Nirvana_Nut85 said:
NYCrysis said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
| NYCrysis said:Read your own article:
"The main feature of Indian slavery system was that Indian economy did not depend on slave labour. The workers and the cultivators were normally free men. These free workers were not slaves. India had no slave markets like that of Ancient Rome. India did not face slave revolts like that of Ancient Rome. Nor did India have Spartan type of slavery where the Spartan masters were at daggers drawn against their slaves. Indian slaves were mostly domestic slaves."
And the KALINGA WAR, are you goinf to really use that against me? Because that war with casualties far far less than most european wars, resulted in the unification of india and Buddhism being the state religion where arts, sciences, and peace thrived. LEARN HISTORY IGNORANT WESTERNER.
AMEN Europeans were brutal, their "technologically advanced AFTER THE BRITISH STARTED TO LOOT INDIA" guess who funded the Industrial revolution, the loot of the british east india company. You know nothng of indian history and your ignorance in "Indian slavery" which was really no different from lets say foxconn workers. Bad but not like the slavery that europeans created. AGAIN EURO ADVANCES WERE FROM THE SUPRESSION OF ASIA AND AFRICA AND ASIA AND AFRICA ARE in their current "poor" state beause colonialism, supressed these people's original culture and their education systems converted to basically slave for europeans. So yes the wealthy nations are still benifiting from colonialism and the divide and rule seperation they created before leaving those lands.
|
The article also stated that "The ancient Indian economy was mainly dependent upon Agriculture. There was demand for large labour force. Some scholars have suggested that slaves were widely employed in agricultural product and slave labour became a factor of production."
" A slave’s property ultimately belonged to the master. A master could not abandon his slave in old age. According to law books, if a master wanted to inflict physical punishment on his slave for dereliction of duty, he could beat him only on the back and not on the head"
I stated in my rebuttle that the slavery was not to the extent and inhumanity (I'm also pretty sure Foxxconn employees aren't beaten, so that was a poor comparison) of other countries but that is not what was being debated. You claimed that there wasn't slavery in India, pre-Islam/Colonialism. Clearly you were wrong as the article states.
Ignorant Westener is not a proper rebuttle. Using ad hominem because you do not have an intelligent response only belittles your argument. A comparison would be if I labelled you a whining self righteous brown person who blames white people for all the wrongs in the world. Using that would not be conducive to the argument.
Your statement was once again is false. You claimed pre islam/colonial India did not wage war. Regardless, there was quite a few wars and land grabbing as well as atrocities commited prior to the Muslim conquests of the 12th centruy. You may want to take a history class about your own culture prior to making these false comments. However, it seems you are going to a biased source which is why it is always best to try and find a scholar who does not have bias. A simply google search will help educate you.
This is not a debate on which country commited which atrocities or who had the worst form of slaverly. Nor is it relevant as to who was worse than the other. You claimed that pre Islamic India was this sort of peaceful country that did not have slaves. That statement was not accurate. All the ruling kingdoms did not just peacefully say let's be friends. There was constant fighting between regional kingdoms who at the time practiced (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism). There was slavery I provided examples that refutted your argument. It really is that cut and dry.
|
Yea, your revisionist history is baseless and bogus. India has temples that are dedicated to buddhists, jains, hindus, all side by side. Learn about Khajurao. Jainism is the most nonviolent religion in the world, and Buddhism most inelligent. Nalanda university and hundreds of years of knowlege was burned and wiped out by muslim invaders. India was home to the most prosperous civilizations far advanced from the western world until islam, and europe decided to be self rightous bigots and colonize the world. The western world has blood far greater than any other civilization in the world via ww1, ww2, and colonialism's famines. The amount of blood on your people's hands will come back to haunt you as karma is a bitch. Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, and Sikh texts all preach ahimsa and non violence unless for self defense. Christianity and islam, not at all. I will trust facts and books over your baseless they did it so it's ok for us to do it, because in terms of numbers the western world is evil and needs to change their ways before you guys destroy yourselves, and the world.
|
Baseless and bogus? All you have done is make false accusations without being able to back up your comments. Every false statement you've made, I refuted with fact and followed up with a source. Your response? To completely digress from the actual topic being discussed because you do not have an intelligent response when being proven wrong.|
There is blood on many nations hands. In the east, the infamous Red Revolution. Responsible for over 90 million deaths. The orient culture that practiced most of those religions you listed were constantly waring with each other without any "Western influence" for many centuries.
You must not have read any of the new testament as I would love for you to point out where excactly Jesus Christ condones any violence whatsoever. Love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek, forgive those who trespass against you.
From what I can see, the only self righteous religious bigot here is you.
|
