Nirvana_Nut85 said:
NYCrysis said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
NYCrysis said:
|
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
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.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edicts_of_Ashoka
Conquest by trade and education. No western ruler compares. This is the guy that caused the kalinga war and afterwards changed the empire for humanitarian cause after regretting the misfortune he caused. AGAIN NO ONE LEADER COMPARES. You really don't have proof against my arguement that western wealth was caused by colonialism. British (opium wars) and Japanese (ww2) were the cause of the Red Revolution being so traumatic and brutal. Mao only learned from the best (western politics (communism)).
|
"In about 260 BCE, Ashoka waged a bitterly destructive war against the state of Kalinga (modern Odisha).[6] He conquered Kalinga, which none of his ancestors had done.[7] He embraced Buddhism after witnessing the mass deaths of the Kalinga War, which he himself had waged out of a desire for conquest. "Ashoka reflected on the war in Kalinga, which reportedly had resulted in more than 100,000.
Hmmm, doesn't sound too much like trade and Education to me. It is irrelevant what change of heart took place after the destruction he caused. I cannot for the life of me understand why you continue to argue when you were proven wrong. You Are Wrong. You can try and divert the argument as much as possible but the facts remain the same. Your argument had nothing to do with Western Wealth and colonialism. You claimed that the region of India was this peacefull, non waring , non slavery area pre islamic/colonialism. I proved your statment to be false. It is black and white plain and simple. It's like someone being sentenced to jail for murder and making an excuse that the guy down the road was a serial killer. Completely and utterly irrelevant to the subject at hand.
To address your absurd statment regarding Communism. Japan was not a communist country and Communism in China had nothing to do with the Opium wars that had occurred a century prior. Please educate yourself before babbling nonsense https://www.quora.com/Why-did-China-adopt-communism
Not too mention the most "brutal" country was Russia ( which can be classified as East &West).
P.S Here's another fine example of your peaceful pre Islamic/colonial India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chola_invasion_of_Srivijaya
Because they're definitely using Trade and Education as a means of conquest.
|
What you are showing me is peanuts compared to western conquest. I was saying in comparison to western conquest India has been historically far more peacefull and indian leaders DO NOT HAVE THE BLOOD OF MILLIONS. also from your own wiki page:
"Throughout most of their shared history, ancient India and Indonesia enjoyed friendly and peaceful relations, therefore this Indian invasion is a unique event in Asian history."
Like seriously get over yourself. India has been historically more peaceful and hinduism, buddhism jainism, and sikhism the most peaceful. Nirvana is a Sanskrit term maybe you shouldn't be using that as Sanskrit is Hindu and it seems you have ignorance towards it. You say india if having the oppertunity would do the same as european imperialists. Except due to historical religious texts christianity, and islam breed supremacy which leads to a holier than thou art attitude which allows for blind conquest and plunder.
Indian religions textually FORBID VIOLENCE unless self defense. And has historically shown the worst of indian conquest was pennies compared to western plunder. The numbers are there. Where are your numbers?
http://list25.com/25-of-historys-deadliest-dictators/5/
NOT ONE IS INDIAN.
Im not trying to show, with black and white thinking, that india is totally peaceful or was historically. But that western wealth was largely derived from the plunder of asia. And that if in power Indians (Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs) would not have caused the same travesties as the western world if roles were to have changed due to historical evidence of Indian peace. Remember India had one of the first the first agricultural and societal creations. So in effect Indian culture and Ideologies are much more evolved than euro's hunter gatherer dynasty.
