Mayday mayday

[Michael Hardner]

I understood what he meant the first time. I've made jokes about India and their nuclear weapons and the fact they're buying or trying to buy nuclear submarines and an aircraft carrier while so many of their people live in absolute poverty where a goat is a sign of prosperity.

Or a country where the best way to get out of an unsafe inner city neighbourhood is to volunteer for Iraq, where there is a lower mortality rate in the armed forces.

[Argus]

Or a country where the best way to get out of an unsafe inner city neighbourhood is to volunteer for Iraq, where there is a lower mortality rate in the armed forces.

There are certainly parts of the US which I would regard as uncivilized.

Likewise, there are a few small parts of India I would regard as marginally civilized.

Whatever one thinks of Harlem, would you rather live there or live in one of India's poorer villages? Would the ignorance of Alabama horrify you compared to the ignorance of the masses of rioters slaughtering each other in India? What do you think of the bride burnings of India, or the fact that it's so easy to kill women and girls who get out of line because the cops will easily accept a small bribe to look the other way? Do you know there are still parts of India where a member of the lower castes can be beaten to death with impunity by higher caste members if they dare to give offense by, say, stepping on their shadow? Do you know that debt slavery still exists in India? What do you think of their child labour? Do you have any idea of the kinds of things the Indian government is doing to separatists in Kashmir? What they did and continue to do to Sikh separatists in the Punjab?

And by the way, the best way to get out of Harlem is to complete your studies, get a high school diploma, and then, without getting a criminal record, go and get a job somewhere else.

Edited October 2, 2010 by Argus

[Shwa]

Immigration into Canada is the single most destructive factor facing our nation and whatever is left of the "Canadian people". Mass immigration has formed insular enthno-religious polities within our democracy which have attained political supremacy, virtually hijacking what little democracy we had and using those levers to get more immigration through the door.

Well then that proves we are getting the smart ones at least.

[capricorn]

And there is alot more then the myth of 250,000 people that come here every year.

Foreign students, migrant workers, refugee claimants, etc, etc,. A lot of them don't leave once they make it to Canada. So when we see stats telling us that only 250,000 immigrants a year are brought into this country don't be fooled, because that's only part of the story.

[Michael Hardner]

Whatever one thinks of Harlem, would you rather live there or live in one of India's poorer villages? Would the ignorance of Alabama horrify you compared to the ignorance of the masses of rioters slaughtering each other in India? What do you think of the bride burnings of India, or the fact that it's so easy to kill women and girls who get out of line because the cops will easily accept a small bribe to look the other way? Do you know there are still parts of India where a member of the lower castes can be beaten to death with impunity by higher caste members if they dare to give offense by, say, stepping on their shadow? Do you know that debt slavery still exists in India? What do you think of their child labour? Do you have any idea of the kinds of things the Indian government is doing to separatists in Kashmir? What they did and continue to do to Sikh separatists in the Punjab?

I will answer your loaded questions very generally: I'd rather live in the US, in general, than India.

But the reason I'm lingering on this point is that - it's so rare for people to state strong principles, and even more rare when those people change their opinions to match the principle. More often, as we have seen here, they introduce "other factors" to modify their opinion.

Example: A left-of-centre poster opposed the government of Harris, on the principle that they believe in the principle that the government has a responsibility to help the disadvantaged. At a certain point, the government had to review his principles and realize that Harris' work-for-welfare program was helpful to the disadvantaged. A moral dilemma.

He could egotistically (and correctly) point out all of the disadvantages that the Harris government advanced to the underclass and say "see, I was right !" or he could admit openly that the Harris government had at least done something beneficial for the poor.

And by the way, the best way to get out of Harlem is to complete your studies, get a high school diploma, and then, without getting a criminal record, go and get a job somewhere else.

How many people choose the best way versus the easiest ? If we want to point at other cultures and say "see how they pick the easiest route", then we should look at ourselves, our obesity epidemic, our hedonistic society, and so on...

I believe that self-improvement begins at home.

[Evening Star]

I think we can safely agree that the US and Canada are generally better places to live than India and that the problems Argus lists are genuine problems. I never denied these things. However, all those problems were also there under British rule and afaik they were all worse at that time. It was post-independence India that officially outlawed the caste system and instituted affirmative action policies to attempt to combat it, not the British. (Again, I'm not saying that the problem has been eradicated. I am saying that some progress has been made since independence.) The country was in a thoroughly miserable state at the time that the British left and it has made real progress in almost every area, not least of all in the area of "feeding its people", as I have demonstrated with my cites concerning famines in India. Regardless of whether the famine situation was worse prior to the arrival of the British, the situation has been demonstrably improved since independence - which cannot be said of every former colony btw. (And while the British did develop some valuable infrastructure, it is also clear that in some cases, their policies contributed to famine.)

Therefore, I think this is blatantly wrong:

It would appear that India just ignored its starving people. Either that or it kicked in a few bucks for some TV "feed the starving children" ads so THE REST OF THE WORLD would feed its people!

India has made serious concrete efforts throughout its independent history to tackle this problem, beyond what the British did afaict. These are examples of efforts from early in Indian history, even from its socialist phase (and I think you actually agreed that things have gotten even better in India's capitalist phase):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jawaharlal_Nehru#Economic_policies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution_in_India

http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/lead/x6170e/x6170e2z.htm

Some of these do appear problematic with the ecological knowledge we have today but they were certainly not a case of ignoring hunger or asking the rest of the world for help. They actually worked.

I do not deny that there still are many people living in squalor. What I am disputing is the idea that there is something intrinsically flawed about 'Indian culture' (a problematic concept in and of itself, considering the wide range of cultures within the country) relative to British culture that has led to the country declining after independence (and that consequently we should be concerned about importing that culture). That's all. I'll also note that it is more difficult to govern and achieve progress in an impoverished and overpopulated country (that started out impoverished when independence was granted) than it is in a country like the US or Canada.

America is much more politically responsive to its people.

I would question this, actually. I'm not sure that the American two-party system, with its level of campaign financing, is actually that much more responsive to the population than India's multiparty system.

America also has much more social mobility. Being born poor doesn't mean you have to stay poor! Can India say the same?

Actually, the life of a close family member suggests that this mobility certainly is possible in India. (It is possible that the odds are worse though.)

That doesn't mean I can't agree that they have made some progress and hopefully will do more in the future.

At least we agree here. (This is different from what you said right at first, mind you.)

Ultimately, I simply have not seen evidence to suggest that immigration from India has caused Canadian culture to become more inefficient, corrupt, bigoted, violent, or fanatical. I do think that it has had many positive qualities.

[Evening Star]

Also, note that I am not commenting on whether British rule was an improvement over the Mughal or princely rulers who preceded the British.

[PIK]

His book should be out across canada by next week, in the major book stores.

[guyser]

His book should be out across canada by next week, in the major book stores.

Look under "Doorstops" or Comics section.