NYCrysis said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
| NYCrysis said:
Sorry, you should learn Indian history. India didn't have slavery, nor it's inhabitants ever wage a war on any other nation. Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism all gave birth in India while buddhism spread throught asia by trade and peaceful contact. And since their inception, those religions have accepted eachother and others, until Islamic Conquests (1200-1700) and British Colonialism (1700-1800) sent India (and China) in a way back a 1000 years. All the while generation of Indians, and Africans were being supressed and forced to basically make colonists rich, yes in fact it still is true, why is it that europe and and america own more wealth than all other races, when for the majority of humanity asia was the superpower? Before Europe and Islamic people started interfereing with their affairs with swords and guns ablazen. This article's maps proves my point: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/map_of_the_week_global_wealth.html
|
That is not actually factual. Although not to the extent of other countries, there was slavery in pre-islamic India. Here is an article that details the history of slavery in India. http://www.importantindia.com/1089/slavery-in-ancient-india/ This was prior to Islamic or colonial invasions.
Also around 500 A.D is when they started bringing in African slaves who were the lowest in the caste system.
There are also accounts of pre colonial and islamic wars in Ancient India as well. The Kalinga war as an example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinga_War. Which was fought for "economical" and "political" reasons which basically spells out a land grab.
Europe owns the majority of the wealth due to the simple fact that they were more technologically and militarily advanced from the Renaissance on (which once America was established, followed the same suite). It has nothing to do with Religion. It has everything to do with power and if these Asian countries had the same capibilities, they would have done the same thing.
|
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.
