patrick.net

d6rB says

indc says

What is common in all these conflicts - Abrahamic expansionism maybe.

Probably in Muslim vs Indian, in other cases not so much. Adolf liked old Germanic religions AFAIK. In any case, religion always was an additional excuse for looting. Agree though that monotheistic religions typically are more aggressive.
WRT to development, see Japan, S. Korea - they are not city states and were devastated as well. S. Korea is in state of war even now.

Again no denying any of that. India tried the socialist approach as it had to ride on Russia's coat tails. That was one of its major mistakes. Capitalist societies prosper which was what India was according to its civilizational ethos. When british left they called it transfer of power that means all the their idiotic laws and ideologies were transferred to new indian government.

It will all change now since the new government is trying to bring back the original Indian ethos.

How many troops did north send to south after DMZ was set. India has to face-off with pakistani troops crossing all the time. And china crossing line of control all the time.

YouTube employees will soon start organizing pride parades.

FortWayneIndiana says

YouTube employees will soon start organizing pride parades.

I think everyone should move to bitchute.

indc says

India tried the socialist approach as it had to ride on Russia's coat tails. That was one of its major mistakes.

That probably set India back another generation. That shitty economic system can screw up cultures and civilization.

Now you have American companies like the one I work for setting up shop in India employing software developers and doing some manufacturing.

Does that work for the original Indian ethos?

socal2 says

indc says

India tried the socialist approach as it had to ride on Russia's coat tails. That was one of its major mistakes.

That probably set India back another generation. That shitty economic system can screw up cultures and civilization.

Now you have American companies like the one I work for setting up shop in India employing software developers and doing some manufacturing.

Does that work for the original Indian ethos?

One of the ethos, make profit.

Steven Crowder was just demonetized.. Not because he broke any policies. Something about links to his T-shirts.

If it wasn't for the Brits we wouldn't have IPA!

just_dregalicious says

If it wasn't for the Brits we wouldn't have IPA!

Whatever british did its for betterment of its people. And I respect that. Nothing wrong in it.

But they dont need to lie that they brought "culture" to India. No need for white man's burden.

indc says

But they dont need to lie that they brought "culture" to India. No need for white man's burden.

So glad to hear the Indians re-invented the Railroad and Antibiotics, refusing to use those objects of British Imperialism.

HonkpilledMaster says

indc says

But they dont need to lie that they brought "culture" to India. No need for white man's burden.

So glad to hear the Indians re-invented the Railroad and Antibiotics, refusing to use those objects of British Imperialism.

really dude, you think railroads and antibiotics are culture? India gave vaccination to west are you going to stop using it?

Is selling wares same as giving culture. Then you should be grateful to china too.

Back to the OP

Youtube just demonetized one of my videos for no apparent reason. And I can't request a manual review because it doesn't have sufficient traffic. How convenient, since I assume they suppress non-monetized content. #StopBeingEvil pic.twitter.com/YipTf4Dx0W

— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) June 7, 2019

indc says

really dude, you think railroads and antibiotics are culture? India gave vaccination to west are you going to stop using it?

Yes, technology is downstream from culture. No doubt about it.

Ask the Sentinelese Islanders.

HonkpilledMaster says

indc says

really dude, you think railroads and antibiotics are culture? India gave vaccination to west are you going to stop using it?

Yes, technology is downstream from culture. No doubt about it.

No wonder west is doomed with that attitude. You can see how many people go berserk with their depression.

indc says

No wonder west is doomed with that attitude. You can see how many people go berserk with their depression.

Yes, doomed to heart transplants, reusable rockets, and the internet.

Nothing is white or black. Everything is a mix of positive and negative. Did British exploit/oppress India to their own benefit? Yes. Did they try to enforce their ideas on India? Yes. Was the latter good or bad? Probably some of both. Railroads, antibiotics=good for sure, as was start to abolish caste system and widow burning. Did, at some point in distant past, India contribute a lot to what we currently know as civilization? Yes. Does India contribute now? Not so much lately. Are the current problems in India result of British or Indians? I think 95+% caused by Indians.

First of all, what does the term, Indo-Aryan mean?

Let's break it down ...

Indo-Aryan is Indo-{ Ancient Persian } or Indianized-{ White Foreign Invader }.

Yes, India was not just ruled by Turkic Moghuls and the British Empire starting from the renaissance times but also, the Maurya & the Kushan "Persians" during ancient times,, nevermind the original Aryan invasion prior to 1200 BCE.

With this many whites screwing around in South Asia, to call out the British, is being hypocritical. India was always to some extent, a white man's bitch even if the earlier whites were Buddhists or Zoroastrians.

Lot of stories of poverty and horrible living conditions in England. British couldn't steal raw materials, gold, diamonds etc fast enough so they build railroads in India

Anything constructive work was done to help British empire. Look at temples from 2000 years ago, they were capable of lot.

European renaissance occurred after they robbed whole world of ideas, materials , technology... And with all that imagine how much they could have helped humanity, but instead they did 2 world wars and destroyed each other.

Only benefit was that they stopped Muslim conversion in india. Existing culture was one of the most peaceful , and provides best options for humanity.

KgK one says

European renaissance occurred after they robbed whole world of ideas, materials , technology... And with all that imagine how much they could have helped humanity, but instead they did 2 world wars and destroyed each other.

Absolutely incorrect. Mine pumping, vacuums, cannon, and of course the amazing attainments in navigation, shipbuilding, and rigging enabled the Europeans to get to India by circling Africa long before Clive. Steam Engines were already being used to pump mines in the 1700s, and of course huge scale canal building and mine railroads (powered by horse or human labor) before that.

European Industrial ingenuity was responsible for 98% of the Economic Power of European Countries. 1% from controlling the carry trade in Asia (ie between China/Japan or China/India), and maybe 1% from all other sources.

There is nothing in Ceylon Tea (which the British planted there by stealing it from China) or Calicos from Kozhikode that doubled European IQ or something.

The intellectual powers from consuming cinnamon (known to Romans anyway) had nothing to do with the 17-19th Industrial and Scientific booms in Europe which multiplied productivity many, many times over.

Also, if there was something special about Indian raw materials that allegedly caused a boom in European Technology, well the Indians were sitting on it for thousands of years and didn't develop the combustion engine or the Periodic Table of the Elements.

Rin says

First of all, what does the term, Indo-Aryan mean?

Let's break it down ...

Indo-Aryan is Indo-{ Ancient Persian } or Indianized-{ White Foreign Invader }.

Yes, India was not just ruled by Turkic Moghuls and the British Empire starting from the renaissance times but also, the Maurya & the Kushan "Persians" during ancient times,, nevermind the original Aryan invasion prior to 1200 BCE.

With this many whites screwing around in South Asia, to call out the British, is being hypocritical. India was always to some extent, a white man's bitch even if the earlier whites were Buddhists or Zoroastrians.

Persians and Indians are pretty much the same. In ancient times india and persia were always fighting with each other and conquering each other.
The term "arya" was first used in India and later started being used by persian kings.
Where did you get stupid idea that buddhists are outsiders to India.
Sorry to burst your bubble RIN. AIT will be forgotten in another 50yrs. it was again one of those racist concepts created by british.

And a few more points:

1. Before the Europeans took over Western Indian ports, they were mostly controlled by Arab Imperialists. This is in addition to the Moghuls, I mean Arabs from the Gulf, not the Persians or Islamic Mongols.

2. The Europeans gained Western Indian Ports because they were first used by Indians as Mercenaries, trading port access to the Portugese to drive out the Muslims

3. Europeans played Indians against each other - easy because they were all mostly petty kingdoms in the South of India, say with the king's younger brother thinking he should be in charge - and ended up in control of small disconnected pieces of India.

4. One day in the late 1700s the British and French realized that instead of manipulating Indians, they might as well just rule directly.

d6rB says

Nothing is white or black. Everything is a mix of positive and negative. Did British exploit/oppress India to their own benefit? Yes. Did they try to enforce their ideas on India? Yes. Was the latter good or bad? Probably some of both. Railroads, antibiotics=good for sure, as was start to abolish caste system and widow burning. Did, at some point in distant past, India contribute a lot to what we currently know as civilization? Yes. Does India contribute now? Not so much lately. Are the current problems in India result of British or Indians? I think 95+% caused by Indians.

again nothing wrong in what you said. All I am saying is british did nothing for India in grand scheme of things.

Now if you want to know a people who DID inspire the Europeans to Industrial Production, that was China.

The impetus to develop cheaper, domestic alternatives to Chinoserie (sp?) - Chinese ceramics - got the Europeans, like the Chinese today, figuring out how to imitate it.

This brought a revolution in manufacturing and industry, such as seeking new fuels to fire kilns. Or developing the indigenious card system to imitate patterns that Chinese made by hand, the very earliest computer program in a way, not much different than the card punch system of early computers in the 20th century, except manually powered by a foot pedal.

Delftware was Europe's less labor intensive answer to importing expensive Chinese ceramics.

The other cool thing about Japanese and Chinese is they don't pretend that they are somehow responsible for European Inventions, and acknowledge the Europeans first developed and introduced them. Unlike Africans and some Indians.

HonkpilledMaster says

And a few more points:

1. Before the Europeans took over Western Indian ports, they were mostly controlled by Arab Imperialists. This is in addition to the Moghuls, I mean Arabs from the Gulf, not the Persians or Islamic Mongols.

2. The Europeans gained Western Indian Ports because they were first used by Indians as Mercenaries, trading port access to the Portugese to drive out the Muslims

3. Europeans played Indians against each other - easy because they were all petty kingdoms with the king's younger brother thinking he should be in charge - and ended up in control of small disconnected pieces of India.

4. One day in the late 1700s the British and French realized that instead of manipulating Indians, they might as well just rule directly.

None of the facts you listed are wrong. But all I am saying is your small brain can think of only 500yrs. Where as the history out there is much-much older.

indc says

None of the facts you listed are wrong. But all I am saying is your small brain can think of only 500yrs. Where as the history out there is much-much older.

I agree that the Indians were the first to invent Systemic Algebra and a vastly superior numeric system (not Algebra itself, Diophantes wrote a book with 100 Algebraic Questions, but it was not systemic and his symbology was a greatly inferior Greek Geometric-based system).

And of course Math is the King of Knowledge.

But, let's not be like the Arabs who pretend they invented both Algebra and "Arabic" (Hindi) Numerals because a converted Persian Jew translated a Book given a gift by a Hindu King to a Persian Prince into Arabic. Or that making some minor corrections to ideas like the pre-Muslim Alexandrian Optics many centuries later was a breakthrough. It's actually stunning how weak and unproductive Arab Civilization was in the sciences. Even their vaunted medical texts are based on Galen, a Greek, and most of those written by Greek or Coptic Christians who happened to live in Egypt after the conquest by the Desert Barbarians.

Another fake Arab invention is the star catalog. Indians, Babylonians, Egyptians, and Greeks all developed the constellations and a great deal of astronomy long before the Great Butcher of Mecca and Medina was born. What happened was the Greek books were lost in the collapse of Roman, and bizarrely we use butchered Arabic names for stars originally named by non-Arabs, including Greeks, but only the Arabic copies survived.

Like "Alderbaran" which should be known either as "Rohini" or "Lampidias" after the ORIGINAL discoverers.

HonkpilledMaster says
The other cool thing about Japanese and Chinese is they don't pretend that they are somehow responsible for European Inventions, and acknowledge the Europeans first developed and introduced them. Unlike Africans and some Indians.

INDC
Why would chinese and japanese complain they were not occupied and looted by europeans of both materials and knowledge. Africa and India did.

Africa did not have recorded history so they cannot prove. India did have recorded history. Indian government till now was a communist one so they tried to suppress India's achievements. If you wait for few more years there is an Indian "Rajiv Malhotra" working on these proofs.
And for your record even greeks and indians were talking with each other in ancient times.

You guys are complaining that all the problems India has is its own. But you remember that europe went through dark ages after the muslim invaders were defeated.

indc says

You guys are complaining that all the problems India has is its own.

I'd argue that India hitching it's wagon to the USSR and flirting with Communism did far more harm to the people living today than the British colonial rule.

socal2 says

indc says

You guys are complaining that all the problems India has is its own.

I'd argue that India hitching it's wagon to the USSR and flirting with Communism did far more harm to the people living today than the British colonial rule.

Why do you all think that i am complaining about british rule? My complaint is british rule did not give India anything tangible. If they want to think that they were some kind of saviour of India they can shut it where sun cant see.

indc says

Why would chinese and japanese complain they were not occupied and looted by europeans of both materials and knowledge. Africa and India did.

LOL! Japan is currently under American military occupation. General MacArthur and his staff directed the writing of the Japanese Constitution after WWII . . . and the Japanese people benefited tremendously from the process compared to the constitutional fiascos of the 1920's. Hong Kong was a British crown colony; despite some silly Hong Kong youths craving for the territory's "return" to China in the 80's and early 90's, the smart people there scrambled to follow British in departing Hong Kong, and after two decades of Communist Chinese rule, most people in Hong Kong wish the British never left.

70 years of native African rule has made most former British colonies in Africa much less happy and less developed (when normalizing for the rest of the world and technological gains simply due to time passing; in some cases, like Zimbabwe, such statistical normalization may not even be necessary). Likewise for India.

What tangible result did British rule give India? How about "India" itself as a political entity? "India" was only a geographical concept before the British cobbled the dozens of city states into a nation using English as official and common language for the intelligentsia across the country. Not that unification is a good thing, but British rule (or more precisely, commerce under British laws) brought modernity to India.

It's silly to talk about the British looting any country. Such talk only shows a fundamental lack of understanding about how the economy works and how wealth comes about as explained by Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" (hint: division of labor enabled by exchange, not looting). British Empire was successful because it could protect and sustain global trade far more efficiently than all the petty rulers and "Great" rulers in India, China and Japan (never mind African chieftains). The local merchants and people in India, China and Japan by and large wanted to trade with the British (who offered more favorable terms to individual merchants and local consumers), despite the barriers set up by their local rulers. That's why India, China and Japan became wealthier after the British (and American) arrived on their shores and (sometimes forcibly) opened their doors by limiting and removing the local corrupt and inefficient government monopolies.

indc says

None of the facts you listed are wrong. But all I am saying is your small brain can think of only 500yrs. Where as the history out there is much-much older.

That's actually a very good question. As far as we know, the Hrappan Civilization of the Indus Valley was the earliest civilization (in the currently available records, or current Shiva cycle of total destruction/renewal) that managed to build a city of net-worked indoor plumbing, more than 3500 years ago! That was 2000 years before Romans had it, and a fundamental aspect of human living condition that was unknown to humanity for nearly 1500 years after the fall of Rome in the 5th century. It was a tremendously succeful commercial civilization. My guess is that the Hrappans were driven out by the inland Indians and nomadic invaders from the north, moved to the Persian Gulf (especially Bahrain) then moved on to Tyre then became what Ancient Greeks called "Phoenecians." Hrappans' most important commerce was the same very expensive purple dye (made from Murex mullusk) also known as "Tyrian Purple," which was used like a type of currency by both Hrappans and "Phoenecians." Carthage became the primary Phoenecian city after Alexander destroyed Tyre (which was in competition to Greek city states). Rome destroyed Carthage after that.

After the totalitarian state of late Roman empire burned itself out, commerce recovered in Europe around the 10th century, the concentration of commercial interests first aggregated in Italian city states, then moved to the Dutch Republic, then after the invasion of that country by Louise XIV, moved on to England. History has a way of rhyming. Perhaps the worst aspects of British colonization of India was Lord Karma visiting the benighted inland Indians that had driven out the Hrappans some 3500 years earlier . . . or more precisely showing the inland Indians what India could be if not for the political take-over by the benighted inland anti-commerce totalitarian/fascist invaders that had driven out the Hrappans . . . and guess what the inland Indian mobs did about 350 years after the founding of the British East India Company? Driving them out again, of course! So the mob can turn everything back into sh*t all over again.

indc says

Where did you get stupid idea that buddhists are outsiders to India.

First of all, Buddhism spread beyond the modern day region of India, right after the so-called Gautama lived. So yes, you can say that the Vedic culture was India's monopoly but that wasn't the case for Buddhism.

The part of the eastern Persian Empire, Bactria, in the region which is today's Afghanistan, was a Buddhist nation-state in ancient times, long before the coming of Islam, as well as Alexander's conquests. Both Zoroastrianism and Buddhism existed in the Persian Empire.

indc says

Persians and Indians are pretty much the same.

Not really, because there are no South Indians (ppl of Tamil) in Persia.

Rin says

indc says

Where did you get stupid idea that buddhists are outsiders to India.

First of all, Buddhism spread beyond the modern day region of India, right after the so-called Gautama lived. So yes, you can say that the Vedic culture was India's monopoly but that wasn't the case for Buddhism.

The part of the eastern Persian Empire, Bactria, in the region which is today's Afghanistan, was a Buddhist nation-state in ancient times, long before the coming of Islam, as well as Alexander's conquests. Both Zoroastrianism and Buddhism existed in the Persian Empire.

indc says

Persians and Indians are pretty much the same.

Not really, because there are no South Indians (ppl of Tamil) in Persia.

I dont see any logic in both of your comments.
Buddhism started in India and spread all over that part of world. Now you are saying that buddhism is owned by outsiders.
Or you mean buddhist outsiders attacked india back even though they are buddhists?
Do you even know that most of India was buddhist at one time and a hindu sage went about converting them back by debating the buddhist religious leaders?
Please dont teach our history to us. We have our own epics which clearly tell that most of afganistan was considered part of india.

Why will tamil people be in persia its 2000 miles away.
Dont say that north east indians are also not there in persia, which proves that 2 groups of people are not there in persia so persia and india are not same.
British started creating this alternate history to reason why they were occupying India. Like I said wait for few more years, when we have our own history then we can debunk those racist theories.

indc says

Like I said wait for few more years, when we have our own history then we can debunk those racist theories.

If you want to know how this 'racist' theory came to me, it wasn't from some Anglo-Saxon lecturer at Oxbridge. It was actually from a few Indians. In particular, a Brahmin, whose family came from New Delhi, and a Parsi, whose family once lived in Bombay/Mumbai.

It was their grandparents and relatives who'd told 'em that the so-called fair skin ppl were always coming into India, throughout history. And yes, these fellas were definitely whiter than any Indians I'd ever seen before. And conversely, Dravidians, which includes Tamil Nadu & neighboring regions never went the other way into Central Asia. If anything, South Indian migration went the other way towards the Malay peninsula. So that's their take on the whole enchilada.

As for true history, even a South Indian guy, whose family originated in Chennai, told me that authentic records were scant, once you go back only a few centuries. So if what you're saying is correct, then the future history of India will be another revision, probably like every other dynasty which had come and gone throughout history.

indc says

Now you are saying that buddhism is owned by outsiders.
Or you mean buddhist outsiders attacked india back even though they are buddhists?
Do you even know that most of India was buddhist at one time

Nope, the only "owners" are Zoroastrians because that's central to the identity of the Persian Empire.

Buddhism can exist anywhere and yes, I know about Ashoka in India though the Parsi guy says that he's also a Persian descended conqueror of India. So there you have it, even without the British, you have racist theories within your own borders.

Rin says

indc says

Like I said wait for few more years, when we have our own history then we can debunk those racist theories.

If you want to know how this 'racist' theory came to me, it wasn't from some Anglo-Saxon lecturer at Oxbridge. It was actually from a few Indians. In particular, a Brahmin, whose family came from New Delhi, and a Parsi, whose family once lived in Bombay/Mumbai.

It was their grandparents and relatives who'd told 'em that the so-called fair skin ppl were always coming into India, throughout history. And yes, these fellas were definitely whiter than any Indians I'd ever seen before. And conversely, Dravidians, which includes Tamil Nadu & neighboring regions never went the other way into Central Asia. If anything, South Indian migration went the other way towards the Malay peninsula. So that's their take on the whole enchilada.

As for true history, even a South India...

Believe me, I would have agreed with them few years back. Then I was red pilled. Indians are taught same history that was taught in British India. Even 60% of my friends believe the same. You understand that for 100+ yrs same oppressor history is taught. We are just realizing that all this history is created by christian missionaries.

Rin says

indc says

Now you are saying that buddhism is owned by outsiders.
Or you mean buddhist outsiders attacked india back even though they are buddhists?
Do you even know that most of India was buddhist at one time

Nope, the only "owners" are Zoroastrians because that's central to the identity of the Persian Empire.

Buddhism can exist anywhere and yes, I know about Ashoka in India though the Parsi guy says that he's also a Persian descended conqueror of India. So there you have it, even without the British, you have racist theories within your own borders.

HaHaHa. Even british historian will die laughing about it. Did you even ask him any proof ? This is first time I am hearing persians believe that about ashoka.
Do you believe a guy who says people go both ways, or do you believe a guy who says only his people conquering his neighbors.

So here you have, fair skinned North Indians who feel that their ancestors conquered India and thus, the British were simply the last in the line of white rulers.

With that in mind and the fact that South Indians live in high numbers in Malaysia/Singapore but not so for the northern white ones in SE Asia, hints that medieval India lived under some makeshift apartheid for ages where yes, whiter Indians plausibly ruled over darker ones, but in a less exact way than South Africa, making is better for the Dravidians, to emigrate to Malay for better opportunities in running trade and commerce.

FYI, my friend from Chennai dislikes north Indians and believes that white Indians made sure that records never survived to protect their land grabs over the ages.

So where you do stop that? I'd say, start with Bollywood. Start tossing out those white ppl and start representing real Indians in place of Soviet Armenian look-a-likes.

Real Indian


Bollywood's "Soviet Emigre" facsimile


And then, you'll actually have something for your red pill.

Rin says

.

Hey dumba**. The first picture you shared is from actress in bengal close to bangladesh.
Second picture is of a tamilian actress who later started working in bollywood. Stop commenting on things you dont even understand.
Is your friend from chennai a rice bag convert.

east India was always trading with south east asia.
west india was always trading with arabia and africa.

Indian Subcontinent has an area that is comparable to the entire Western Europe, and for most of human history likely had a larger population than all of Western Europe (due to more solar energy hitting the landmass enabling more crop production). It's silly to talk about "India" as if it were some kind of country or entity (instead of a general direction, like "Orient" or "West Indies") prior to the British rule.

Prior to the Railroads, it was likely cheaper to ship 100 tons or 10 tons of goods from Goa or Bombay to Europe (several thousands of miles) than it would be to ship the same goods inland for a few hundred miles. Likewise, before the arrival of horse-drawn carts or even the wheel, it was likely less expensive to ship 1 ton of goods from the banks of Indus River to the Persian Gulf and to Egypt (Red Sea shore) than it would be to move the same ton of goods in land more than a few dozen miles. The coast was more economically related to the other shores hundreds if not thousands of miles away than it was integrated with the continental interior.

Hrappans may or may not have invented the wheel on their own. In any case, shortly after the perfection of the multi-spoke wheeled cart drawn by horses, inland logistics took such an enormous leap forward (a one-time jump, but later would be choked off by land route tolls in a few decades) that the nomads from the north and the inland mobs quickly drove out the coastal commercial settlements of the Indus Valley. The situation was rather similar to the Railroads enabling the rise of Prussia (in its war against Austrian and French Empires) in the late 19th century and Russia as a threat to the entire Western Europe in the 20th century.

It's a little anachronistic to call the Hrappans "Indians" or even Dravidian. Hrappan bullfighting / bull-jumping culture was spread to both the Dravidians of Tamil (southeastern India today) and the Levant, ancient Minoans as well as today's Spain (all of which traced the spread of "Phoenecians").

Trade usually goes both ways, but In the pre-industrial world invasion and conquest on a continental land mass usually went one-way: the less prosperous and more barbaric invading and conquering the more prosperous and less barbaric. The entire recorded Eurasian history consisted of the civilized people on the continental peripheries getting their clock cleaned periodically by the barbarians coming out of the continental heart-land:

1. In ancient Greece, it was the most barbaric state among them, the Macedonians (to the north, towards continental heartland), that conquered all of ancient Greece;

2. Germanic/Frankish tribes/barbarians dismantling Rome were once again coming from the continental heartland, dismantling the high civilization built on the periphery;

3. Napoleon, Hitler, and Karl XII (of Sweden) before them, all invaded Russia and lost their armies . . . yet it was the Mongols who had conquered Russia, by invading from even further deeper in the continental heartland and waging campaign in the dead of winter.

4. Likewise for Indian Subcontinent and Far East Subcontinent ("China"). Both the Vedic homeland in Bactria (today's Afghanistan) and the State of Chin (the northwest corner, the poorest part, of "China proper") were the most barbaric and least prosperous regions of their respective sub-continents . . . and they further benefited from coming from the high ground part of dry highlands.

5. In the case of Roman Empire and Far East, the relatively more prosperous people building their civilizations actually successfully resisted their nomadic continental interior neighbors in their earlier centuries, then fell to massive invasion later as their own civilizations developed into high civilizations

There are several reasons for such civilization-reversion cycles on a large continental land mass:

1. Wars usually took place due to economic hardship, usually caused by global cooling in the agrarian societies, so people living in the continental interior accustomed to colder winters could do better during massive total wars;

2. Logistic became easier when an advancing army could pillage the land. So it was easier for an army from a resource-poor region to invade a resource-rich region, instead of reverse; especially if the two populations have different daily water consumption requirements due to difference in native environment. An army on the march requires enormous amount of food and water, both for the men and the horses.

3. The poor were just more motivated to rape and pillage than the rich were.

4. High level of economic development often led to demographic collapse: women refusing to reproduce (making the cost of reproduction too high) and men preferring paying prostitutes instead of having wives and children.


A side note on why land transportation technology did not bring long-lasting prosperity or economic development compared to sea-borne transportation routes:

1. Major breakthroughs in land transportation, such as the horse-drawn carts and the Roman roads, could bring one-time major profit proposition, enabling military conquest, territory expansion, etc., but could not last long. Examples include the Roman roads (paved roads), Vedic conquest of India (horse drawn chariots and horse-back riding), "Silk Road" historically linking Far East to Central Asia then onto Europe.

2. Unlike sea routes that could easily switch destination ports to a nearby port if the more established port's authorities decide to raise taxes, land routes are much more inflexible and beholden to local rulers' whim. Since they are all local monopolies all along the land routes, over time, the appetite of the rulers and their offspring quickly surpass what the land trade routes could deliver . . . not to mention profit attracts competition; in the case of land routes, competition meant very expensive warfare fighting for the control of the routes.

3. That's why civilization advancements usually take place on islands and coastal peripheries of continents, where people get to enjoy the fruit of a longer period of sustained economic growth (due to lower effective taxes for longer time period) . . . until the barbarians coming knocking on the door of course! OTOH, getting "invaded" and liberated by island powers was the best thing that could happen to continental peripheries living under the yoke of inland barbarians . . . but of course, the advocates of post-modern nationalism have to embrace the national flag like the proverbial scoundrels that they are. Little do they realize that life as a mongol sucked even as the Mongol army built the largest land empire. The recording of history is a self-selective process in itself: when the more prosperous civilization manage to defend itself against the barbarians and the barbarians wallowing in their own shit holes, such "norm" didn't warrant much of an entry in recorded history, but major cataclysmic invasions and sacking by continental interior barbarians did have their own entries in history records . . . just like the stock market crashes make history records whereas the long-term rise usually doesn't.

indc says

The first picture you shared is from actress in bengal close to bangladesh.
Second picture is of a tamilian actress who later started working in bollywood. Stop commenting on things you dont even understand.
Is your friend from chennai a rice bag convert.

The purpose of showing Indian women pics with contrasting skin tones has apparently been lost.

As my Chennai friend said, women in Bollywood bleach their skin to look like some other ethnicity in eastern European. The reason for it is that that's the way of north Indians and the south has to deal with it because in India, the standard of beauty is fair skin.

https://www.bollywoodshaadis.com/articles/dusky-bollywood-divas-who-went-for-skin-lightening-treatment-3107
http://www.glamtainment.com/8-bollywood-divas-who-opted-for-skin-lightening-for-makeover

And no, he's not a Christian but a Hindu with family in India, Malaysia/Singapore, Canada, USA, and UK. And of all the countries the only 'groups' he dislikes are bigoted North Indians and Chinese who look down upon South Indians in SE Asia. And his relatives in Malaysia are quite successful and assimilated because non-Chinese Malays don't discriminate against them just because of skin tone, though there's obviously a bias towards Muslims over Hindus but that's expected for an Islamic society.

Rin says

Even african american actresses bleach their skin. East asian actresses put makeup to look exotic(transparent skin tone).
You cannot compare actresses aspirations to that of ordinary people. They are not trying to look european or anything. Its other way around europeans are coming to India and trying for entry to indian movie industry with their indian looks.

People looking down on you based on color doesn't mean a thing because that is what has been taught to them for 100s of years. Even north Indians treat their own people of different color differently, it has nothing to do with race it is just prejudice.
what some white people doing to black people is different case.
It is getting better now after more interaction and education of indian values.