How India & China see each other

[Pratap]

Indians are more racist than Chinese in all honesty.

More races so that is evident. This is what happens when you do not read history. In China from 1900 to 1950 an extensive literature was written on how" yellow race" was better than brown Indians and dark africans but were slightly below whites.

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

More races so that is evident. This is what happens when you do not read history. In China from 1900 to 1950 an extensive literature was written on how" yellow race" was better than brown Indians and dark africans but were slightly below whites.

THey are racist toward all non white and non east asian people but at least they will be polite in front of you. You won't get killed for being an Indian in East Asia. However, you might just get killed for being mongoloid in India. White people are also racist historically but they are polite and well mannered. The Japanese are racist but one of the most polite people you will ever come across and they will never make you feel like they look down upon you. Indians (especially Northern ones) are aggressive and exhibit a particularly nasty sort of in your face racism which you won't find in East Asia.

 

[Pratap]

THey are racist toward all non white and non east asian people but at least they will be polite in front of you. You won't get killed for being an Indian in East Asia. However, you might just get killed for being mongoloid in India. White people are also racist historically but they are polite and well mannered. The Japanese are racist but one of the most polite people you will ever come across and they will never make you feel like they look down upon you. Indians (especially Northern ones) are aggressive and exhibit a particularly nasty sort of in your face racism which you won't find in East Asia.

BS. Some remarks were made against north eastern guys and they started fight and killed. People like you are just buying nonsense.
Out of thousands of africans and north easterners, how many have been even beaten let alone killed?
North Indians or Indians as a whole are " effeminate". Indians in USA can be taken for granted as they have no gangs there. Go to california and you will find murderous gangs of Japanese, Chinese and Koreans and you and your Dogras will be beaten by them in case you pick up fight.

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

BS. Some remarks were made against north eastern guys and they started fight and killed. People like you are just buying nonsense.
Out of thousands of africans and north easterners, how many have been even beaten let alone killed?
North Indians or Indians as a whole are " effeminate". Indians in USA can be taken for granted as they have no gangs there. Go to california and you will find murderous gangs of Japanese, Chinese and Koreans and you and your Dogras will be beaten by them in case you pick up fight.

Indians in USA are some of the most effeminate and pacificist Indians anywhere. Maybe because significant proportion of them are Gujaratis, Baniyas and South Indians. Indians in Canada are anything but effeminate. There are punjabi and tamil gangs in Canada. Delhiites are anything but pacifists. Hell they kill each other over parking space disputes.

 

[Pratap]

Indians in USA are some of the most effeminate and pacificist Indians anywhere. Maybe because significant proportion of them are Gujaratis, Baniyas and South Indians. Indians in Canada are anything but effeminate. There are punjabi and tamil gangs in Canada. Delhiites are anything but pacifists. Hell they kill each other over parking space disputes.

Canada does not have east asians . Punjabis are as numerous as Koreans yet just compare Korean record of warfare with that of Punjabis and you will see the difference. Punjabis have been ruled by every race that came to India.

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

Canada does not have east asians . Punjabis are as numerous as Koreans yet just compare Korean record of warfare with that of Punjabis and you will see the difference. Punjabis have been ruled by every race that came to India.

Eh you are confounding things. I'm not talking about warfare track records but aggression on an individual level. Look at Blacks. They are aggressive on an individual level but seemingly incompetent in organized warfare. Look at Arabs, or more specifically North Africans. Those guys are notorious for being aggressive and thuggery but colonized by so many foreign powers.
And Canada does not have East Asians? I live here. We have more East Asians than South Asians. They are everywhere especially in Vancouver.

 

[Pratap]

Eh you are confounding things. I'm not talking about warfare track records but aggression on an individual level. Look at Blacks. They are aggressive on an individual level but seemingly incompetent in organized warfare. Look at Arabs, or more specifically North Africans. Those guys are notorious for being aggressive and thuggery but colonized by so many foreign powers.
And Canada does not have East Asians? I live here. We have more East Asians than South Asians. They are everywhere especially in Vancouver.

North Africans are arabs and have ruled Spain for centuries . They fought and lost lakhs of men to gain freedom whereas Punjabi Sikh empire collapsed in three wars and then British ruled them so easily. No war of independence. Please do not compare Punjabis with martial race like Arabs.
Blacks were hunter gatherer till 1600 so no organized warfare but Indians had large resources yet could not do anything in face of foreign aggressors.

 

[Peter]

Canada does not have east asians . Punjabis are as numerous as Koreans yet just compare Korean record of warfare with that of Punjabis and you will see the difference. Punjabis have been ruled by every race that came to India.

Indo-Canadians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pratap]

Indo-Canadians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks but it does not prove that Indians are aggressive there.

 

[no smoking]

Buddhists in China are very few and far between. Also,India is not buddhist and Indian practices like worship of Shivalinga, eating rice with hands are much hated by Hans.

That is something far away from truth.

For most Chinese, religion is really not something we would consider in judging other people. Just remember, traditionally, confucianism reject religion to have influence outside religion.

And we really don't care if you eat rice with your hand or whatever part of your body.

 

[no smoking]

More races so that is evident. This is what happens when you do not read history. In China from 1900 to 1950 an extensive literature was written on how" yellow race" was better than brown Indians and dark africans but were slightly below whites.

I don't know where you get that idea. The fact is: from 1900 to 1950, Chinese elites tried their best to prove how Chinese was not lower than any other peole on this planet. They really didn't have the idea of "yellow race" at all because they were busy fighting an enemy -- Japan which belongs to your "yellow race".

And by the way, at that time, they really don't care "indians and dark africans" because:

1. Indians were also "foreigners" who came with britians invading China.
2. Most of them knew nothing about "dark africans" except world map.

 

[Bhadra]

@Pratap

You seems to be a very narrow racist kind of intellectual who thinks that winning a war is the only supreme virtue of civilisation and any one who is won over in military battles by others is inferior. You seem to think like that old British Clapham sect of Christians for whom it was impossible to conceive that there was any virtue in India; and it was axiomatic for them that India was sunk in superstition, ignorance, misery, and wretchedness. Only their use of the terms ignorance, misery, wretchedness, etc., was according to the then current British Christian terminology; and was used by them in the Christian religious sense (i.e. their belief that the people of India were in constant misery and sunk in wretchedness because of their ignorance of Christianity), and not as regards the material or secular condition of the people of India.

Or you judge India from a purely materialistic view who weighed Indian society and civilisation from the pedestal of materialism like James Mill. For him the highest form of civilisation, was a successful military civilisation. Consequently, he was all for manly virtues and, according to his measure, India was in fact very "effeminate" (the word you use most of the time) and so came very low on his scale of civilisation. Being the celebrated author of the voluminous History of British India, considered the major text about India (which every British officer, who came to India had to digest from 1820 onwards), it was natural that James Mill's strictures and judgement had even greater sway with the British who ruled India, than even the strictures of William Wilberforce.

(taken from Dharampal's writtings)

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

@Pratap

You seems to be a very narrow racist kind of intellectual who thinks that winning a war is the only supreme virtue of civilisation and any one who is won over in military battles by others is inferior. You seem to think like that old British Clapham sect of Christians for whom it was impossible to conceive that there was any virtue in India; and it was axiomatic for them that India was sunk in superstition, ignorance, misery, and wretchedness. Only their use of the terms ignorance, misery, wretchedness, etc., was according to the then current British Christian terminology; and was used by them in the Christian religious sense (i.e. their belief that the people of India were in constant misery and sunk in wretchedness because of their ignorance of Christianity), and not as regards the material or secular condition of the people of India.

Or you judge India from a purely materialistic view who weighed Indian society and civilisation from the pedestal of materialism like James Mill. For him the highest form of civilisation, was a successful military civilisation. Consequently, he was all for manly virtues and, according to his measure, India was in fact very "effeminate" (the word you use most of the time) and so came very low on his scale of civilisation. Being the celebrated author of the voluminous History of British India, considered the major text about India (which every British officer, who came to India had to digest from 1820 onwards), it was natural that James Mill's strictures and judgement had even greater sway with the British who ruled India, than even the strictures of William Wilberforce.

(taken from Dharampal's writtings)

He is no intellectual. Just a guy with a huge inferiority complex.