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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Maybe they should be congratulated for having more intellectual priorities?

Of course, since modern Olympic history corresponds to a period of stress for India, it probably suggests that they have recently had more existential priorities. Either way, what an odd suggestion that a culture's height can be measured by its jocks!

[Anonymous]

500 years from now will the USA be regarded as a great civilization?

[Anonymous]

And the sun has certainly set on the British Empire!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Maybe they should be congratulated for having more intellectual priorities?

Of course, since modern Olympic history corresponds to a period of stress for India, it probably suggests that they have recently had more existential priorities. Either way, what an odd suggestion that a culture's height can be measured by its jocks!

It's not a matter of measuring a culture by it's jocks. But, it certainly indicates a lack of commitment to it's athletes. Why can't a country have both jocks and intellectual pursuits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I assume you're not Indian - how is it that YOU are on "Indian Pride" e-mails and not me? I'm Indian, and DH is Indian-born...and we're not on the list

[Anonymous]

Poster with the Indian in-laws, please do your kids a favor and work out a more positive (not overstated or untruthful, just positive) view of that country, so that your contempt for half of their cultural heritage does not leak out quite so obviously. If you actually looked for more than half a second, you would find tremendous talent, beauty, and achievement in all areas - coexisting, of course, with the corruption and wrenching poverty. Isn't that amazing, how in one large country both good and bad can be present at the same time?

[Anonymous]

How can one person be Indian and another can be Indian born? What's the difference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But in this case, it did provide a roadmap for MLK, right? I mean, Emerson hadn't put anything into action. Seems important.

I agree that India is a complicated democracy, but it still is one. I almost think it's more important today than in the past globally, because it serves to show the possibilities for other non-western countries that are reeeeeeally not democracies.

Also, a number of inventions, medicines, mathematical concepts, etc., were worked out in ancient India before the west, but the news didn't travel or a western person just got credit. I'm not sure what that means, since it didn't impact the rest of the world, but still.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Maybe they should be congratulated for having more intellectual priorities?

Of course, since modern Olympic history corresponds to a period of stress for India, it probably suggests that they have recently had more existential priorities. Either way, what an odd suggestion that a culture's height can be measured by its jocks!

It's not a matter of measuring a culture by it's jocks. But, it certainly indicates a lack of commitment to it's athletes. Why can't a country have both jocks and intellectual pursuits?

I think if you're trying to survive day by day, finding barely enough food to eat, having clean water to drink, having somewhere to shelter, you're not going to be thinking about training for athletics. Sports and the arts are a luxury, after you can get food, clothing and shelter.

[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.

Wrong again. It wasn't impoverished when it was a great culture.
You need to either travel more or read more. Or should have stayed awake in class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think if you're trying to survive day by day, finding barely enough food to eat, having clean water to drink, having somewhere to shelter, you're not going to be thinking about training for athletics. Sports and the arts are a luxury, after you can get food, clothing and shelter.

good luck explaining that to Americs obese

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wrong again. It wasn't impoverished when it was a great culture.
You need to either travel more or read more. Or should have stayed awake in class.

well. America is improverished

[Anonymous]

Spice covering the taste of foods gone bad. Sanitation. Bollywood. Bribery. Corruption. Untouchables/caste system. Women's rights.

Remind me about the positive parts. Is it the cheap medicine that ignores patents in other countries? Is it the cheap labor so everyone who has a few rupees has servants?

Sorry for not being PC here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Maybe they should be congratulated for having more intellectual priorities?

Of course, since modern Olympic history corresponds to a period of stress for India, it probably suggests that they have recently had more existential priorities. Either way, what an odd suggestion that a culture's height can be measured by its jocks!

It's not a matter of measuring a culture by it's jocks. But, it certainly indicates a lack of commitment to it's athletes. Why can't a country have both jocks and intellectual pursuits?

I suppose it could have both, but it strikes me as bizarre to claim that limited present-day jockery (oh, sorry, "commitment to athletes") has anything to do with historic cultural achievement.

I probably wouldn't even accept that athletics in itself can represent any kind of admirable cultural achievement, but I can see how that argument might go. Meh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Spice covering the taste of foods gone bad. Sanitation. Bollywood. Bribery. Corruption. Untouchables/caste system. Women's rights.

Remind me about the positive parts. Is it the cheap medicine that ignores patents in other countries? Is it the cheap labor so everyone who has a few rupees has servants?

Sorry for not being PC here

Given your obvious negativity and bitterness, it would be a waste of time to try to persuade you. By the way: It's not just that you're not "politically correct" (and I love the way you use that term to excuse your obviously biased views). You're not factually correct. But if you wanted to know facts, you'd take the time to learn them, right?