What's new

India is dominated by the West

Status
Not open for further replies.

VelocuR

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
6,188
Reaction score
5
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
India is dominated by the West

06jbmore.jpg


06kathakali.jpg


August 6 2013

'India may be independent politically and it may even become an economic power like Japan, but it remains and will still remain part of the global capitalist economy and system, dominated and controlled by the West,' says historian J B P More.

Nothing much has changed since Vasco da Gama's time, says historian J B P More.

That is why he holds the view that the Clash of Civilisations, between the West and the rest of the world which started in the 15th century with Vasco da Gama traveling to India and Christopher Columbus stumbling upon America, has continued till today and will continue for many more decades to come.

"I am sure Samuel Huntington (who proposed the Clash of Civilisations theory in a memorable 1993 Foreign Affairs essay) will agree with me," he told Rediff.com's Shobha Warrier in an interview conducted done over e-mail.

J B P MoreBorn and brought up in Pondicherry, More, left, moved to Paris to pursue a BA degree. He later did his PhD in history at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (the School for Higher Studies in Social Sciences) where his thesis was on the Muslims of Tamil Nadu.

He has published more than a dozen books with quite a few on the Muslims of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. In the first part of his interview to Rediff.com, he provides insights into the Muslims of Kerala and the consequences of Vasco da Gama's arrival in India.

Do you feel Indian (and Third World) history is seen always from the Western perspective?

Yes. Indian history is seen most of the time from the Western perspective. It is a colonial legacy.


Even after the colonial period, many Indian historians continue to work within the Western ideological frameworks and methodologies. They have not evolved anything worthwhile of their own, which is not Western. Therefore, they are bound to look at history from a Western perspective.

Besides, even after decolonisation, Western scholars continue to work on Indian history and society in greater numbers. They produce innumerable books from the Western perspective.

They have even resorted to collaboration and cooperation with like-minded Indian scholars and institutions after Independence in 1947, (which is part of the globalisation agenda of the West), thus ensuring their hegemony in the Indian intellectual and historical world even after decolonisation.

This has contributed largely
to look at history greatly from the Western perspective, which is thought to be universal.

Most Western scholars never adopt a completely neutral attitude towards history and society and the Indians largely follow it.

A historian has to view history as an outsider, standing above all group interests. He needs to be uncommitted.
 
Well this is a critical analysis but OP found it India bashing.
 
Well, India's GDP is roughly $1.8 trillion as of 2012, which puts it in line with Canada, not "the West".

This alone signifies the dominance of the West over India. White-majority countries have a total GDP of approx. $40 trillion, as of 2012.

Only China could possibly reach such a position. The amount of power that China would hold would be phenomenal. While the Western/European people are divided into 55 nations, consisting of some 1.2 billion people, the Chinese have one nation of 1.4 billion.

The amount of power such a country could hold would be nothing short of hegemonic. I look forward to seeing how China develops.
 
India must be ruled by civlilized people possibly from west or from east asia. Sonia Gandi alone cant do it...
 
India must be ruled by civlilized people possibly from west or from east asia. Sonia Gandi alone cant do it...

dude trust me....u guys need it more then we do
 
The so-called "West" is simply the most successful political/economic "system" that mankind has yet to develop. The only way to escape domination by this system is for a society to invent and develop a superior one. It has nothing to do with race. If Africans had discovered the elements of this system, then they would be seen as dominating. This system which is a blend of modified democracy and capitalism is successful because of the balance it strikes among human virtues and vices. It allows some selfishness (self-interested capitalism) tempered by communalism (progressive taxation), and, some democracy tempered by constitutionally mandated individual rights. India must either adopt this "system" or develop a superior one if it is to prosper. It's not accepting domination, it's recognizing success.
 
The so-called "West" is simply the most successful political/economic "system" that mankind has yet to develop. The only way to escape domination by this system is for a society to invent and develop a superior one. It has nothing to do with race. If Africans had discovered the elements of this system, then they would be seen as dominating. This system which is a blend of modified democracy and capitalism is successful because of the balance it strikes among human virtues and vices. It allows some selfishness (self-interested capitalism) tempered by communalism (progressive taxation), and, some democracy tempered by constitutionally mandated individual rights. India must either adopt this "system" or develop a superior one if it is to prosper. It's not accepting domination, it's recognizing success.

Wrong.

Africans do not have the intellect nor the personality, to be able to create, develop, and maintain an equal or superior system.

There are many African nations which adhere to Communism, and capitalism. Those that adhere to capitalism end up in civil war, or massive corruption, or both; those that do not, still end up like South Africa, or Detroit, or Chicago, or any other Black neighborhood on the planet Earth.

The political and economic systems of Nigeria, Congo, Haiti, and Detroit are almost completely different from each other. Take a look at the differences in their economic development... oh wait, what differences?
 
Asia has led the world, then Europe and North America. Now it is time for Africa to pull humanity forward.
 
Wrong.

Africans do not have the intellect nor the personality, to be able to create, develop, and maintain an equal or superior system.
The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate in both popular science and academic research since the inception of IQ testing in the early 20th century. The debate concerns the interpretation of research findings that American test takers identifying as "White" tend on average to score higher than test takers of African ancestry on IQ tests, and more recent findings that test takers of Asian background tend to score higher than whites. It is still not resolved what relation, if any, there is between group differences in IQ and race.

Claims of races having different intelligence were used to justify colonialism, slavery, social Darwinism, and racial eugenics.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, group differences in intelligence were assumed to be due to race and, apart from intelligence tests, research relied on measurements such as brain size or reaction times to demonstrate such differences.

Race and intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I personally think race has no connection with intelligence or personality. You can get progress if you get knowledge, opportunities and resources no matter which race or continent you belong
 
The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate in both popular science and academic research since the inception of IQ testing in the early 20th century. The debate concerns the interpretation of research findings that American test takers identifying as "White" tend on average to score higher than test takers of African ancestry on IQ tests, and more recent findings that test takers of Asian background tend to score higher than whites. It is still not resolved what relation, if any, there is between group differences in IQ and race.

Claims of races having different intelligence were used to justify colonialism, slavery, social Darwinism, and racial eugenics.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, group differences in intelligence were assumed to be due to race and, apart from intelligence tests, research relied on measurements such as brain size or reaction times to demonstrate such differences.

Race and intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I personally think race has no connection with intelligence or personality. You can get progress if you get knowledge, opportunities and resources no matter which race or continent you belong

If you believe it's environmental, then why do Blacks with an income $80,000-$100,000 have kids that averaged 461 on Math and 468 on verbal on the SAT, while Whites with incomes under $10,000 had kids that averaged 478 on Math and 480 on verbal?

And if you want to make it even more fair, compare Whites with income of $80-100k with Blacks of $80-100k. The Whites scored 539 on verbal and 534 on Math.

The data shown here reconfirms the jarring observation that has won the minds of many a race realist: Whites whose parents earn less than $10,000 score almost as high on the SAT as Blacks whose parents earn more than $100,000 (and score even higher than those Blacks whose parents are in the $80k-$100k bracket). No amount of controlling for x, y, and z explains that gap.

Also, the twin studies and longitudinal adoption studies demonstrate unequivocally that heredity, not the environment, is responsible for the vast majority of the variation in IQ scores. If you have ever studied psychometrics, you may recall that the narrow-sense heritability of IQ is roughly 0.5, meaning that heredity is responsible for 50% of the variance in IQ, within the range of environments sampled by the twin studies. This estimate is a floor, not a ceiling -- people conveniently forget that the "environmental" component also factors in things like dominance, epistasis, and other genetic effects that usually add up to a total of 75% by adulthood.

And if you have heard somewhere that twin studies are racist, evil, and irredeemably flawed (all of these are lies), we have multiple GWAS studies that largely replicate the same heritability figures for IQ. None of these are biased by the confounding variables that are traditionally blamed for inflating the genetic component to IQ.

By the way, that 25% that is environmental has almost nothing to do with parenting, school quality, choice of neighborhood, or any other variables that children in the same household share in common until they leave the nest. The longitudinal adoption studies are especially compelling on this matter. (See: the Colorado adoption study) Developmental psychologists (who, by the way, are wrong about just about everything) are beside themselves trying to explain away the pesky fact that the children of low IQ parents, who are adopted by the wealthy, score no higher on IQ tests at age 21 than their siblings who were never given up for adoption.

If you are incredulous, consider that IQ scores are no higher among whites in egalitarian, Nordic Sweden than they are in socially stratified America, and may even be slightly lower. How's that for the power of the environment? And if you don't believe my words, controlling for race, Americans also score higher on tests of actual academic achievement than every single country in the world. White Americans scores higher on the PISA than any European country. Asian Americans too sweep the board on these tests, scoring higher than even Chinese in Shanghai and Singapore. Latin Americans, too, score higher than any Latin American country that has been tested, although they still score significantly lower than the former two groups.
 
Well, India's GDP is roughly $1.8 trillion as of 2012, which puts it in line with Canada, not "the West".

This alone signifies the dominance of the West over India. White-majority countries have a total GDP of approx. $40 trillion, as of 2012.

Only China could possibly reach such a position. The amount of power that China would hold would be phenomenal. While the Western/European people are divided into 55 nations, consisting of some 1.2 billion people, the Chinese have one nation of 1.4 billion.

The amount of power such a country could hold would be nothing short of hegemonic. I look forward to seeing how China develops.

Look Chinese guy in america . Your billions of minions does not matter when it comes to power because you have NO chance and will never be a super power!

You will struggle to be a developed nation, your own premier in the past has called you a 3rd world country status . You have no NATO like alliance, just the tacit support of the world's who's who of pariah nations. When we go to war , we create a global alliance- when you will- it will be against a global alliance, nobody is going to come fight for you.

You have no global military reach and military bases globally and a billion mouths to feed. Plus you will have the Russians to contend in the same space - you see they still dream of being a super power again.

so please spare us about hegemony and the rest. You will be a regional power Plus at best, but never be in a position to taken on NATO countries.

Really , it does not take even critical thinking but just basic knowledge of what it takes to challenge the " power of "US + NATO, the sole power power for next 100 years at worst.

Next ticket to Shanghai Bob's fantasy tour starts in a few minutes, enjoy!.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom