Why are we still donating $1/2bn in Aid to India?

[Retro Formula 1]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12607537

What is the sense behind maintaining the amount we donate in Aid to a Nuclear Superpower when their economy is growing at 10% and we are in a recession?

[Eki]

Well, you could see it as down payment of what you took from them during the 200 years of British rule in India.

[Hondo]

Well, you could see it as down payment of what you took from them during the 200 years of British rule in India.

Maybe, or like the US, merely foolish.

[Retro Formula 1]

I think we are still paying Aid to Russia as well Eki :p

It does raise the question of what Aid should be used for. We donate to a Country that has the funds to sort it's own problems out yet they develop Nuclear Weapons instead???

[Rollo]

Well, you could see it as down payment of what you took from them during the 200 years of British rule in India.

Yes, but Britain gave India the railways, a national sport, the rule of law and a common language. Those four things bound India together more closely than the Mughals did before them.

[CaptainRaiden]

Yes, but Britain gave India the railways, a national sport, the rule of law and a common language. Those four things bound India together more closely than the Mughals did before them.

And that somehow is supposed to make up for the billions they stole from us, and the absolute ruining of the Indian society, and India's economy, which was as much as the whole of Europe before the British rule? India's share of the global income in the 1700s was 22.6%, the whole of Europe was 23.8%. After the Indian independence in 1947, it declined to a mere 3.8%. A rich country was robbed of all its wealth, as simple as that. There was absolutely NOTHING positive about the British rule in India.

I'm not saying we need any money today, because India is one of the fastest growing economies and is quite capable of getting on top in the next few decades. The problem is the massive divide between rich and poor. The rich are too rich, and the poor are too poor, and there seems to be nothing done about it by the Indian government. Probably that's why there are still these aids given.

[Tazio]

And that somehow is supposed to make up for the billions they stole from us, and the absolute ruining of the Indian society, and India's economy, which was as much as the whole of Europe before the British rule? India's share of the global income in the 1700s was 22.6%, the whole of Europe was 23.8%. After the Indian independence in 1947, it declined to a mere 3.8%. A rich country was robbed of all its wealth, as simple as that. There was absolutely NOTHING positive about the British rule in India.

I'm not saying we need any money today, because India is one of the fastest growing economies and is quite capable of getting on top in the next few decades. The problem is the massive divide between rich and poor. The rich are too rich, and the poor are too poor, and there seems to be nothing done about it by the Indian government. Probably that's why there are still these aids given.
Well seeing that you gave us Curry. that is worth at least a couple hundred million bucks! :)

[Eki]

Well seeing that you gave us Curry. that is worth at least a couple hundred million bucks! :)
Well, you could also say that they gave you America. Without India Columbus wouldn't have gone to try to find a new route to India and ended up in America.

[Daniel]

And that somehow is supposed to make up for the billions they stole from us, and the absolute ruining of the Indian society, and India's economy, which was as much as the whole of Europe before the British rule? India's share of the global income in the 1700s was 22.6%, the whole of Europe was 23.8%. After the Indian independence in 1947, it declined to a mere 3.8%. A rich country was robbed of all its wealth, as simple as that. There was absolutely NOTHING positive about the British rule in India.

I'm not saying we need any money today, because India is one of the fastest growing economies and is quite capable of getting on top in the next few decades. The problem is the massive divide between rich and poor. The rich are too rich, and the poor are too poor, and there seems to be nothing done about it by the Indian government. Probably that's why there are still these aids given.

Whilst I understand where you're coming from, I think it's fundamentally wrong to be giving aid to a country which has a booming economy and is spending money on things like nuclear weapons and a space program more money to do what they themselves should be doing and especially at a time where the UK is struggling itself. India will be far richer if it did something to help those people in the lower class to move up to being middle class........

Also, it is insulting and patronising of Rollo to suggest that giving India cricket, a common language, railways and the rule of law makes up for what Britain did. How long till he tells me that the British didn't fight the Boer Wars to gain control of the nations gold and diamons but rather that it was for miners rights (No ****, that's what they tried to teach me in history in high school back in 1999).

[Tazio]

Well, you could also say that they gave you America. Without India Columbus wouldn't have gone to try to find a new route to India and ended up in America.

Wow Eki! That's deep ;)
The problem with that line of thinking is that there is a geographical area there referred to as India that is part to the of this planet!

[CaptainRaiden]

Whilst I understand where you're coming from, I think it's fundamentally wrong to be giving aid to a country which has a booming economy and is spending money on things like nuclear weapons and a space program more money to do what they themselves should be doing and especially at a time where the UK is struggling itself. India will be far richer if it did something to help those people in the lower class to move up to being middle class........

That's why I said that India really doesn't NEED the money. And none of the poor guys actually see a penny of these aids, because and only because of the corrupt bureaucrats, in other words the wretched politicians that rule this country. There have been scandals in the past where only a fraction of flood and earthquake relief funds have actually gotten to the victims. This is the kind of bloodsucking human scum that make up most of the political parties in India. These are the same guys who probably have bomb envy, and want to make bigger and better bombs to become a superpower.

Hey, I agree that in these times of recession, when only the Indian and Chinese economies are growing, it doesn't make much sense for Britain to send any "aid" to India. Probably they're doing it out of guilt? :p


Also, it is insulting and patronising of Rollo to suggest that giving India cricket, a common language, railways and the rule of law makes up for what Britain did. How long till he tells me that the British didn't fight the Boer Wars to gain control of the nations gold and diamons but rather that it was for miners rights (No ****, that's what they tried to teach me in history in high school back in 1999).

Agreed 100%. It's not like the British set up the railways for the welfare of India, they did it for their own good. With or without them, railways would have been implemented in India sooner or later, just like any other country. The selfish bloodsucking pricks are somehow made to be some sort of kind messiahs here, the same guys who stole all of India's wealth and put it in the queen's treasury. Oh jeez, I'm glad that they took time off from imposing high taxes causing famines killing thousands of people, raping Indian women, making slaves wash their latrines and lick their boots etcetera to give us railways, English and Cricket. :rolleyes:

Also, thanks but no thanks for Cricket, a stupid game which somehow became the national sport when the Indians started winning, and I'm sure is also responsible for killing more than half of India's productivity during the World Cup.

[CaptainRaiden]

Well seeing that you gave us Curry. that is worth at least a couple hundred million bucks! :)

Actually, I think the Portuguese gave India curry, at least the concept, but we took it to whole another level. :p

[Daniel]

That's why I said that India really doesn't NEED the money. And none of the poor guys actually see a penny of these aids, because and only because of the corrupt bureaucrats, in other words the wretched politicians that rule this country. There have been scandals in the past where only a fraction of flood and earthquake relief funds have actually gotten to the victims. This is the kind of bloodsucking human scum that make up most of the political parties India. Hey, I agree that in these times of recession, when only the Indian and Chinese economies are growing, it doesn't make much sense for Britain to send any "aid" to India. Probably they're doing it out of guilt? :p

I think what really needs to happen is that Western countries need to actually keep more control of their money in countries where corruption is so widespread. That way the people of that country are best served, and the drain on the richer nation isn't as high.


Agreed 100%. It's not like the British set up the railways for the welfare of India, they did it for their own good. With or without them, railways would have been implemented in India sooner or later, just like any other country. The selfish bloodsucking pricks are somehow made to be some sort of kind messiahs here, the same guys who stole all of India's wealth and put it in the queen's treasury. Oh jeez, I'm glad that they took time off from imposing high taxes causing famines killing thousands of people, raping Indian women, making slaves wash their latrines and lick their boots etcetera to give us railways, English and Cricket. :rolleyes:

Amen to that :up: As much as I dislike what America has become in some ways I like the fact that the US gave Britain the shove quite early on. Of course the Americans of today aren't the native people of the US but that's another story altogether.

[CaptainRaiden]

Well, you could also say that they gave you America. Without India Columbus wouldn't have gone to try to find a new route to India and ended up in America.

I'm almost thankful that Columbus got lost and went to America instead of India. I think Russell Peters put it like this, it was something like Columbus, the "great discoverer" was lost. Went searching for India, got to America instead and not to look like a jackass in front of his crew, told them that they were in India, and the native Americans were Indians. While the real Indians were waiting on the Indian shores saying [in Indian accent], "Where the hell is Chris? Son of a b*** is late." :p

[Malbec]

Actually, I think the Portuguese gave India curry, at least the concept, but we took it to whole another level. :p

I think the Moghuls brought curry to India since they had a tradition they brought from Mongolia of eating a meaty stew like dish with rice.

Britain actually made a financial loss over India with the cost of maintaining and defending the place not recouped by trade. As for the wealth of the country being plundered by Britain, while quite a few famous treasures were taken away India was spoilt by the local princes taking away their taxes for personal use and not spending it on the local economy. It always shocks me to read about Indian princes who bought up Rolls Royces by the dozen back in the 1920s while their people starved. At least under British rule these princes didn't squander their money fighting petty wars with each other.

BTW India and China's share of the global economy dropped over the period you quoted not because they shrank but because the European and American economies exploded thanks to the industrial revolution.

[CaptainRaiden]

I think what really needs to happen is that Western countries need to actually keep more control of their money in countries where corruption is so widespread. That way the people of that country are best served, and the drain on the richer nation isn't as high.

Corruption has infiltrated almost every level in India, except for the educational system. You can't pay your way through high school or college, which I have seen happen in some European countries. But I'm sure that even there, if you have enough money, nothing is impossible. :D The problem with corruption is that countries like UK and USA who give these monetary aids to India, have no idea what's going on inside the country, they only see the surface or probably in many cases don't care enough. Besides, with them sending monetary aids to India, it's not all just purely donation. I'm sure they have hidden motives behind these acts of kindness, and you never know what deals go on behind closed doors.

[Malbec]

I think what really needs to happen is that Western countries need to actually keep more control of their money in countries where corruption is so widespread. That way the people of that country are best served, and the drain on the richer nation isn't as high.

Western countries do keep control of their aid money though. Very little aid is in the form of money thats given to a country like India in the form of cash. In most cases the aid is in the form of virtual money that the recipient is allowed to 'spend' on projects as long as they are contracted to companies from the giving country. There's very little altruism involved.

[CaptainRaiden]

I think the Moghuls brought curry to India since they had a tradition they brought from Mongolia of eating a meaty stew like dish with rice.

You may be right there. My knowledge on this is purely based on a documentary I saw some time ago about the origin of curry in India, where they speculated that it came from the Portuguese.


Britain actually made a financial loss over India with the cost of maintaining and defending the place not recouped by trade. As for the wealth of the country being plundered by Britain, while quite a few famous treasures were taken away India was spoilt by the local princes taking away their taxes for personal use and not spending it on the local economy. It always shocks me to read about Indian princes who bought up Rolls Royces by the dozen back in the 1920s while their people starved. At least under British rule these princes didn't squander their money fighting petty wars with each other.

Yep, I think everybody knows that what lead to the British rule of India was because of cooperation of the stupid Indian kings and princes as well, who welcomed East India Company with open arms. If they would have given them the boot early on, this wouldn't have happened. What you described about Indian princes buying Rolls Royce while the poor starved, is still what happens in modern day India, because of the massive divide between rich and poor. The famous British policy of divide and rule worked because of the stupid Indian kings. And they only made financial loss towards the end of their reign during the early 1900s, because of the independence movement gaining momentum.


BTW India and China's share of the global economy dropped over the period you quoted not because they shrank but because the European and American economies exploded thanks to the industrial revolution.

Yeah, but India was pretty much de-industrialized. The British or the Moghuls didn't actually help the country grow, they only exploited it for their benefit. Before the Mughals or the British came, you can read about India being very ahead of its time. Indian mathematicians were dabbling with creating the number zero at times when many regions of Europe were still living in caves. I don't know how much ahead India would have gone with the different kingdoms fighting between themselves, but for sure the British rule didn't help anything.

Also, a drop of 20% can't be only because of the industrial revolution in America and UK. Britain may have made financial loss towards the end of their rule, but India was in huge recession after the independence mainly because of the British rule.

[Malbec]

And they only made financial loss towards the end of their reign during the early 1900s, because of the independence movement gaining momentum.

I don't think it was ever profitable. IIRC the East India company that was created specifically to 'invest' in the place and exploit it went bankrupt and had its assets taken over by the crown, and that was despite massive tax breaks and direct and indirect state subsidies. Thats how the British government came to own the country.

[Eki]

I'm almost thankful that Columbus got lost and went to America instead of India. I think Russell Peters put it like this, it was something like Columbus, the "great discoverer" was lost. Went searching for India, got to America instead and not to look like a jackass in front of his crew, told them that they were in India, and the native Americans were Indians. While the real Indians were waiting on the Indian shores saying [in Indian accent], "Where the hell is Chris? Son of a b*** is late." :p
Speaking of Indian accent, a Finnish technical college has this advertisement currently running on TV:

sGUj3J2awQQ

Do you as an Indian find it funny or maybe racist?

[DexDexter]

Yes, but Britain gave India the railways, a national sport, the rule of law and a common language. Those four things bound India together more closely than the Mughals did before them.

You forgot the Commonwealth Games :p :

[Roamy]

Speaking of Indian accent, a Finnish technical college has this advertisement currently running on TV:

sGUj3J2awQQ

Do you as an Indian find it funny or maybe racist?

but i know oracle - i know oracle

[CaptainRaiden]

I don't think it was ever profitable. IIRC the East India company that was created specifically to 'invest' in the place and exploit it went bankrupt and had its assets taken over by the crown, and that was despite massive tax breaks and direct and indirect state subsidies. Thats how the British government came to own the country.

I'm not a historian, and probably you're right. I guess the financial losses forced them to impose those unimaginably high taxes that sucked the life out of the farmers and caused the multiple major famines in India during the British rule that wiped out about 20% of India's total population. I'm sure that didn't help in completely destroying India's economy at all.

[CaptainRaiden]

Speaking of Indian accent, a Finnish technical college has this advertisement currently running on TV:

sGUj3J2awQQ

Do you as an Indian find it funny or maybe racist?

I think that's quite funny, and I don't think it's racist, although the fat guy's accent ended up sounding something else entirely. They're merely making fun of the Indian accent, which I myself think is funny sounding. :p You should really see some of Russell Peters work on how he makes fun of the Indian accent, Indians, Chinese, Spanish and Mexicans. :) Here are some little bits from one of his shows.

cex7fB9sAFg

4OdM4rxDCmU

j7pd8gQHrIY

[CaptainRaiden]

Also, this one's for the British guys. Hope they don't get upset. It's all in good fun. :p

Td22UnQFHz4

[Malbec]

I'm not a historian, and probably you're right. I guess the financial losses forced them to impose those unimaginably high taxes that sucked the life out of the farmers and caused the multiple major famines in India during the British rule that wiped out about 20% of India's total population. I'm sure that didn't help in completely destroying India's economy at all.

The fact that British rule was a drain on India's economy (and I agree with you that it probably was) does not preclude it from being unprofitable for the British either. Britain did invest heavily in India whether it was through building railways, a bureaucratic structure or fighting off other colonial powers or aggressive neighbours like Tibet. Also, Britain used Indian troops throughout the Empire which was expensive in terms of British funding even though India paid the price in manpower.

As for the famines there were many causes, not all of which were for profit. The Bengal famine during the war for example was a case where there was enough food produced but it was used to feed troops, not the population. Sadly this kind of thing was not unique to India. Ireland too always produced enough food for the population to survive but had famines as the food was exported to feed British troops and staff around the world.

I don't think the British rule over India can be reduced simply to Britain sucking out money from India. The true picture was far more complex than that, and far more interesting too.

[CaptainRaiden]

The fact that British rule was a drain on India's economy (and I agree with you that it probably was) does not preclude it from being unprofitable for the British either. Britain did invest heavily in India whether it was through building railways, a bureaucratic structure or fighting off other colonial powers or aggressive neighbours like Tibet. Also, Britain used Indian troops throughout the Empire which was expensive in terms of British funding even though India paid the price in manpower.

You talk about Britain investing heavily in India as if it was in their plan to develop India and then leave. They invested because they were RULING the country, and Indians (the poor ones, I'm not talking about kings and princes here) were nothing but slaves. Even the kings and princes were mere pawns who agreed to cooperate with the British as long as they were allowed to rule their own kingdoms. The British tried to fend off neighbours, not because they were saving India, but because it was threatening to take over a country that they RULED. And BTW they trained and used Indian troops to save their own asses and to fight their own wars, not employing their own British troops. And you're right, India did pay the price in manpower. These Indian soldiers were nothing but slaves, sons of farmers, Brahmins etc. trained to fire guns, until some of them started revolting against the suppression, i.e. the story of Mangal Pandey, one of the first Indian freedom fighters.

Britain invested in India for their own benefit, and the intention was never for the welfare of India, but for Britain's own interest, and you can't deny this fact. They never planned on leaving, until they were forced to. For them this was a conquered country, and so they invested to expand it. Did that help India? Yes, a little, but at what huge price?? There are stories of almost Nazi like executions, where they would go around killing people for inobedience or simply because they didn't like them, make fun of the starving, rape women at will.


As for the famines there were many causes, not all of which were for profit. The Bengal famine during the war for example was a case where there was enough food produced but it was used to feed troops, not the population.

Two of the major famines did take place because of the mindbogglingly high tax imposed by the British government on Indian farmers, which lead to people dying of starvation and mass farmer suicides as well. And the decision to feed the troops was made by the British rule, not any Indian ruler.


I don't think the British rule over India can be reduced simply to Britain sucking out money from India. The true picture was far more complex than that, and far more interesting too.

As much as I hate the Mughal rule in India, there were more positives from their rule, at least when we look at the economy. They didn't rule all of India. Yes, they ruled many kingdoms, but India was divided between the Mughals and the Maratha and Hindu Empire, and most importantly which kept the money and profit within India. Yes, there were kingdoms and kings, but people weren't treated like slaves. The farmers weren't suppressed, it was a fair system, the farmers didn't have to succumb to unfair rule and pay unimaginably high taxes, and hell, India was a prosperous country. The Mughals built the Taj Mahal, and many other forts, improved the roadways, started exporting cash crops, developed the shipbuilding industry. They actually gave more to India than they took.

From what I remember, the Hindu kings and princes worked with the East India Company, and wanted to join forces with the British to get rid of the Mughals. And so they traded one devil for a worse one. Just before the British took over India was the time India's economy was right up there, until it crashed to zilch just before the British left. All this is not a mere coincidence, but simply alluding to the fact that the British rule was one of the most devastating things to happen to the Indian economy ever. And I know some folks might want to believe, or at least assure themselves that there were some positives out of the British rule, but I just can't see how and why. I think it's a poor attempt at assuring oneself that the British rule in India wasn't all that bad.

[Malbec]

You talk about Britain investing heavily in India as if it was in their plan to develop India and then leave.

I never suggested this. In fact I believe I referred to the EIC being setup to exploit India as a business venture. At no point have I suggested Britain was some kind of benevolent force merely taking India over to save it from Indian misrule. However although the intention behind many British 'investments' in India like the railways were intended to benefit the British, it is also clear that Indians benefited too.


They invested because they were RULING the country, and Indians (the poor ones, I'm not talking about kings and princes here) were nothing but slaves. Even the kings and princes were mere pawns who agreed to cooperate with the British as long as they were allowed to rule their own kingdoms. The British tried to fend off neighbours, not because they were saving India, but because it was threatening to take over a country that they RULED. And BTW they trained and used Indian troops to save their own asses and to fight their own wars, not employing their own British troops. And you're right, India did pay the price in manpower. These Indian soldiers were nothing but slaves, sons of farmers, Brahmins etc. trained to fire guns, until some of them started revolting against the suppression, i.e. the story of Mangal Pandey, one of the first Indian freedom fighters.

Nothing here is contradictory to what I've said, I completely agree with you.


Britain invested in India for their own benefit, and the intention was never for the welfare of India, but for Britain's own interest, and you can't deny this fact.

I haven't denied anything. I refer you to my original comments about the EIC being setup to EXPLOIT India...


And the decision to feed the troops was made by the British rule, not any Indian ruler.

I never suggested the Indians were involved in those decisions. In fact I thought that by indicating that the same decisions were made in Ireland, I made it clear that those decisions were made by British rulers?


As much as I hate the Mughal rule in India, there were more positives from their rule, at least when we look at the economy. They didn't rule all of India. Yes, they ruled many kingdoms, but India was divided between the Mughals and the Maratha and Hindu Empire, and most importantly which kept the money and profit within India. Yes, there were kingdoms and kings, but people weren't treated like slaves. The farmers weren't suppressed, it was a fair system, the farmers didn't have to succumb to unfair rule and pay unimaginably high taxes, and hell, India was a prosperous country. The Mughals built the Taj Mahal, and many other forts, improved the roadways, started exporting cash crops, developed the shipbuilding industry. They actually gave more to India than they took.

The main difference between the Mughals and the British was that the Mughals viewed India as a new home, a permanent place to stay. The British viewed it as a colony to exploit and use as a resource. If you look at the way Britain treated the American colonies (which was as a new home) you'll see a big difference in the way the colonies were treated compared to India.


I think it's a poor attempt at assuring oneself that the British rule in India wasn't all that bad.

You shouldn't try and secondguess others. In fact my view is that even if the British rule in India was the best thing ever (which, to clarify, I don't), its effects would have been dwarfed by the utter mess/incompetence demonstrated during the withdrawal which allowed the massacres around the partition to happen.

[CaptainRaiden]

Well then, we agree on some things. Apologies if I may have taken some of what you wrote in the same patronizing light that Rollo meant it before. However, I still maintain the view that with or without the British, railways would have been implemented in India sooner or later. What the British did for their own benefit, did with a very small effect, benefit India as well, but that's puny when you look at the bigger picture. Also, it's pretty clear that Britain exploited India for its own profit, and thus the quite obvious draining of resources from India.

I don't have a lot of time to type here, but in a nutshell, India had a booming handicraft industry, steel and iron industries as well before the British rule. The British pretty much deindustrialized India by imposing huge taxes. Then there was the tariff policy introduced by the British parliament, which forced the Indian manufacturers to sell their cotton and silk goods at about 70% lower than the price of cloth in England, and were also hit by huge import duties. And all this was done to drive them out of the English market. Before all of this, Indian craftsmen almost enjoyed a monopoly in handicraft sales in Europe. After the heavy import duties imposed by Britain, then there was the competition from European manufacturers with their cheaper, faster, machine made stuff as well, which killed it further.

Also, as the British were taking over and the power of Indian kings declined, British merchants started exploiting Indian craftsmen by forcing them to sign unfair agreements, further forcing them to deliver goods at unimaginably low prices, and that too on a priority level. The East India Company tried various experiments to maximize the land revenue by resorting to methods of oppression and repression of peasants. The British were far away from implementing any industrial developments in India, instead they went on to deindustrialize India. Britain's chief interest was to constitute India as an agricultural farm for industrialized Britain, and thus draining India out of all its resources.

Britain may have made a financial loss as you say, of which I have never seen any proof, in fact Britain's economy was strong and rock steady before and after India's independence. Anyway, whatever financial losses they might have made must be because they treated India as a colony only to exploit, also because of transporting goods and deploying troops and getting very little in return, because they made an absolute mess of the management. The way they drained India out of all its wealth wasn't in one fell swoop. Instead it was methodically done over two long centuries.

[555-04Q2]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12607537

What is the sense behind maintaining the amount we donate in Aid to a Nuclear Superpower when their economy is growing at 10% and we are in a recession?

I agree skc.

It is crazy to provide aid to any country, especially poor ones. It just makes them wait for handouts instead of doing something for themselves to improve their situation. It is a major problem over here in Africa where "Western" money is pissed down the drain by corruption, and lots of it. Give a man a fishing rod...not a fish.

The only exception should be for large scale natural disasters where medical, food and water supplies are required.

[Eki]

Give a man a fishing rod...not a fish.

But what does he do with a fishing rod if there's no fish?

[Retro Formula 1]

I agree skc.

It is crazy to provide aid to any country, especially poor ones. It just makes them wait for handouts instead of doing something for themselves to improve their situation. It is a major problem over here in Africa where "Western" money is pissed down the drain by corruption, and lots of it. Give a man a fishing rod...not a fish.

The only exception should be for large scale natural disasters where medical, food and water supplies are required.

I totally agree.

Africa is a prime case in point. Communities are artificially sustained and indeed, flourish under a false economy, propped up by outside aid only for the powerholders to siphon off both the Charity funds and more than often, enslave the male population into a Militia.

It's almost like Charity is literally breeding humanitarian injustices.

Sometimes, for example, we must accept that famines happen and people either migrate or starve. No point in prolonging the famine for years and years.

However, if it's a freak disaster like the Tsunami, then that's where Aid should fundementally be quickly deployed.

[Bob Riebe]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12607537

What is the sense behind maintaining the amount we donate in Aid to a Nuclear Superpower when their economy is growing at 10% and we are in a recession?
Unless it has a carrier battle group in each of the oceans that border it; Nuclear attack subs, plus submarines capable of delivering several dozen warheads; long range bombers capable of delivering 40,000lbs. of bombs or more, it is not a nuclear super power.

[Bob Riebe]

And that somehow is supposed to make up for the billions they stole from us, and the absolute ruining of the Indian society, .
I am curious, did the caste system exist before the Brits arrived?

[Eki]

Sometimes, for example, we must accept that famines happen and people either migrate or starve.
For some people migration seems to be a problem too. At least here in Finland, the anti-immigrant types have become more and more vocal recently, especially after the current recession started 2 years ago.

[CaptainRaiden]

I am curious, did the caste system exist before the Brits arrived?

Of course. It existed for centuries before the British came, it existed after they left, and still exists today in small villages for Hindus. One or two of the people with these ideologies make it to the cities as well, where they carry on with these ways, for example marrying only within their caste, not making friends from other castes etc.

[donKey jote]

Spanish and Mexicans. :)

his indian is funny but he hasn't a clue about Spanish: "the whole country thpeaks with a lithp"? In fact it's only in the deep deep south :p

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

[CaptainRaiden]

his indian is funny but he hasn't a clue about Spanish: "the whole country thpeaks with a lithp"? In fact it's only in the deep deep south :p

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

You have to understand, without getting offended, that a lot of his work is major exaggeration, much like any other stand-up comic. Do you really think all Indians talk with that silly sing-songy accent or that all Britishers talk like Mr. Bean? :laugh:

[CaptainRaiden]

his indian is funny but he hasn't a clue about Spanish: "the whole country thpeaks with a lithp"? In fact it's only in the deep deep south :p

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

Also, is Jorge Lorenzo from that region? I've seen him have that lisp, so does Marc Marquez. However Alonso or Dani Pedrosa speak normally.

[donKey jote]

You have to understand, without getting offended, that a lot of his work is major exaggeration, much like any other stand-up comic. Do you really think all Indians talk with that silly sing-songy accent or that all Britishers talk like Mr. Bean? :laugh:

not offended at all, just putting facts straight :p
The sound exists (the letter "z" and the "c" in "ce" or "ci") and is different to the "s" sound... so it isn't a lisp, or do you really think you are lisping when you say "think" ? :)

[donKey jote]

Also, is Jorge Lorenzo from that region? I've seen him have that lisp, so does Marc Marquez. However Alonso or Dani Pedrosa speak normally.

no, Jorge Lorentho is Balearic (i.e. half Catalan :p ), and Márqueth is Catalan as is Pedrossa too.
Although there is a history of Andaluthian emigration to Catalonia, neither of them speak Spanish with the deep "lisping" ceceo accent you find in the Cádiz or Huelva regions for example (and hardly anywhere else ;) ). I don't know about their Catalan though, actually I don't think Catalan even has a "th" sound - hence "Barsa" for Barcelona FC :bandit:
Alonsso is Assturian (deep north :p )

[Eki]

Do you really think all Indians talk with that silly sing-songy accent
Does it depend on what their native language is? They say there's 1652 different languages in India. Is that accent typical to native speakers of some certain language(s)?

[CaptainRaiden]

Does it depend on what their native language is? They say there's 1652 different languages in India. Is that accent typical to native speakers of some certain language(s)?

Official first language is Hindi, with English as the second official language, and then 22 other official languages. The rest of the 1600 as you mentioned are either dialects or small village languages, which I would have NO idea about.

And yes, the accent changes from region to region. For example there would be a big difference between how a guy from North India speaks English compared to someone from South India. This is how the different languages impact how the English is spoken, since their native language has that specific tone. South Indians have that sing-songy English accent that got famous, because majority of the software engineers that work in USA and Europe are usually from South India. Gujaratis again have a specific tone, which sounds funny. East Indians, the oriental looking Indians again have a different way of speaking English, where they pronounce certain alphabets and vowels in a different way. For example, many of them would call sugar as it is spelled, simply saying su+gar instead of shu+gar, again their native language influencing how they speak. Probably the most neutral sounding English is spoken by people from West India and Central India.

[CaptainRaiden]

no, Jorge Lorentho is Balearic (i.e. half Catalan :p ), and Márqueth is Catalan as is Pedrossa too.
Although there is a history of Andaluthian emigration to Catalonia, neither of them speak Spanish with the deep "lisping" ceceo accent you find in the Cádiz or Huelva regions for example (and hardly anywhere else. I don't know about their Catalan though, actually I don't think Catalan even has a "th" sound - hence "Barsa" for Barcelona FC :bandit:
Alonsso is Assturian (deep north :p )

Fascinating. I'm sure I must have been drunk when I saw Marquez and Pedrosa speaking in Spanish, because I swear they sounded different, and so did Lorenzo. :p And call it my ignorance or little knowledge, but that "th" when a Spanish guy speaks Spanish, does sound like a lisp compared to say a Mexican or an Argentinian guy speaking the same language. :D

[Kneeslider]

A wiser man than I once suggested that aid is something which comes from poor people in rich countries, and gets paid to rich people in poor countries.

[Eki]

East Indians, the oriental looking Indians again have a different way of speaking English, where they pronounce certain alphabets and vowels in a different way. For example, many of them would call sugar as it is spelled, simply saying su+gar instead of shu+gar, again their native language influencing how they speak.
They would probably get on well with Finns. Especially the English of Finnish Rally drivers is a well known joke:

US0w7pGk8eo

http://media.riemurasia.net/albumit/m13996/english.jpg

[CaptainRaiden]

They would probably get on well with Finns. Especially the English of Finnish Rally drivers is a well known joke:

US0w7pGk8eo

http://media.riemurasia.net/albumit/m13996/english.jpg

Very funny. :up: When I was reading that, I actually started sounding like how Hakkinen or Makinen used to sound, especially how Mika used to say "suspension voos proukken". :p This also reminds me of when I was watching Steig Larsson's Millenium trilogy, of course with English subtitles, and how strange and interesting Swedish sounded. How similar are Finnish and Swedish? I know they're both Nordic languages, but can a Swedish person communicate with a Finnish guy easily? And also, is English an official language of either country? If not, then I don't think you need to be too hard on yourself for bad English. I can show you supposedly "educated" Indian politicians speaking in much crappier English.

Oh, and I forgot to add to my previous post that I think punjabis, sikh guys from India, the ones who wear turbans on their head, or even without them, also speak a very different sounding English, which probably is funnier than the South Indian guys, because they again have this different tone of speaking which comes from their native punjabi language, and that segues into them speaking English with the same tone. Also, people who have been born and brought up in the major Indian cities have had more exposure to English and the western culture, and so sound very normal and neutral, compared to the ones who hail from smaller towns or villages, where obviously their native language has a bigger influence on how they speak.

Then there are extreme cases where I've met many Indians, born and brought up in India, not abroad, in India, ONLY being able to speak English and no other Indian language. :eek: It's sad to see them struggling to find words to communicate in Hindi, just like any foreigner would. And that's bad, really bad.

[Eki]

How similar are Finnish and Swedish? I know they're both Nordic languages, but can a Swedish person communicate with a Finnish guy easily?

Finnish and Swedish belong linguistically to different language groups. Swedish is a Germanic Indo-European language like English and German, and Finnish is Finno-Ugric Uralic language like Estonian. Finland however is a bilingual country with both Finnish and Swedish as official languages and the Finnish speakers study Swedish at school while the Swedish speakers study Finnish. Everybody study also English, but English is not an official language. Sweden has a large Finnish speaking minority, but Finnish is not an official language there, neither is English.

[555-04Q2]

But what does he do with a fishing rod if there's no fish?

Why can't the cup be half full for once, and not half empty Eki ;)

[555-04Q2]

A wiser man than I once suggested that aid is something which comes from poor people in rich countries, and gets paid to rich people in poor countries.

Hit the nail on the head :up:

[donKey jote]

but that "th" when a Spanish guy speaks Spanish, does sound like a lisp compared to say a Mexican or an Argentinian guy speaking the same language. :D
you said it: it sounds like a lisp but it is the "proper Spanish" ( ;) :p ) "th" sound.
Many Latinamerican Spanish do "seseo", the opposite effect to lisping: pronouncing the "th" as an "S" :p

Seseo
Seseo is the merger in the opposite direction: the original phonemes /s/ and /θ/ are both pronounced as [s]. Seseo is the most widespread pronunciation among Spanish speakers worldwide. Although a minority pronunciation in Spain, virtually all speakers in Hispanic America are seseantes, and seseo is considered standard in all varieties of Latin American Spanish.

[janneppi]

Everybody study also English, but English is not an official language. Sweden has a large Finnish speaking minority, but Finnish is not an official language there, neither is English.
I'm not sure if them swedes have changed it now, but until few years ago they didn't have a "official language" at all so Finland was the only country in the world which had Swedish as an official language. ;)

Funny though, the company I work has some odd Finn-swede traditions that originate from the previous owner so that there are quite a few who speak Swedish as their first language. Luckily I don't have to speak it to survive there. :)

[Eki]

I'm not sure if them swedes have changed it now, but until few years ago they didn't have a "official language" at all so Finland was the only country in the world which had Swedish as an official language. ;)

Actually the Finnish constitution calls Finnish and Swedish "national languages" and not official languages, to be precise.

http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990731.pdf



Section 17 - Right to one's language and culture

The national languages of Finland are Finnish and Swedish.

The right of everyone to use his or her own language, either Finnish or Swedish, before courts of law and other
authorities, and to receive official documents in that language, shall be guaranteed by an Act. The public
authorities shall provide for the cultural and societal needs of the Finnish-speaking and Swedish-speaking
populations of the country on an equal basis.

The Sami, as an indigenous people, as well as the Roma and other groups, have the right to maintain and develop
their own language and culture. Provisions on the right of the Sami to use the Sami language before the
authorities are laid down by an Act. The rights of persons using sign language and of persons in need of
interpretation or translation aid owing to disability shall be guaranteed by an Act.