Comment by triceratops
20 days ago
Quite a motte and bailey there. You said India is backward today compared to ancient Greece. Then when I pointed out all the ways in which ancient Greece was backward you began comparing to something else. To be clear: ancient Greece, the "fountain of democracy" had legal slavery. Modern India does not.
The US has the most people in modern slavery in the Western hemisphere: https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/country-studie....
And that's even counting Mauritania: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Mauritania
"Countries with large populations have large numbers of people doing <insert illegal act>" is hardly a revelation.
> Yes, as of 1950 when democracy was copied and pasted from other civilisations
So weird that those "moral" British didn't allow Indians to vote before that. I thought you said they were the good guys!
No extant country has adopted democracy from first principles. Everyone copy-pasted it. 1950 was the first time India had the choice and chance to do it, and they took it.
> You said India is backward today compared to ancient Greece
No, I didn't mean that. I said if Ancient Greece is your yardstick, India would be more than 1000 years behind today without external influence. Ancient Greece was 2000 years ago, not 1000.
> The US has the most people in modern slavery in the Western hemisphere: https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/country-studie....
Okay, but it's also a huge country the size of a continent, so of course it's got more than most of Western Europe. If Luxembourg had a million modern slaves there'd be nowhere to hide them. And it has much, much more sensitive systems for detecting this sort of thing than India does, so you can imagine that number is not lowballed.
> India would be more than 1000 years behind today
Behind what? And what are you basing this on, other than vibes and your biases?
> without external influence
Of course it would be externally influenced, even without being colonized. It isn't an island. It couldn't shut itself away like Japan did pre-19th century. Japan is more modern than India because it wasn't colonized. They just took ideas from abroad - industrialization, capitalism, mass literacy, adult male suffrage, (some) democracy (pre-WW2) - and adopted them.
> Okay, but it's also a huge country the size of a continent
And India isn't?
> They just took ideas from abroad - industrialization, capitalism, mass literacy, adult male suffrage, (some) democracy (pre-WW2) - and adopted them.
Japan is more modern because it already had a very advanced, well-organised society. Japan is more like the UK in that it's a source of civilisation rather than a recipient. However it hugely calcified around religion, where the Emperor is basically god, and the utter decimation of that belief upon two nukes landing on Japanese soil meant that Japan had a huge reset, and took on - extremely well - the latest and greatest at the time, which was UK and US-based lower-case liberal capitalism.
> Japan is more modern than India because it wasn't colonized
This is backwards. Japan was organised, modern and hard-working enough to not be colonised throughout history.
> > Okay, but it's also a huge country the size of a continent
> And India isn't?
I think you need to bear in mind the conversation being had, rather than goldfishing through statements forgetting where they came from. This was: "The US has more slaves in it than anywhere else in Western Europe". Answer: "It's much larger than anywhere else in Western Europe." Nothing to do with India.