By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - 62 richest people has as much money as poorest 3.5 billion humans

NYCrysis on 27 January 2016
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
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. 

 

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.



Around the Network
Nirvana_Nut85 on 27 January 2016
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.   





" Rebellion Against Tyrants Is Obedience To God"

NYCrysis on 30 January 2016
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.   

 

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)).



Nirvana_Nut85 on 02 February 2016
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.




" Rebellion Against Tyrants Is Obedience To God"

NYCrysis on 10 February 2016
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.



Around the Network
Nirvana_Nut85 on 10 February 2016
NYCrysis said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:

"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.

Get over myself? Ignorance?There you go again using adhominem to try and deflect from the fact that you are unable to provide a sound argument.  All land is aquired through conquest. Pre-Islamic India was not formed through handshakes and political treaties.  Everytime I refute what you claim as fact, instead of admitting that you were wrong, you respond with  "Well the West did this" "and it was so much worse than what India did and that makes me right" Well, reality check for you, it doesn't  as that was not the argument.

I've addressed your statement original statement of "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". I disproved that by providing historical facts. It really is that black and white.

You now claim that given the "apparent" peaceful texts of Indians, that here is the reality of your peaceful India. Your Hindu culture continues to live in the stoneage with it's abhorrent Caste system; the treatment of women is appaling to where they shove rice down children who are born as females and where your rape culture makes anything in any Western country look like a day at Disney World. There is "THE BLOOD OF MILLIONS" except committed against your own. Also who empowers the  West to benefit off the Asian countries like India....Your own people! Thank God India never had the technological capabilities of properly defending itself or being able to  gather enough resources for conquest because as I previously stated, we'd be living in an ideaological stoneage. 

India was also not one of the first to implement agriculture and society.You can look to the Middle East and Africa for that. Your culture clearly is not evolved in correlation with ideology which you can refer to my previous statement of caste system and rape culture. I don't know where you get your information from but try looking to a secular source and not a biased one.

As for the term Nirvana, I use it as a referal to the band. Nirvana is mainly associated with Buddhism, which predates Hinduism. It is a state of "happiness and peace" somewhere you are clearly not as the Butthurt is strong with you :)



" Rebellion Against Tyrants Is Obedience To God"

NYCrysis on 11 February 2016
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
NYCrysis said:

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.

Get over myself? Ignorance?There you go again using adhominem to try and deflect from the fact that you are unable to provide a sound argument.  All land is aquired through conquest. Pre-Islamic India was not formed through handshakes and political treaties.  Everytime I refute what you claim as fact, instead of admitting that you were wrong, you respond with  "Well the West did this" "and it was so much worse than what India did and that makes me right" Well, reality check for you, it doesn't  as that was not the argument.

I've addressed your statement original statement of "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". I disproved that by providing historical facts. It really is that black and white.

You now claim that given the "apparent" peaceful texts of Indians, that here is the reality of your peaceful India. Your Hindu culture continues to live in the stoneage with it's abhorrent Caste system; the treatment of women is appaling to where they shove rice down children who are born as females and where your rape culture makes anything in any Western country look like a day at Disney World. There is "THE BLOOD OF MILLIONS" except committed against your own. Also who empowers the  West to benefit off the Asian countries like India....Your own people! Thank God India never had the technological capabilities of properly defending itself or being able to  gather enough resources for conquest because as I previously stated, we'd be living in an ideaological stoneage. 

India was also not one of the first to implement agriculture and society.You can look to the Middle East and Africa for that. Your culture clearly is not evolved in correlation with ideology which you can refer to my previous statement of caste system and rape culture. I don't know where you get your information from but try looking to a secular source and not a biased one.

As for the term Nirvana, I use it as a referal to the band. Nirvana is mainly associated with Buddhism, which predates Hinduism. It is a state of "happiness and peace" somewhere you are clearly not as the Butthurt is strong with you :)

Siddharta Gautima (Buddha) was born of a Hindu family...

"Clearly you don't know much Indian India never had the technological capabilities of properly defending itself or being able to  gather enough resources for conquest because as I previously stated, we'd be living in an ideaological stoneage. "

1) Violence towards women - the British ruled India for over 3 centuries during which time India was heavily influenced by England's Victorian tradition and outlook on life. India hasn't had its sexual revolution like England did in the 1960s.

2) Racist caste system: it is agreed by all historians that British created fissures between religions and between castes in India as a strategy to divide and rule. They perpetuated this strategy by rewarding behavior of the Zamindars that suppressed people by not only income but also social background.

Heres a link to a non White Washed version of what the caste system originally was before manipulated by the British: http://www.sanskritimagazine.com/indian-religions/hinduism/no-caste-system-hinduism/

You're pathetically a racist, blind and ignorant of history, and honestly you have no proof against what I said.  And the Ideologies you talk about come from Islam and Victorian British thinking AKA WESTERN CULTURE. It's funny how the western world can't get enough of YOGA, KAMA SUTRA, and lately AYURVEDA.

BTW The Indus Valley Civilization was built around the same time as ancient egypt but still undecipherable.  Indus Valley Civilization has the first drainage system, running water, and people bathed. http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2013/04/17/revealing-indias-ancient-art-and-inventions/

The US has a much higher problem with rape than India does.  Rape culture is used by people ignorant of reality and people who think western culture is superior. http://world.time.com/2013/11/08/why-rape-seems-worse-in-india-than-everywhere-else-but-actually-isnt/

You have no defense. The western world has done nothing but bring war and hate amongst everyone and that is something WW1, WW2, and the cold war have shown. 



Nirvana_Nut85 on 12 February 2016
NYCrysis said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:

Get over myself? Ignorance?There you go again using adhominem to try and deflect from the fact that you are unable to provide a sound argument.  All land is aquired through conquest. Pre-Islamic India was not formed through handshakes and political treaties.  Everytime I refute what you claim as fact, instead of admitting that you were wrong, you respond with  "Well the West did this" "and it was so much worse than what India did and that makes me right" Well, reality check for you, it doesn't  as that was not the argument.

I've addressed your statement original statement of "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". I disproved that by providing historical facts. It really is that black and white.

You now claim that given the "apparent" peaceful texts of Indians, that here is the reality of your peaceful India. Your Hindu culture continues to live in the stoneage with it's abhorrent Caste system; the treatment of women is appaling to where they shove rice down children who are born as females and where your rape culture makes anything in any Western country look like a day at Disney World. There is "THE BLOOD OF MILLIONS" except committed against your own. Also who empowers the  West to benefit off the Asian countries like India....Your own people! Thank God India never had the technological capabilities of properly defending itself or being able to  gather enough resources for conquest because as I previously stated, we'd be living in an ideaological stoneage. 

India was also not one of the first to implement agriculture and society.You can look to the Middle East and Africa for that. Your culture clearly is not evolved in correlation with ideology which you can refer to my previous statement of caste system and rape culture. I don't know where you get your information from but try looking to a secular source and not a biased one.

As for the term Nirvana, I use it as a referal to the band. Nirvana is mainly associated with Buddhism, which predates Hinduism. It is a state of "happiness and peace" somewhere you are clearly not as the Butthurt is strong with you :)

Siddharta Gautima (Buddha) was born of a Hindu family...

"Clearly you don't know much Indian India never had the technological capabilities of properly defending itself or being able to  gather enough resources for conquest because as I previously stated, we'd be living in an ideaological stoneage. "

1) Violence towards women - the British ruled India for over 3 centuries during which time India was heavily influenced by England's Victorian tradition and outlook on life. India hasn't had its sexual revolution like England did in the 1960s.

2) Racist caste system: it is agreed by all historians that British created fissures between religions and between castes in India as a strategy to divide and rule. They perpetuated this strategy by rewarding behavior of the Zamindars that suppressed people by not only income but also social background.

Heres a link to a non White Washed version of what the caste system originally was before manipulated by the British: http://www.sanskritimagazine.com/indian-religions/hinduism/no-caste-system-hinduism/

You're pathetically a racist, blind and ignorant of history, and honestly you have no proof against what I said.  And the Ideologies you talk about come from Islam and Victorian British thinking AKA WESTERN CULTURE. It's funny how the western world can't get enough of YOGA, KAMA SUTRA, and lately AYURVEDA.

BTW The Indus Valley Civilization was built around the same time as ancient egypt but still undecipherable.  Indus Valley Civilization has the first drainage system, running water, and people bathed. http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2013/04/17/revealing-indias-ancient-art-and-inventions/

The US has a much higher problem with rape than India does.  Rape culture is used by people ignorant of reality and people who think western culture is superior. http://world.time.com/2013/11/08/why-rape-seems-worse-in-india-than-everywhere-else-but-actually-isnt/

You have no defense. The western world has done nothing but bring war and hate amongst everyone and that is something WW1, WW2, and the cold war have shown. 

Racist? You're an absolute joke. Once again because you do not have the intellectual capacity to back up your argument and instead resort to your opinion and try and claim it as fact, well, I must be a racist. That makes absolute sense Proof against what you said? I destroyed your initial statement of India not having slavery or warmongering to which you cannot admit that you were wrong and constantly try to divert to "Blame the white man for everything". Clearly the only racist here is you.
You don't know Indian history is not a proper rebuttle. Technologically advance countries do not get taken over by lesser civilizations.

1) In regards to Buddha "Being so dynamic and fluid it is true to say that what today is called Hinduism simply did not exist at the time of the Buddha. The main religion at that time was Brahmanism, the worship of the gods mentioned in the Vedas through sacrifices and rituals. The Buddha was highly critical of Brahmanism. While he accepted the existence of the Vedic gods he denied their superiority over man. He disputed the authority of the Vedic scriptures, he severely criticised the brahmin priests and the caste system in general. The brahmin priests for their part condemned the Buddha as the worst type of heretic."

2) The source you provided is laudible at best nor does it claim anywhere that the U.S  "Rape culture" is worse or even remotely comparable to what goes on in India. That is just you, once again, adding your own false narritive in an attempt to make your weak argument look as if there is actual substance (which there is not). It was basically an apologist article. You added your own comment and tried to associate it with the article which is highly misleading. One Indian man in the comment section intelligently pointed out "Oh my God these obsessed Indians would do anything even lie just to portray that Indian is safe while the world and its own women call it the rape capital of the world. Child rape, old woman rape, beastality rape you name it India has. It is so pathetic. That comment holds as much credibility as the author of the article as it is an opinion piece.

Here is a non white-washed (as you claim) counter to your "Brown washed" article. The article which states more than 90% of rapes in India go unreported and discuss the atrocities that are finally seeing the day of light. http://girlsglobe.org/2013/03/09/behind-the-curtain-on-unreported-rapes-in-india/

3) No, once again you are wrong and cannot take the time to Simply investigate your own history. The division caused by the caste system occurred long  before the Muslim invasion or the British Raj. Once again I will provide a fact, not a flakey opion peice from a biased source (Sanskrit Magazine? Seriosuly?) What Historians are you referring to please? There was division in Indo society dating back to 1500 B.C "It was during this period of history that ancient India developed its distinctive caste system" "The tendencies towards social division had been present ever since the coming of Aryans (Lighter skinned people from the Persian region) into India."In India they solidified in the form of divisions between the castes, between whom intermarriage was forbidden.The priestly caste - the Brahmins - were at the top of the social ladder, as being closest to Brahma. Below them came the warrior caste, the Kshatryas. Then came the Vaishyas, the ordinary Aryan tribesmen, farmers, craftsmen and traders. Finally came the Shudras, menial workers, the labourers, servants and those performing services which are ritually unclean. There were also many people outside the caste system altogether, excluded from Aryan-dominated society. These were called the "Untouchables". They were not really regarded as human beings, and performed the most degrading tasks of all, such as dealing with human waste."

But go ahead, keep blaming the British.

4) Once again, you are wrong and do not do your homework prior to commenting on the facts provided. Most of the articles you provide seem to draw a false narrative and The Indus Valley Civilization was around 3200 B.C Whereas agriculture began in ancient Mesopotamia around 8000 BC. Several Millenia prior to your history. The Sumerians (first know civilization) were originally thought to have existed 5000 B.C but modern scholars now beleive that it goes even further back than that.

Drainage, baths,etc all predate The Indus Valley Civilization (Sumeria had pipe system around 4000BC)  while in acient Scotland it is speculated that they may have had piping sytems as far back as 8000B.C http://www.museumofthecity.org/project/a-brief-history-of-urban-waste-management/ The Harrapans were the 3rd major civilization to adopt this.

So let's combine a few of your final statements and address them. I have no defense? I am ignorant and a racist? Well let me provide you a definition of fact. It is what I have been using to destroy and call out your flawed argument. Fact - something that actually exists; reality; truth.  Therefore it is impossible for me to be ignorant when I have fact checked your sources and debunked your silly statements. I have clearly provided a defense. I have deconstructed your statements and pointed out to you the fallacies. I would state that it a strong defense.

 As for being a racist; properly refuting ones argument is far from racist. It seems that when you realize your argument holds no validity, you resort to name calling to try and divert from the point at hand, that you are simply outmatched. You then use hateful remarks towards "Westerners" which is plainly evident that you mean white people. Your hate towards Arabs seems strong as well.

The Western world has done nothing but bring war? Wow? I think you might want to check the definition of ignorant. That statement was full of it. The Renaissance and Industrialization say hello!



" Rebellion Against Tyrants Is Obedience To God"