3 ms·
The Indian subcontinent also mostly farms rice but doesn’t display effective large scale cooperation or rule following. I wonder why?
by rayiner 9mo ago
The Indian subcontinent also mostly farms rice but doesn’t display effective large scale cooperation or rule following. I wonder why?
- opan 9mo agoPerhaps related to the caste system. Not sure how relevant that still is these days.
- boxed 9mo agoIt's very relevant. Untouchables are fairly regularly murdered with the police doing nothing, and scandals breaking regularly about caste based discrimination showing up in US corporations from immigrants even.
- rdfc-xn-uuid 9mo agoIts true. Only problem we avoid speaking such things to westerners is that your left-brained 90IQ liberal arts media picks it up and spins as an anti-brahmin narrative (who are less than 10%) while most perpetrators of such crimes are landholding classes (often grouped as "other backward caste" for political reasons).
- whynotmaybe 9mo agoAm I understanding correctly that because westerners tend to misappropriate caste problems, you keep the lid on it ? I don't know where you place 2020's CNN on the left/right scale but Brahmin is not named in this news : https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/01/tech/cisco-lawsuit-caste-discrimination/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/01/tech/cisco-lawsuit-caste-...
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- boxed 9mo agoIn that specific case it probably is Brahmin discrimination though. The previous poster was talking about the murdering.
- nelblu 9mo agocaste system will likely never die in India. I once even joked to my friend that one day when Indians will start accepting gay marriages they would post a matrimonial ad something along these lines - "Looking for an intelligent, well-behaved, educated, fair coloured gay groom for our son (Brahmin only)".
- embedding-shape 9mo agoWorth remembering that many felt the same about male friends saying "I love you" between each other was seen the same way just like 2-3 decades ago, that it'll never be socially acceptable. We had a transition period where it was "required" to add ", no homo" at the end, but today seems like most men are comfortable saying it to each other as friends without adding that disclaimer. Big progress in just 2-3 decades, so never say never :)
- leosanchez 9mo agoThere are some states where caste doesn't matter like Telangana (not 100% casteless society but better than most states in the country). Also urban India is relatively casteblind.
- dwroberts 9mo ago[flagged]
- glitchc 9mo agoDoubtful. It has been a series of kingdoms and fiefdoms in internecine conflict since time immemorial.
- yunohn 9mo agoI see it as proof that a subcontinent doesn’t necessarily need to be centralized into a single country. Colonization unnecessarily made that happen, and there’s no going back now.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- Pearse 9mo agoCould it be that they were colonized by Britain? (I'm not sure if this is what you were insinuating, but it would make sense)
- boxed 9mo agoBased on the history of the region the opposite seems like a better assumption to me.
- zozbot234 9mo agoHong Kong was colonized by Britain, doing just fine now. The Mughal invasions were probably the biggest adverse shock.
- rayiner 9mo agoIt could be colonization but it would predate the British. The British East India company colonized India in the first place by exploiting the lack of cooperation. At the time, there wasn’t the overwhelming disparity between the countries there is today. Mughal India was one of the gunpowder empires, with the largest military in the world in the late 17th and early 18th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Mughal_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Mughal_Empire. The per-capita GDP gap between India and Britain was only a factor of 2. But India’s vastly large population meant it had about four times the state revenues. Britain couldn’t have, and didn’t, colonize India the way the Mughals had: through a direct land war. Instead, the British East India company entered into deals with various port cities one by one to establish toe holds. Then in the Battle of Plassey, they overthrew the Nawab with just 750 British soldiers and 2,000 Indian mercenaries against a Mughal army of 50,000. The British persuaded the Mughal generals to defect, and the Nawab, fearing further defections, capitulated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plassey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plassey
- zozbot234 9mo agoThe British took India from the Marathi empire, not from the Mughals.
- naruvimama 9mo ago[dead]