Tooting Carmen's list of relatively benign dictators

[Sebastianus Rex]

And while the Indian caste system is certainly abhorrent, is it really much if at all worse than Jim Crow and Apartheid, both of which were in part the creations of the descendants of British settlers and were actually enforced by their respective states?

You sound like the Africans, the Muslims and the Asians also didn't have similar segregationist systems.

The African transatlantic slave trade started because the enslaved tribes were sold along the African coast by the conqueror African kingdoms, there were no incursion of europeans (or should I say jewish merchants/slave traders) into the African hinterland, the mortality rate was just to high. The last countries in the World to officially abolish slavery were precisely in Africa, almost until the end of the 20th century. Ethnic cleasings among African tribes/ethnicities are common place, such as the relatively recent example in Rwanda.

The Muslims implemented a tribute and segregationist systems to the members of other religions (often with massacres to those populations) and were massive slave traders.

Apart from the caste systems in India, also China has a long history of slavery, serfdom and subjugation of ethnic groups. Segregationist systems so did the Japanese in China and Korea.

Not even mentioning the beautiful American cultures with their cannibalistic and human sacrifice practices.

I could go on forever but if you're interested I'm sure you can search for yourself instead of spamming the usual "white man bad" woke clichés.

[Tooting Carmen]

You sound like the Africans, the Muslims and the Asians also didn't have similar segregationist systems.

The African transatlantic slave trade started because the enslaved tribes were sold along the African coast by the conqueror African kingdoms, there were no incursion of europeans (or should I say jewish merchants/slave traders) into the African hinterland, the mortality rate was just to high. The last countries in the World to officially abolish slavery were precisely in Africa, almost until the end of the 20th century. Ethnic cleasings among African tribes/ethnicities are common place, such as the relatively recent example in Rwanda.

The Muslims implemented a tribute and segregationist systems to the members of other religions (often with massacres to those populations) and were massive slave traders.

Apart from the caste systems in India, also China has a long history of slavery, serfdom and subjugation of ethnic groups. Segregationist systems so did the Japanese in China and Korea.

Not even mentioning the beautiful American cultures with their cannibalistic and human sacrifice practices.

I could go on forever but if you're interested I'm sure you can search for yourself instead of spamming the usual "white man bad" woke clichés.

Nice example of whataboutery there. Wars and ethnic cleansings are hardly unique to Africa - God knows Europe's history is replete with them. (One reason I am a little sceptical of Holocaust Memorial Day is because we are supposed to act as if it were the only such atrocity to occur either in Europe or elsewhere, which is not true). Anyway, neither Dhimmitude nor certainly any domestic African practice was anything like as codified or rigid as Apartheid or Jim Crow, whatever the ethnic hatreds and hierarchies that exist among them.

However, one thing we could perhaps agree on is that humans as a whole are a pretty cruel and violent species, and no group within them is really any better than the other in that regard.

[Tooting Carmen]

Kolkata was not industrial, it was pre industrial.

Perhaps "economically developed" might be a more adequate term then?

The industrial revolution started in Britain not in India.

Which, along with our home-grown coal, steal and steam energy, was fed in large part by...cotton from India!

There was never political unity in the Indian subcontinent, it was a conglomeration of several despotic kingdoms and many ethnic and religious groups that were always fighting against each other and allied with the europeans or became their vassals to gain advantage or be protected against rival kingdoms.

The concept of a united India was/is neither more nor less artificial than a united Europe, the latter of which has also seen plenty of wars and divisions. Even though I am a Remainer, I only support the EU for practical and diplomatic reasons, not racial or romantic ones. Certainly, I would not like it to become a fully-fledged state with a single military et al. And the reason this is relevant is because the example of India, with its numerous ethnic, religious and linguistic divisions and associated dysfunctions and conflicts is a salutary lesson for those who think that a united Europe would be truly viable.

The great Bengal Famine in the 18th century was caused by crop failures due to climate disasters which are very common in that region.
The Bengal famine of 1943, it happen mostly due to the disruption of rice imports from Burma which was occupied by Japan. During the British Raj the population of the Indian subcontinent increased exponentially, which means that the overall living conditions improved regarding the previous periods. Anyway, great famines are common in the history of the region, the period with less famines was precisely the British Raj and thanks to the railway system built by the British, those famines are now much less common than ever in history.

I was referring to the 1943 Famine. Although the British didn't initiate it, Churchill's insistence on importing rice en masse rather than leaving it there to feed the locals vastly exacerbated it. What ended India's famines was mostly the Green Revolution in the 1960's.

Burning widows alive is a savage practice but feel free to disagree.

Dilapidation of women under suspicion of adultery is a savage practice.

Yes of course they are. But from the perspective of a devout Hindu, slaughtering cows to eat them might be seen as a savage practice. Does that mean that a VJP-ruled India would have the right to invade European countries and impose their laws and practices on them? Absolutely not.

A caste system where the lower caste members are considered soulless and prohibited from practicing most jobs, is an extremely backward social system and yet the higher castes complain about the British oppression. LOL!!

Saying that the British had the right to colonise India because of the iniquities of the caste system is not that different to saying that the British or anyone else would have the right to colonise the US because of the iniquities of Jim Crow. (That isn't such an outlandish comparison as it may seem: many Communists used to argue - admittedly wrongly and opportunistically - that their system was morally superior to US Capitalism because of the mistreatment of Blacks, and there were even some European intellectuals such as George Bernard Shaw who argued that a European nation or even Imperial Japan should invade the US in order to "stop them lynching Negroes").

[Sebastianus Rex]

If you compare a cow with a wife I'm done discussing with you, perhaps if the widow was your mother you wouldn't write such bestialities. Never mind, glad you are so comprehensive with savage cultures, soon they will rule over the UK so you need to adapt.

[Tooting Carmen]

If you compare a cow with a wife I'm done discussing with you, perhaps if the widow was your mother you wouldn't write such bestialities. Never mind, glad you are so comprehensive with savage cultures, soon they will rule over the UK so you need to adapt.

It was an albeit poorly-worded way of saying that no culture or society has the complete monopoly on virtue or vice. And just to clarify: (1) No I am not a complete relativist, and there are indeed absolute standards in this world. Nevertheless, it is abundantly clear that notions of human rights can be abused themselves to interfere, colonise and subjugate others. (2) The point about colonisation, regardless of who the perpetrators or victims might be at any given time, is that it is ultimately degrading for the colonised and they seldom if ever ask for it/consent to it, whatever positive effects that might occur as a result of colonisation. (3) It is also abundantly clear that you are an apologist, or at least a minimiser, of oppressive right-wing regimes and systems, more than I might be an apologist for leftist regimes. (4) In spite of the above, I myself last year opened a thread called The Rise Of The West, which basically points out that it was the West's wealth that enabled it to colonise the rest of the world, not the other way round as is often argued. It also pointed out that Western Europe started to significantly diverge from everywhere else in terms of science, technology and philosophy as far back as the 13th century. Therefore, believe it or not, I try to be as objective and balanced as possible.

[Sebastianus Rex]

^^
3. That's precious coming from someone who started this thread, praising several right wing dictatorships.

I don't even favour right wing economic and social policies, anyway left and right are empty outdatet labels to divide the populace and prevent from evolving into the fourth political theory.

[Tooting Carmen]

^^
3. That's precious coming from someone who started this thread, praising several right wing dictatorships.

I don't even favour right wing economic and social policies, anyway left and right are empty outdatet labels to divide the populace and prevent from evolving into the fourth political theory.

Up to a point I agree. I am still social democratic-leaning on economic issues. Nevertheless, the political divides I see in the modern world are generally as follows:

(1) Localism v globalism. Do we mainly emphasise the local and the particular, or do we mainly emphasise the (supposedly) global and universal? Do we believe that (within reason) every people has the right to maintain its own language, culture, customs and political and legal arrangements? Or must all that be sacrificed to conform to some putative global ideal?

(2) Pro-nature v anti-nature. Does the natural world have value in and of itself, or does it exist for us to exploit and use as we see fit?

(3) Objectivity v subjectivity. Is there an ever-present external reality, regardless of our wishes? Or can we claim to be whatever we see fit? Can a man become a woman (or vice versa), or a White person become Black (or vice versa), regardless of what genetics and physiology suggest?

(4) Holism v materialism. Is material wealth and success the main value of life? Or can happiness be found in other aspects like family, community and tradition?

[Sebastianus Rex]

Up to a point I agree. I am still social democratic-leaning on economic issues. Nevertheless, the political divides I see in the modern world are generally as follows:

(1) Localism v globalism. Do we mainly emphasise the local and the particular, or do we mainly emphasise the (supposedly) global and universal? Do we believe that (within reason) every people has the right to maintain its own language, culture, customs and political and legal arrangements? Or must all that be sacrificed to conform to some putative global ideal?

(2) Pro-nature v anti-nature. Does the natural world have value in and of itself, or does it exist for us to exploit and use as we see fit?

(3) Objectivity v subjectivity. Is there an ever-present external reality, regardless of our wishes? Or can we claim to be whatever we see fit? Can a man become a woman (or vice versa), or a White person become Black (or vice versa), regardless of what genetics and physiology suggest?

(4) Holism v materialism. Is material wealth and success the main value of life? Or can happiness be found in other aspects like family, community and tradition?

Don't fall for the usual simplistic manicheist/dualist dichotomy and try to reason in a triangular or even quadrangular dimension, that's why the study of the fourth political theory is nowadays essential to break from that mindset and think for alternatives outside of the(ir) box:

https://novaresistencia.org/quarta-via-politica/

https://novaresistencia.org/quarta-teoria-politica/

[Tooting Carmen]

Don't fall for the usual simplistic manicheist/dualist dichotomy and try to reason in a triangular or even quadrangular dimension, that's why the study of the fourth political theory is nowadays essential to break from that mindset and think for alternatives outside of the(ir) box:

https://novaresistencia.org/quarta-via-politica/

https://novaresistencia.org/quarta-teoria-politica/

Sounds interesting. Actually, the British philosopher John Gray has made some similar points regarding the supposedly conflicting ideologies of Capitalism, Communism and Fascism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_...eath_of_Utopia