Is the culture of India (sub-cultures, actually) one of the most important in the world?

[Anonymous]

Yes, very important.

IT's the world's largest democracy, by the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:great cultures are not colonized and are not incredibly impoverished

Moron. Acccording to your flawed reasoning, neither Egypt nor Greece are important cultures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:great cultures are not colonized and are not incredibly impoverished

Moron. Acccording to your flawed reasoning, neither Egypt nor Greece are important cultures.

Egypt and Greece were some of the richest civilizations in the world at the time they were important cultures. You need wealth to be able to support the arts and philosophy. Egypt was the wealthiest part of the Roman Empire as well, and Marc Anthony got the better deal when he took control of the East. Greek culture quickly took the lead after being conquered by Rome.

Far different from India. Sure, it was the "jewel in the crown", but basically an impoverished backwater that was conquered by a country 1,000 miles away with much less the population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:great cultures are not colonized and are not incredibly impoverished

Moron. Acccording to your flawed reasoning, neither Egypt nor Greece are important cultures.

Egypt and Greece were some of the richest civilizations in the world at the time they were important cultures. You need wealth to be able to support the arts and philosophy. Egypt was the wealthiest part of the Roman Empire as well, and Marc Anthony got the better deal when he took control of the East. Greek culture quickly took the lead after being conquered by Rome.

Far different from India. Sure, it was the "jewel in the crown", but basically an impoverished backwater that was conquered by a country 1,000 miles away with much less the population.

yet managed to assert independence through non-violent means. seems to me there is some wealth of knowledge there that extends beyond your "backwater" comment.

[Anonymous]

When I think about one of the most important cultures of the world, it's definitely not Indian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And to the poster above, America was a colony.

To some extent, hasn't everywhere been a colony at one point or another?

[Anonymous]

This is OP. To the (probable) guy who keeps talking about India being "conquered" : I'm not asking about military might and weaponry. That's a separate question with a separate set of criteria.

I am interested in winning points about culture. The medicine point by PP was a good lead. Music, religion, language/ Sanskrit ... architecture. Yoga. Whatever. please keep the ideas coming.

But I'm not asking 'Who had the biggest [dick] arsenal?' so please stop telling me about how India can't conquer anyone.

[Anonymous]

You guys do know that "Greece" (any civilization you're referring to by that name) and Rome were both (all) conquered, right?

I don't know how valuable comparisons of "importance" can be in the first place, but there shouldn't be any question about the sophistication of historical cultural happenings in India over the millenia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is OP. To the (probable) guy who keeps talking about India being "conquered" : I'm not asking about military might and weaponry. That's a separate question with a separate set of criteria.

I am interested in winning points about culture. The medicine point by PP was a good lead. Music, religion, language/ Sanskrit ... architecture. Yoga. Whatever. please keep the ideas coming.

But I'm not asking 'Who had the biggest [dick] arsenal?' so please stop telling me about how India can't conquer anyone.

true, great civilizations never go hand in hand with great strength ..... because the neighboring people just stop at the door when they hear of your music and architecture .....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys do know that "Greece" (any civilization you're referring to by that name) and Rome were both (all) conquered, right?

I don't know how valuable comparisons of "importance" can be in the first place, but there shouldn't be any question about the sophistication of historical cultural happenings in India over the millenia.

Rome fell apart for reasons too complex for this thread, and various barbarian tribes took turns plundering Rome. Of course Constantinople survived and flourished for hundreds more years. Not sure I'd agree that Rome was ever conquered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I think about one of the most important cultures of the world, it's definitely not Indian.

Agreed. I have Indian in-laws who constantly tout the merits of the Indian culture. While I certainly can respect how Indians have contributed, I do not think of Indian culture as one of the most important at all. All the 'Indian Pride' emails I constantly receive smack of mostly insecurity. I've been to India several times. It is certainly a fascinating country with a rich history, but that doesn't make it the moSt important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is OP. To the (probable) guy who keeps talking about India being "conquered" : I'm not asking about military might and weaponry. That's a separate question with a separate set of criteria.

I am interested in winning points about culture. The medicine point by PP was a good lead. Music, religion, language/ Sanskrit ... architecture. Yoga. Whatever. please keep the ideas coming.

But I'm not asking 'Who had the biggest [dick] arsenal?' so please stop telling me about how India can't conquer anyone.

true, great civilizations never go hand in hand with great strength ..... because the neighboring people just stop at the door when they hear of your music and architecture .....

Lol. True. Nonviolence is laudable, but not always the basis for a 'great' civilization.

[Anonymous]

I know DCUM is far from a sports fan community, but it is interesting that for a country with such a huge population, India has a few medals total in the history of the Olympics. Probably the lowest medal per capita of any place on Earth.

So not great athletes, that is for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, very important.

IT's the world's largest democracy, by the way.

What point does that make? I'm the PP with the Indian in-laws, who freely admit that though India is a democracy, it is run by bribery and corruption. Being the largest democracy is not equivalent to being the greatest democracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys do know that "Greece" (any civilization you're referring to by that name) and Rome were both (all) conquered, right?

I don't know how valuable comparisons of "importance" can be in the first place, but there shouldn't be any question about the sophistication of historical cultural happenings in India over the millenia.

Rome fell apart for reasons too complex for this thread, and various barbarian tribes took turns plundering Rome. Of course Constantinople survived and flourished for hundreds more years. Not sure I'd agree that Rome was ever conquered.

Huh. You hang on to that, then, and I'll content myself with pointing out that Constantinople fell (to conquerors) in the 15th century.

I'll also point out that "barbarian tribes" has not been considered a scholarly way to describe those Germanic groups in some time. I haven't visited the topic in years, but somewhere in the swirling mists of my memory there's the notion that one group really occupied the heart of Rome, and that some Theodoric guy set up a new Roman empire in considerable imitation of the one he conquered. Pretty much at odds with the loss of Roman virtue followed by "Barbarian plunder" narrative you're suggesting, though it's been an influential one over the centuries.