Which was more important?

Define "important".

Inclined to agree with this statement. As a world power, China has historically and looks like it will once again be pre-eminent. In terms of culture, however, India is by far more influential than China. India's influence on east Asia, let alone Southeast Asia, is often understated.

We're speaking historically.

Tengrishit is a major Steppenig religion in central asia.
And so is Chinese Folk Religion. It just gets dumbly classified as "Confucianism" or "Taoism" when really its a mess of animist, ancestral worship, and pantheon beliefs centered around Heaven-worship.
Shinto is another major religion that's native to its people as well.

>Hinduism in the Philippines.

Lol, was just the case early in recorded Flip history, but the tribes localized the Hindu deities into something else entirely by the 1200s.

historically I'd say India.
India has great location for Indian Ocean trade, even trading all the way back during sumerian times, while China (which contributed massively with their own inventions) was still kind of isolated only really affecting central Asian tribes and the sinosphere. Basically geography made india more important since it's pretty much the middle of all the trade routes

>China
>Isolated.
>Silk_Road.jpg
Also for the longest time India was more like medieval-modern day Europe than a unified state.

>implying silk road was an actual thing instead of merchants traveling from one Oasis to another.
>implying the development of China's logographic script and lack of conversion to an abrahamic religion isn't due to it's geographic isolation from the rest of Eurasia with the Himalayas, Tianshan, Kunlun, and nearly impassable jungles to the south allowing Chinese culture to develop in relative isolation from the rest of the "civilized" world.

I'm not saying Chinese culture is inferior or anything just that China was allowed to kinda do their own thing due to geography.

It was dominant in SEA from around the 5th Century to nearly a millennia later, give or take a century.

It might not be as popular in culture as it was back then but it did help the SEA's advance quite a bit back then iirc.

And I'm saying Isolated China Memes weren't a thing until the Qing literally did isolate the country.

Hell you talk about the Indian Ocean Trade, when that only became a major thing when the Silk Road shat up thanks to the Mongolian decline and Chinks started paying attention to the Spice Route in a big way for the first time. Further exacerbated when the Portucucks discovered the passage down Africa.

what's so wrong, the region is mutted with poos and slants.

>ming burning down the navy to focus on steppeniggers isn't isolationist
>implying the only time there was a unified silk road under the mongols is any way or semblance the norm of Eurasian trade
>implying Indian Ocean trade wasn't important in the spread of Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism or was unimportant when there's artifacts of IVC trading with Sumer, Indian trade with East Africa, and Roman trade through Egypt with India as well.

The only thing remotely similar in China were Arabs in Guangzhou and Fujian during the Tang, which were mostly overseas anyways and not overland through the meme that was the silk road

Because it's, its own separate region with its own civilization and culture.

Calling them 'Indochina' is derogatory because it implies China and India are the only two places of worth in that corner of Asia.

>implying SEasian culture is distinct or unique.
Literally all religion or culture there has been imported from China, India, the Arab world, or the West. There is literally nothing there that's unique to SEAsia unless you're talking about Papuans.

Chinese supremacy sounds comfy, like we are finally going back to the world order that's been prevalent for most of history. I really dont mind the US becoming a second rate nation, maybe we can focus on ourselves more than trying to govern the world

>1700
>the island of Britain is 2% of the global economy, India is 20%

>1947
>the island of Britain is 20% of the global economy, India is 2%

>Britain helped India

t. assblasted paki who thinks he's middle eastern and therefore western

>ming burning down the navy to focus on steppeniggers isn't isolationist
One wonders who was fighting the Pirates and the Portuguese lmao. In addition the Sea-Bans was an anti-piracy measure and trade still continued, only its monitored.

The merchant clans of China didn't give a shit anyway and dotted Southeast Asia with private trading colonies. A few even became countries: the Kongsi Republics.
>implying the only time there was a unified silk road under the mongols is any way or semblance the norm of Eurasian trade
Nobody was saying it was unified.
>implying Indian Ocean trade wasn't important in the spread of Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism or was unimportant when there's artifacts of IVC trading with Sumer, Indian trade with East Africa, and Roman trade through Egypt with India as well.
It was important, sure. But when China and Europe got into the Spice Route it became way more significant.

I'm not him but I agree with him to a certain extent. You don't have to strawman when somebody says something you don't agree with.

>gets BTFO
>reverts to strawman and concludes I'm a Paki for some reason.
Assmad brown asian detected

China went through the same GDP reduction without getting colonized. It wasn't Britain's fault.

It wasn't the fault of European countries forcing unequal treaties on China by the use of military force in China?

Wow I really don't know history. I could have sworn there were many, many interventions in China by Europeans. And it was only after they ended, including Russian intervention, that China actually recovered. DERP

>China
Paper
Compass
Gunpowder
Silk
Tea

>India
spices?
tech support
shitting in streets and bathing in a river full of corpses

>>India
>spices?
>tech support
>shitting in streets and bathing in a river full of corpses

So why did Britain bother conquering them? How did they extract money from owning them?

way to completely misrepresent a country, its almost like you are from reddit or /pol/

>It wasn't the fault of European countries forcing unequal treaties on China by the use of military force in China?
No, it was due to industrialization of Europe and America which completely disrupted the world economy. Also, the SHARE of the world economy of India and China plummeted because the overall SIZE of the world economy greatly increased (all that increase happening in Europe, due to industrialization).

Look at :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)

Look at the growth in GDP in India from 1700 to 1950. It DID grow, but just far slower than in the West. Compared to the rates of growth of UK, France or Germany. That's because industrialization changed the whole game.

You can also observe that China experienced a drop in the mid 1800s, but that wasn't due to evil gaijins, because some chink retard thought he was Jesus and 50 million people ended up dying.

But I guess you have a simplistic "EVIL WHITEY" narrative ingrained in your head so arguing with you is pointless.

India's contributions include steel techniques, chess, and of course the "arabic" numeral system (off the top of my head).

Britain ran India at a loss.

It's just that I don't believe that would have happened if Europe hadn't enslaved a huge part of the world to pay for it. It certainly never did happen before Europe had enslaved a huge part of the world to pay for it.

And I still believe that European states attacked China and that European states had policies to weaken China, and that they were not entirely unsuccessful in their attempts.

>Britain ran India at a loss.

No, they didn't.

Oh, the government was at a loss some years? Oh, some businesses went under? Doesn't matter, Britain as a whole extracted wealth from India.

>India
Roman numerals?
Prototype of modern rockets?
Wootz steel?
Shaolin arts?

>gets BTFO
Nigga I'm not him, I just scrolled through the thread and found you ass-blastedness and replied

>a huge part of the world
Meme. Most South Americans were treated fine in the Spanish empire days. No excuse for blacks or Australian aboriginals tho.

>It's just that I don't believe that would have happened if Europe hadn't enslaved a huge part of the world to pay for it.
What, industrialization? It would have happened regardless, industrialization was not funded in any sort by profits made from the slave trade. Even at the height of the exploitation of the sugar islands in the carribean, the share of the British GDP due to plantations was something like 2%.

Also how do you explain countries like Germany, the Netherlands, the Czech republic, and nordic countries all industrializing, but colonial giants like Spain and Portugal having trouble industrializing? By your logic the richest country in the world should by Portugal.

The "enslavement" (you're showing your anti-white bias here) of the world was a byproduct of the increased technological efficiency of Europe which was the root cause of industrialization.

>And I still believe that European states attacked China and that European states had policies to weaken China, and that they were not entirely unsuccessful in their attempts.
Like I said, the Opium Wars were incredibly marginal compared to the great upheavals China experienced during the 19th century such as the Taiping Rebellion. But I guess since the opium wars were initiated by evil whitey, they're morally worse in your book...

>Shaolin
>Indian
Wtf.

>No, they didn't.
[citation needed]

How much wealth, can you quantify it?

Then you believe Europe would have industrialized faster if it didn't waste time and resources colonizing the world?

It never did though. Only after it controlled world trade, and firstest in the places that controlled the mostest trade.

>Like I said, the Opium Wars were incredibly marginal compared to the great upheavals China experienced during the 19th century such as the Taiping Rebellion. But I guess since the opium wars were initiated by evil whitey, they're morally worse in your book...

>morally

Jesus Christ. Why bring morality into this discussion at all?

The opium wars were one part of a process of Europeans foisting ruinous policies onto China, and it was deliberate. Shall I say it was an impressive achievement so you keep talking to me? It was far more impressive than you seem to think.

poos had their tea and their own legacy of intellectualism,

>Then you believe Europe would have industrialized faster if it didn't waste time and resources colonizing the world?
I don't think we can answer that question, but I do believe that it would have industrialized nonetheless.

>It never did though. Only after it controlled world trade, and firstest in the places that controlled the mostest trade.
Yes, we unfortunately don't have two replicas of the world on which to run simulations with different starting points. I can't prove definitely that industrialization would've happened without colonization and the slave trade, just like you can't prove definitely that it happened because of colonization and the slave trade (which is what it seems you're trying to prove).

However, I CAN prove that there were very very few links between the profits being reaped through colonial exploitation (and at this point I'm talking about the Caribbean and the slave trade, India and China only come later in the picture when Europe was already comfortably #1) and industrialization. I have already cited that profits from sugar islands plantations were only a small fraction of the total profits in the UK, and that the greatest exploiters (Spain and Portugal) weren't industrial powerhouses.

>Jesus Christ. Why bring morality into this discussion at all?
You quite obviously think that whitey is the devil who oppressed the noble natives of their lands.

>The opium wars were one part of a process of Europeans foisting ruinous policies onto China, and it was deliberate
Yes, they were bad, but for the last time, they were peanuts compared to the Taiping Rebellion. Why do you keep ignoring the Taiping Rebellion? Because it doesn't fit your neat little narrative? Do you HONESTLY believe that the opium wars were the reason why China fell behind the West? Not because China was a primitive feudal autocracy racked by civil wars killing millions?

Well I think what that dude is getting at in regards to india is that when the british took over they actively shipped indias wealth west into the industrial revolution in England.

India was charged for their own exports, thats a fact...

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhidharma

Bodhidharma is a Pallava Prince from south india supposedly.

>>You quite obviously think that whitey is the devil who oppressed the noble natives of their lands.

Because they were, and they did?

>50 posts in
>already filled with buttmad chinks and poos

>Well I think what that dude is getting at in regards to india is that when the british took over they actively shipped indias wealth west into the industrial revolution in England.
If by wealth you mean "raw materials" then you're correct. And then they actively shipped back roads, railroads, universities, hospitals, advanced manufactured products, etc.

The biggest criticism you can say about this mercantilism is that it stifled industrialization in India, which is true to some extent. But the question should be: could India in the 1850s, a large continent of mostly illiterate people who are at a technological level equivalent to middle ages Europe, industrialize on its own? I don't know the answer to that question. What I do know is that the British Raj did bring a certain level of development to India from which it benefited, at the price of being a sort of "raw materials exporter" which, it is true, stifled its industrial development.

Which is a far cry from the emotional "we wuz enslaved" reactions I read here. Especially considering the fact that under the Mughal empire something like 15% of Indians were actual slaves.

You live in the West don't you?

Funny thing is, I'm the guy defending the Brits and I'm a poo.

>Yes, we unfortunately don't have two replicas of the world on which to run simulations with different starting points. I can't prove definitely that industrialization would've happened without colonization and the slave trade, just like you can't prove definitely that it happened because of colonization and the slave trade (which is what it seems you're trying to prove).

We have the history of Europe before they conquered the world, and after. We can compare developments in other world powers with developments in Europe and it's colonies, we can compare developments in other trade networks with developments in the European dominated trade of the C19th.

>However, I CAN prove that there were very very few links between the profits being reaped through colonial exploitation (and at this point I'm talking about the Caribbean and the slave trade, India and China only come later in the picture when Europe was already comfortably #1) and industrialization. I have already cited that profits from sugar islands plantations were only a small fraction of the total profits in the UK, and that the greatest exploiters (Spain and Portugal) weren't industrial powerhouses.

Then the colonies were an outright waste of time? A pointless orgy of violence? Come on. I don't believe Europeans were as retarded as you do.

>You quite obviously think that whitey is the devil who oppressed the noble natives of their lands.

Stating that Europe conquered the world is enough to convince you of that? Dude no.

>Yes, they were bad, but for the last time, they were peanuts compared to the Taiping Rebellion. Why do you keep ignoring the Taiping Rebellion? Because it doesn't fit your neat little narrative? Do you HONESTLY believe that the opium wars were the reason why China fell behind the West? Not because China was a primitive feudal autocracy racked by civil wars killing millions?

I do honestly believe that the Opium Wars tipped it, yes. The general reason was that Europe was in a generally superior position because they had generally superior policies. Had that particular series of conflicts gone the other way, I don't think China ends up weak enough to be outright conquered in their heartland almost a century later.

>We can compare developments in other world powers with developments in Europe and it's colonies,
Right, but you can't say with certainty that Europe's colonial ventures CAUSED its development. Why is it that countries which weren't conquered, such as Ethiopia, didn't develop on their own?

>Then the colonies were an outright waste of time? A pointless orgy of violence?
They were often motivated by a wide array of diverse motivations, from profit-seeking, to empire competition between the various european powers, to missionary ventures, etc.

>Stating that Europe conquered the world is enough to convince you of that?
Stating that Europe enslaved the world and "stole" their wealth is the standard unjustified anti-white viewpoint.

>I do honestly believe that the Opium Wars tipped it, yes.
How, care to explain?

>Had that particular series of conflicts gone the other way, I don't think China ends up weak enough to be outright conquered in their heartland almost a century later.
You think Qing China would've magically industrialized on its own? You're delusional.

>the world's most powerful nation
That's some strong delusion there.

This. China's history is one of being fucked by outsiders, not the other way around.

Yeah Bodhidarma teaching Kung Fu is a folk story. Chan Buddhist Mythology

There's a less bullshit explanation for Shaolin Kung Fu: Imperial China had no police.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_China#Historical_background

The Central State was not able to police their vast realm for law enforcement since that would entail spreading out army garrisons far and wide. Places near army encampments like cities enjoyed military enforcing the law, but not so much the rural countryside. As a result the state empowered their subjects to own weapons and do some sort of military training to police themselves. The responsibility of which was given to officials as high as Provincial Governors to individual villages' elders.

Now among the rural peasants, they only had so much time to dedicate to martial training, since most of their time was dedicated to their labors. Not so much the Monasteries of various religions in China. As people who literally had no jobs, they were able to focus on martial training both as a form of exercise in between meditations, and a vital necessity since they live in remote places stocked with food & money which was very tempting to bandits.

The result of this was the monks in China had paramilitary training and some monasteries became well known in their martial arts. The Buddhists had the Shaolin Monastery's Kung Fu style, the Taoists had Mt. Wudang style. Heck if the Christians stayed longer they'd probably have, I dunno, Nestorian Kung Fu or Jesuit-style boxing.

The ability to focus on their martial training was so much so that monks were able to participate in wars, like what the Shaolin Monastery did during the Pirate Wars of the 1560s

Tell that to all the tribes and ethnic groups that got cucked into believing they're Chinese.

China.

>Right, but you can't say with certainty that Europe's colonial ventures CAUSED its development. Why is it that countries which weren't conquered, such as Ethiopia, didn't develop on their own?

As you said, they did, not as fast as Europe.

>They were often motivated by a wide array of diverse motivations, from profit-seeking, to empire competition between the various european powers, to missionary ventures, etc.

Yeah no shit. Because the ones that were profitable were very profitable. Not because Europeans just liked to kill people for no reason.

>Stating that Europe enslaved the world and "stole" their wealth is the standard unjustified anti-white viewpoint.

What would you call it if someone conquered a country and taxed the people except stealing wealth?

>How, care to explain?

>You think Qing China would've magically industrialized on its own? You're delusional.

Ming China was well on it's way to industrialization before it was conquered, if we look for the things that people point to in Europe as pre-industrial developments (mills, roads, checking accounts). And neighboring Japan did so in Qing's time. It was a matter of policies. Qing China did not respond appropriately to the threat of Europeans in their time. This was not simply two runners on a track where Europe was faster, though, it was also a matter of Europe and China acting to slow each other down. History has recorded who was successful. It did not record and I do not believe that this was inevitable.

Maybe not Qing, but Song almost did

Fuck. Song. I meant Song. Not Ming.

(you asshole)

I can't remember all thing Ching Chong shit.

>4000 years
>only 2 foreign unified China's
HURR
1800's is pretty embarassing but that's because they had not industrialized

>As you said, they did,
What, where did I say that? Ethiopia did not develop in any way. It was a primitive slave society until the 1940s.

>Yeah no shit. Because the ones that were profitable were very profitable. Not because Europeans just liked to kill people for no reason.
What I'm saying is that colonialism was not exclusively the result of profit seeking. For instance, the colonization of Africa, with the exception of the Congo Free State and Rhodesia, was not at all spurred by profit seeking, but was entirely spurred by competition between the various European powers to increase their spheres of influence.

>What would you call it if someone conquered a country and taxed the people except stealing wealth?
A conqueror, or in some european cases a colonizer. Do you also talk about "enslavement" when talking about Ottoman conquests? Or does that label only apply to whitey?

>Ming China was well on it's way to industrialization before it was conquered,
No it wasn't, they totally lacked the intellectual requirements and the economic arrangements to make it happen. And I wasn't talking about Ming China, but about Qing China.

Speaking of which, where the Manchus evil colonizers who stole China's wealth?

>And neighboring Japan did so in Qing's time
That much is true. And Siam didn't. Therefore industrialization does not happen automatically. And I may add that Japan was under economic pressures by evil whitey similar to those dictated by the Opium Wars.

For Western Civilisation, India.
For East Asia, China.

What? Forgot about the Song, the Jin, etc? You can even make the case that China has become entirely altaic since the turn of the first millenia.

>Song almost did.
Wewuzzing.

>Especially considering the fact that under the Mughal empire something like 15% of Indians were actual slaves.

that means nothing modern india has close to 20 million estimated slaves

>could India in the 1850s, a large continent of mostly illiterate people who are at a technological level equivalent to middle ages Europe, industrialize on its own? I don't know the answer to that question.

impossible questions often are hard to answer, indian technical aptitude was well known in those days, the british actively destroyed the indian garment producers and crushed any semblance of industrial advancement, e.g William Bolts, a merchant in his book “Considerations on India Affairs” recorded instances of extreme brutality against silk weavers including cutting off their fingers. to destroy local Muslin production and charged 70-80% tax on domestic products while the tariffs were 3-4% for goods imported from Britain.

Most of the 'certain level of development' was basically railways leading from the source of raw materials to the port where it was dispatched overseas.

They built a massive fucking hedge to make sure that indians dont steal salt...yes salt, because of the high taxes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Customs_Line

The british bled india dry to keep Britain wealthy and advanced and india largely illiterate and poor.

China has a pretty good track record considering they were right next to steppe nomads. Rome might not have existed for as long as it did if they were literally right next to the Huns' homeland.

>You can even make the case that China has become entirely altaic since the turn of the first millenia.
They don't even speak an Altaic language, forget about the altaic race which remains a minority in Chinkdom.

>What, where did I say that? Ethiopia did not develop in any way. It was a primitive slave society until the 1940s.

This is the one that repelled Italy?

You said that Europe developed faster than other places, but that they didn't slow down development anywhere.

>What I'm saying is that colonialism was not exclusively the result of profit seeking. For instance, the colonization of Africa, with the exception of the Congo Free State and Rhodesia, was not at all spurred by profit seeking, but was entirely spurred by competition between the various European powers to increase their spheres of influence.

Not just profit, also power.

>A conqueror, or in some european cases a colonizer. Do you also talk about "enslavement" when talking about Ottoman conquests? Or does that label only apply to whitey?

I talk about enslavement for all conquerors. That is what conquering is.

>No it wasn't, they totally lacked the intellectual requirements and the economic arrangements to make it happen. And I wasn't talking about Ming China, but about Qing China.

Totally? They lacked the requirements to even prevent European interference?

>Speaking of which, where the Manchus evil colonizers who stole China's wealth?

Yes. That's the one word answer to that.

>That much is true. And Siam didn't. Therefore industrialization does not happen automatically. And I may add that Japan was under economic pressures by evil whitey similar to those dictated by the Opium Wars.

So Europe was good and Japan was lucky?

Well your alternate explanation is something hard to understand in the sense that it is conjecture, and the second being that the Shaolin themselves ascribe to the theory that Bodhidharma taught them the art.

Would you care to point to how you reached this conlcusion?

Its basically just one buttmad poo arguing about Chinese and the British.

>that means nothing modern india has close to 20 million estimated slaves
Closet slaves, not actual, officially endorsed slaves.

>impossible questions often are hard to answer, indian technical aptitude was well known in those days, the british actively destroyed the indian garment producers and crushed any semblance of industrial advancement, e.g William Bolts, a merchant in his book “Considerations on India Affairs” recorded instances of extreme brutality against silk weavers including cutting off their fingers. to destroy local Muslin production and charged 70-80% tax on domestic products while the tariffs were 3-4% for goods imported from Britain.
The indian textile industry was a cottage industry, there is no reason to believe they would have magically invented machines and factories to replace it. Also the textile industry was largely destroyed by cheap British products, not finger cutting...

>Most of the 'certain level of development' was basically railways leading from the source of raw materials to the port where it was dispatched overseas.
And all the infrastructure, and universities, and hospitals, a modern postal system, and modern planned cities, etc. You're being dishonest. Also if the railways were there just to extract resources, why was it so extensive?

>The british bled india dry to keep Britain wealthy and advanced and india largely illiterate and poor.
Standard marxist propaganda. Go back jerking off to evil whitey.

>Song
>Jin
>foreign

>I don't understand what unified means
>I also for some reason think the Song dynasty was a foreign dynasty
It's okay user, we know you're retarded

>They don't even speak an Altaic language
Mandarin is largely an altaic language you moronic nigger.

>Also the textile industry was largely destroyed by cheap British products, not finger cutting...

Why didn't India enact any kind of protectionist measures to catch up with British industry?

I get why China didn't do it, they're stupider than Europeans. But India was under European rule.

What a quandary.

>using coal to smelt steel and power blast furnaces with capitalist entrepenuers is wewuzzing

>This is the one that repelled Italy?
Yes, those ones. They were a primitive slave state with a level of technological development inferior to that of middle ages Europe.

>You said that Europe developed faster than other places, but that they didn't slow down development anywhere.
You can make a case that they slowed down industrialization in India although it's a hard subject, but yes they didn't hinder in any way the (non-existent) development in India.

>Not just profit, also power.
Right.

>I talk about enslavement for all conquerors. That is what conquering is.
Okey Dokey.

>Totally? They lacked the requirements to even prevent European interference?
Yes, they were technologically too backwards even to compete against a few thousand whiteys. To claim they could industrialize is laughable.

>Yes. That's the one word answer to that.
You have a very black and white view of history, probably due to your completely marxist interpretation (although you're not necessarily a marxist, you unknowingly ascribe to marxist though) of oppressor/oppressee.

>So Europe was good and Japan was lucky?
Japan had certain characteristics which enabled it to industrialize on its own. I'm probably not the most knowledgeable person to answer what those characteristics were, but you can probably consult the literature on the subject if you're curious.

>using an outdated language family
>literally Arguing a Sino-Tibetan language is Altaic.
Hindi is a dravidian language too isn't it?

>Alternate explanation.
It's literally the only explanation. Again there's the fact that many Chinese monasteries- not just Buddhist ones- have extensive martial arts schools. Again Rural China was kinda like the Wild West, they needed it to survive

>the second being that the Shaolin themselves ascribe to the theory that Bodhidharma taught them the art.

Wrong.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaolin_Kung_Fu#Southern_and_Northern_dynasties_.28420.E2.80.93589_AD.29
"Some popular stories[10][11] consider Bodhidharma as the founder of Shaolin kung fu."

"The idea of Bodhidharma influencing Shaolin boxing is based on a qigong manual written during the 17th century. This is when a Taoist with the pen name "Purple Coagulation Man of the Way" wrote the Sinews Changing Classic in 1624, but claimed to have discovered it. The first of two prefaces of the manual traces this qigong style's succession from Bodhidharma to the Chinese general Li Jing via "a chain of Buddhist saints and martial heroes."[12](p165) The work itself is full of anachronistic mistakes and even includes a popular character from Chinese fiction, the "Qiuran Ke" ("Bushy Bearded Hero)" (虬髯客), as a lineage master.[13] Literati as far back as the Qing Dynasty have taken note of these mistakes. The scholar Ling Tinkang (1757–1809) described the author as an 'ignorant village master'."[12](p168)"

The Song originated in Northern China, the Jin were literally altaic Jurchens.

Why is being "unified" here important? Totally arbitrary qualification.

The history of China is one of rulers coming in from the North and deposing the local rulers.

>Why didn't India enact any kind of protectionist measures to catch up with British industry?
How would that have helped anything? The Indian cottage industry were not meant for domestic markets but for foreign (european) markets. How would protectionism solve anything? And how would protectionism have caused the industrial revolution to happen autonomously? Lmao.

>capitalist entrepreneurs
[citation needed]

contd.

In fact, this is what the Shaolin Monastery have in their actual history.
>In 495 AD, Shaolin temple was built in the Song mountain, Henan province. The first monk who preached Buddhism there was the Indian monk named Buddhabhadra (佛陀跋陀罗; Fótuóbátuóluó), simply called Batuo (跋陀) by the Chinese. There are historical records that Batuo's first Chinese disciples, Huiguang (慧光) and Sengchou (僧稠), both had exceptional martial skills. For example, Sengchou's skill with the tin staff is even documented in the Chinese Buddhist canon. After Buddhabadra, another Indian[7] or Tamil[8] monk, Bodhidharma (菩提达摩; Pútídámó), simply called Damo (达摩) by the Chinese, came to Shaolin in 527 AD. His Chinese disciple, Huike (慧可), was also a highly trained martial arts expert. There are implications that these first three Chinese Shaolin monks, Huiguang, Sengchou, and Huike, may have been military men before entering the monastic life.[9]

If Bodhidharma had any connection to Shaolin Martial arts, its probably because his ex-military disciples advised paramilitary training for monks because of the dangers of living in the countryside.

No it's not, but it has many dravidian loan words.

Sorry, is "altaic" a racist hate term now? I didn't keep up.

It's important because you posted Song and Jin, when my first post said there were only 2 foreign imposed Dynasties that unified China. Are the Shang and Zhou, the literal first states of China also foreign dynasties because they started in Northern China?

>And all the infrastructure, and universities, and hospitals, a modern postal system, and modern planned cities,
Because none of those existed before the British arrived in india...

>The indian textile industry was a cottage industry, there is no reason to believe they would have magically invented machines and factories to replace it.

I dont see any evidence, just things you assume to be true, please provide evidence. India was at the top of british imports with 95% of all imports being from india in the late 17th and early 18th century according to History of World Trade Since 1450 by John J. McCusker

Also further reading in iisg.nl/hpw/papers/broadberry-gupta.pdf for comparitives and why Britain did what it did.

>Standard marxist propaganda. Go back jerking off to evil whitey.
Standard nonsense of some idiot calling me a fucking dirty marxist because he doesnt have an argument, go fuck yourself you whitebread chicken shit motherfucker.

How many dynasties came from southern China?

The post chain you're replying to specified unifying dynasties. With regards to the Jin, there are two different dynasties romanized as Jin, one being the dynasty that unified the Three Kingdoms, and one being the dynasty that fought the Song. The former was Han while the latter was Jurchen. The Jurchen Jin never managed to unify China unlike the Sima Jin.

>You can make a case that they slowed down industrialization in India although it's a hard subject, but yes they didn't hinder in any way the (non-existent) development in India.

Then I guess my next question is 'why did Britain mismanage India so badly for their entire period of rule?'

>Okey Dokey.

Please explain to me what conquest is then.

>Yes, they were technologically too backwards even to compete against a few thousand whiteys. To claim they could industrialize is laughable.

The few thousand on the boats? Not the thousands upon thousands upon thousands in Europe and European conquests who were supplying the few thousand on the boats?

>You have a very black and white view of history, probably due to your completely marxist interpretation (although you're not necessarily a marxist, you unknowingly ascribe to marxist though) of oppressor/oppressee.

So your one word answer would be 'no', implying that Manchu were not conquerors?

No it's a language family that's been widely disproven. By your logic English is a romance language as well. The fact that you resort to implying I'm calling you racist shows that your argument is devoid of all logic and reasoning. It''s time to stop posting user

>Because none of those existed before the British arrived in india...
Right.

>I dont see any evidence,
Evidence of what, that India couldn't have industrialized on its own? Did India have a solid capitalistic system where entrepreneurs founded factories? Did India have the scientific knowledge to build machines? Of course not you retard. They spun cloth by hand using ancestral methods.

>Standard nonsense of some idiot calling me a fucking dirty marxist because he doesnt have an argument, go fuck yourself you whitebread chicken shit motherfucker.
You're a marxist, you believe that India was a land of peace and prosperity before EVIL WHITEY came and forced the poor Indians to be wretched and poor, stealing billions and that being the only reason why whitey is rich today. Totally simplistic, erroneous, and marxist view of history.

And as I've already stated, I'm not white, I'm Indian.

>Then I guess my next question is 'why did Britain mismanage India so badly for their entire period of rule?'
Shit, meant "ethiopia", not India.

>Please explain to me what conquest is then.
Transfer of power and land from one ruler to another. A conquest can actually end up in the liberation of slaves.

>The few thousand on the boats? Not the thousands upon thousands upon thousands in Europe and European conquests who were supplying the few thousand on the boats?
The thousands and thousands in Europe contributed to European victory in the Opium wars how exactly?

>So your one word answer would be 'no', implying that Manchu were not conquerors?
They were conquerors, but they were not le ebil enslaver who stole all my wealth, and if they didn't we'd be kangz on mars n sheeit :(

Although the Manchus are actually a bad example because they really were a bunch of savage horsefuckers. Would've been better off if whitey had been there to stop em...

The Song was founded by the Zhao Clan, a family of Jiedushi (Military Governors) who became warlords during the Tang Decline/Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period. They were local boys.

They weren't steppeniggas like the Jin, which was founded by Aguda after having crushed the Khitan Liao and decided he'd invade China.

>No it's a language family that's been widely disproven
No, you're just playing a game of semantics, it's akin to saying "hurr durr no it's not ARYAN, it's INDO EUROPEAN", it's literally the same thing.

Mandarin is a language from north of China, is all I wanted to say.

...

Ming dynasty, also I don't understand why you think the prevalence of Northern dynasties unifying China is proof that foreigners subjugated China when Chinese civilization literally started in Northern China.