alexander, who "united" all of ancient Greece and put an end to the prosperity of Greek city states (refocusing societal effort to mindless imperial warfare). Other civilizations like those of the Mesopotamia, Nile Valley, Persia and Far East had similar experience of education and cartography turning city states' prosperity into endless imperial warfare and totalitarianism. What the supposedly "educated"/brainwashed men show in their fervent map-worship is in reality their own slavishness in imperial bureaucracy. The implied message in a political map ("coloring the map") is actually state-slavery similar to Sparta's Helot system.

Reality says

indc says

All your comments are lies or half truths but I am bored with replying to each one of them. So here is a video

I'm not going to contribute to view count of videos that you send when you are too lazy to present your arguments.

indc says

Here is its map durig 2 different but important kingdoms.

260BC and 400AD maps? What the heck do they have anything to do with the reality on the ground circa 1600-1900AD? For all we know, Mongols and their Timurid successor state armies could have killed off entire populations on that piece of land around 1200-1500AD. In case it's not obvious on that 1000AD map, the turks were still thousands of miles away from Asia-Minor Peninsular (modern Turkey) . . . so those ancient maps don't prove anything: different time, different people, different culture.

Ok lets make a deal you watch the video and make a comment on what you think of it. I promise I will reply to everyone of your comments?

I too dont care about maps but how do you explain that to people who dont even know abcs of other civilization. We need to debunk their narratives through their own lenses.

Indian "culture" spread all the way from west asia to southeast-asia and far-east asia. And there is no record of anyone forcing it on them. But people like Rin say India is always a bitch. People of sword only understand the meaning of sword. And think whole world will respect and listen to only it.

indc says

Rin say India is always a bitch

For a person who's only contributed a tidbit here & there, I'm being rather focused upon, as if I'm the 80%.

BTW, I'd told my Parsi friend to listen to the above, which he did. Here's the thing, his grandparents were Zoroastrians and thus, don't have anything vested in the so-called Islamic Golden Age, which he and others believe, never existed. Islamic scholasticism was the theft of Persia and Byzantine.

Plus, the story of Alexander is kinda lame in the sense that Alexander's armies which went into today's Pakistan/India area were from middle Persia and not Greece/Macedonia, at that point in time. So sure, it was the last expedition of a person who'd spent much of his resources, defeating Darius. And like anyone who'd overextended himself, he lost everything on his way to Babylon, through the southern Iranian deserts but so what? ... many Persians (in the know) don't care for Alexander because unlike the Muslims, he'd left Zoroastrianism in tact for future generations. He was let's just say, a foreign 'Shogun', nestled between two Persian dynasties.

The idea is that in ancient times, the most influential Empire of the near east was Persia. Zoroastrianism was in the core empire and then, Buddhism & Shamanistic ideas in the east, bordering today's India, China, and Mongolia. So sure, the actual Gautama lived in the region between India & Nepal, however, even archeology shows that the Pali Canon was not the only source. There was another found in Gandhara
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandh%C4%81ran_Buddhist_texts ) which puts the existence of Buddhism right on the border regions of the Persian Empire, all the way back in ancient times.

And even if one says that India had much of 'Afghanistan', did it also have pre-Soviet/pre-Russian Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, etc, where there have been discoveries of Zoroastrian fire temples and Buddhist shrines by archeologists over time? Last I'd checked, ok it was a 100 years ago, Bukhara.S.S.R was a Soviet Republic before Stalin broke it up to prevent any group in Central Asia from forming nationalistic ideas from being descendants of some older Persian Empire.

Rin says

indc says

Rin say India is always a bitch

For a person who's only contributed a tidbit here & there, I'm being rather focused upon, as if I'm the 80%.

BTW, I'd told my Parsi friend to listen to the above, which he did. Here's the thing, his grandparents were Zoroastrians and thus, don't have anything vested in the so-called Islamic Golden Age, which he and others believe, never existed. Islamic scholasticism was the theft of Persia and Byzantine.

Plus, the story of Alexander is kinda lame in the sense that Alexander's armies which went into today's Pakistan/India area were from middle Persia and not Greece/Macedonia, at that point in time. So sure, it was the last expedition of a person who'd spent much of his resources, defeating Darius. And like anyone who'd overextended himself, he lost everything on his way to Babylon, through the southern Iranian deserts but so what? ... ma...

I didnt want to pick on you because you are a level headed guy who doesn't want to be stuck in a rat race of propagating your genes. But here come the truth bombs;
Rin says: India was always a bitch to white hordes from its north-west. Even Alexander the great came and conquered India.
When given counter argument: Oh Alexander is a spent force using only mercenaries from persia so obviously he lost.

I dont care about history of the world until you bring it to my shore. I care even less about islam. Just want it to be eliminated or modernised.

Do you even know history of zoroastrianism? Zoroaster was follower of a religion similar to hinduism. Then he created his own religion.
https://www.history.com/topics/religion/zoroastrianism

You think the fire temple idea came out of the blue to him. No he copied what he already has see mostly. Because FIre is an important element of Hinduism.
So yes all those places you listed are influenced by Hinduism. You think it is a coincidence that their name ends with -stan? its a sanskrit word for "place" Which could be root for "stand"

When they were kicked out by muslim hordes where did they go to India. And what did they say We are your sister religion and we will melt into your "culture" please accept us.

When was buddha born before 400bce. Was he a hindu when he was born yes. Did he quote vedas yes. So he created his ideas from hinduism?
Was buddhism at the border with persia yes because it was propagated by the mauryan kings. It was in china too and all over India.

And who are you calling shamanistic. Is that what you are taught? No wonder you dont want to believe hinduism is older than buddhism.
It had all codified laws even before anything was happening in europe. And why cant europe and norther Asia doesn't have any culture. Because they were under a huge ice cap until 12000 years ago and mostly had neanderthals living there.

And I wanted you to listen to the his-story lesson because what they were talking about happened atleast 5000yrs ago. Much before zoraster in persia.

indc says

Ok lets make a deal you watch the video and make a comment on what you think of it. I promise I will reply to everyone of your comments?

No deal. As I already explained in my previous post, I'm not interested in adding to the view count of a youtube video that you bring. If you have a counter-point to what I wrote, make the point here in your own words.

I too dont care about maps but how do you explain that to people who dont even know abcs of other civilization. We need to debunk their narratives through their own lenses.

You are the one who brought 260BC map and 400AD map in an attempt to prove India was a united country in 1600AD and 1760AD. Either you are utterly clueless or you are a nationalistic propagandist accustomed to lying.

Indian "culture" spread all the way from west asia to southeast-asia and far-east asia. And there is no record of anyone forcing it on them.

Many cultures spread across a wide area and inter-space with other cultures. The Vendic culture very much came from outside of modern day Hindustan and was imposed on the natives by force.

But people like Rin say India is always a bitch. People of sword only understand the meaning of sword. And think whole world will respect and listen to only it.

Governments throughout history were almost always imposed by "the sword" . . . that is not to say people fighting each other to have their turn at manipulating the government machinery necessarily lead a happier life than those who try to stay away from tyrannic governments. Large land-based political monopolies tend to become corrupt and inefficient very quickly (within a handful of generations), therefore frequently had to be replaced by a more efficient "new bureaucracy" (i.e. dumping the old existing bureaucrats / monopolists), especially given the general antipathy of the ruled harbor towards their own rulers after a few decades of monopolistic exploitation; that's why big continental countries tend to have frequent invasions, conquests by foreigners, internal revolutions and fragmentation/unification cycles.

Ok, so here it is ... Zoroaster, let's say the father of the Persian culture, if not nation, was a 'northeast' Vedic guy before ancient era nation-states were delineated.

I'm guessing that the above statement is your counter thrust to the Parsi guy's theory.

If so, it still doesn't change what happened in the centuries ahead ... the kings leading to Cyrus (the Great) built an Imperial state from today's Pakistan, to Kazakhstan, west out to Ukraine & Greece, and southwest out to Sudan/Ethiopia. Can you name an Empire larger than that, which survived for centuries (albeit w/ Roman rivalry) up until Islam?

So was Cyrus's Supersized Empire, an extension of India's Religious 'Imperial Largess' to the rest of the known ancient world?

And yes, the argument that Alexander the Great only defeated Darius's dynasty is really, the only true damage which that remarkable ancient Empire sustained prior to Abu Bakr's barbarian hordes. Alexander's generals had to retain the old Persian system, starting a new dynasty, after both kings were deads. This also happened to China, between family lines, which is why China was one nation between 220 BC and 1900 AD, and I suppose since foreign stakeholders were only on the coastline, it stayed one nation till today. In Persia's case, it was between Cyrus (~550 BC) and Yazdegrid III (~650 AD). There was no Persian Empire afterwards.

And as for India, didn't Alexander defeat Porus in conflict? Sure, Alexander left shortly afterwards, since his men were completely exhausted and then, he proceeded to lose his entire army in the southern Iranian deserts but how's that important?