|
The idea of Caste is present among many cultures (including the West) and it is a complementary component to capitalism so I don't see why or how it would be erased in the near future. I am interested in India, however, especially how their industrialization has gone and why there's apparently larger numbers of poor than in say, China or other industrializing nations.
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 01:23 |
|
|
Thundercracker posted:I have an amazing idea: Let the Indians handle their affairs. Like has attempting to shoulder the "White Men's Burden" ever worked out to the benefit of the indigenious population? The topic has moved on to "what can India do to solve its problems" and given that Indians are real people and not opaque beings from another world I think it's fair to discuss possible solutions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I always see people saying this, and I find it really strange. Do you think that propaganda has been employed throughout history just for shits and giggles? It is absolutely possible for the government (or private industry for that matter, if it has enough power) to heavily influence the way the public thinks about certain issues, up to and including almost entirely removing certain ideas from public discourse. Which is why after the collapse of the Soviet Union everyone remained atheists instead of immediately converting to Russian Orthodox Christianity. Wait, no they didn't.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Miltank posted:What is your point here? That propaganda never works? Because nobody is arguing that it always works.. Not in the short term (i.e., less than a few centuries), no. At least for the type of things we're describing (cultural or religious institutions).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Actually, to be honest the "Culture X is better than Culture Y" is problematic. There are certainly aspects of cultures which may be objectively worse but it's kind of dismissive to say that the entire culture of a region is fundamentally inferior. You see a similar issue elsewhere - for example, the classic "Islam is misogynistic" rant by Islamophobes. Islam as a religion is not misogynistic, much as India as a culture is not misogynistic, there are just those who fall under the given groups that are misogynistic, and that can be dealt with more directly.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Can we agree that raping people, burning widows and throwing bodies into a sacred river is bad? What exactly does a culture have to do in order to endorse an action?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:I don't know what exactly, but there is a point somewhere where throwing a corpse in the Hudson river is not okay, and burning widows in Central Park would not be a popular custom. Anti-vaccination is popular in some parts of this country, would you say American culture endorses it?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I really wasn't trying to be snarky or anything when I asked what India and Pakistan gained by separating from Britain. I am assuming that Britain was looting their resources or something right? In general, colonies were set up so they could most efficiently offload resources to the mother country, and as far as I know India wasn't really an exception. So it wasn't really looting so much as exploitation; the difference might seem trivial but it's a failure to modernize (because there was no gain for Great Britain) instead of a concentrated effort to steal from the country. e: There were of course things like the rail network but again those were mostly set in so that the goods the British wanted could be more efficiently delivered rather than a benefit to the local people.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Bro Dad posted:Poverty. The level of inequality is so high in India that a local tax collector, MP, or large businessman can do whatever they want because it costs just pennies for them to get a case dismissed or slowed down. Meanwhile bringing cases to trial is very difficult unless you have some clout because India has a loving enormous backlog of poorly kept records and trial dates can take years. There's even cases of Indian women giving birth and raising children while still in jail awaiting trial. I seem to remember there were cases regarding land disputes that began shortly after India separated from Pakistan and are still ongoing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:To be meaningful I think Imperialism should refer to something other than 'intervention', otherwise hundreds of NGOs are imperialist. Doesn't imperialism involve subjugating a country to extract wealth or bring under political control for purposes of building a larger alliance? Of course there have been many insincere interventions (well you see Saddam's a dictator) that were actually imperialist, but some others were less so (Libya). The bolded parts are synonyms.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I don't see how. Political control implies dominance, while the latter implies partnership. Obviously it's rare that you get a true partnership of equals, there's usually some sort of imbalance, but as long as you're allowed to break off relations unilaterally I don't see how that could be defined as imperialism. Note the "For purpose of building a larger alliance". Sending resources to communists so they can take over a country and then help you legitimize communism is the definition of "building a larger alliance".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:No, sending resources to communists so they can take over a country and then fix some of the worst, most unnecessary poverty in the world. If they decide to help out in the distant, distant future after (if) they can improve their own situation, great -- but the assistance isn't for that or conditional for that. It is if your future plans are to convert more countries to communism.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Why focus on the "larger alliance" part though, that's the least important part of it. What matters is "bring under political control", which requires more than just the same/a similar ideology. Again, not if your goal is worldwide communism/[your ideology here]. The mere fact of having a state that's friendly to your ideology near the country you're trying to convert will make it a lot easier to accomplish your goals (because at the very least they won't be helping your opponents).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:In that case no one can support anything they think is good, ever, and "Imperialism" has lost all meaning. Or maybe you're actually being imperialistic and don't want to admit it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:So your definition of political control is "My ideology reigns there"? I'm not saying having similar ideology doesn't help, it obviously can, but similar ideology doesn't mean much on its own. Obviously there are things like the Sino-Soviet split but presumably if you're pouring money into a country you're trying to support people who are friendly towards you. Unless you're just a moron who gives money to anyone who calls themselves Marxist anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:So Computer Parts, is it OK to talk about helping people in India as long as suggest a Chicago School Islamic Theocratic regime, just to make sure there's no chance that it could ever support other things I like later and prove the purity of my motives? Leaving aside the fact that I truly think some socialist programs and strong state power are the only thing capable of actually helping India at this juncture, making sure I'm not accused of Computer Parts's deliberately vague redefinition of Imperialism should be my foremost priority. You do know "White Man's Burden" wasn't originally ironic, right? People back then also legitimately believed it was the correct course of action.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:We should absolutely allow our discomfort at the possibility of our being compared to the British Empire (totally an apt comparison for what I and others have suggested) and an old Kipling story to dissuade us from talking about other countries. The point is "I legitimately believe this is the correct course of action" is not a defense.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 01:23 |
|
|
Torka posted:4000, seriously? Isn't that like a month's wages? The minimum wage per month from what I found here is about 2600/month. So a bit more than a month's wage probably. It's also equivalent to ~$60 here. computer parts fucked around with this message at 16:36 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 16:34
|
|