Why did Canada and the US thrive compared to Spanish/Portuguese former colonies in the Americas?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has to do with technological superiority. Europeans were able to colonize when they did due to technological advantages in ships, weaponry, farming, etc. In the post-Enlightenment period, Europeans somehow managed to gain a technological advantage over competitors in the Middle East, Asia, North America, and Africa. For much the previous millennia, Europeans had actually lagged behind much of the world when it came to technological revolution.

The big question: why did Europe have a sudden leap in technological improvement while other continents did not? It's still a bit of a mystery. I would say that the rise of sophisticated and centralized religious institutions - such as the Catholic Church and Church of England, plus the creation of universities affiliated with such religions - may have contributed to the concentration of European intellectuals. This, in turn, allowed them to more easily acquire knowledge and gain technological breakthroughs at a much faster pace than in previous centuries. Still, other continents also had sophisticated university systems that were even older than Europe's.

There's no straight forward answer. I honestly believe it was mostly a combination of favorable geography, temperate 4-season weather, and a strong dose of luck.

More myths and lies. Europe was nowhere near as technologically advanced as China until 1500s. China was the one that invented gun powder and had ships 4 times the size of the Ship Columbus sailed. India was also sailing the SE Asia for centuries before that.

The explanation for bolded above as to the mystery of how Europe became more advanced than China is, the Plundered resources from Americas and slave labor. The two Asian giants simply couldn't muster enough resources from within to match the plunder from Americas and lil later Africa. Then there was 200 years of slave labor that killed textile industry in Asia because not only they were outdone by the plunder BUT ALSO BY FREE SLAVE LABOR. SoChina suffered a long decline and India's decline was lil faster than China's.

The straight forward answer is New resources from the new continents, slavery, geography, climate, arable land, in other words, All of the above.

But now that there are no more plunder from new land and slavery is no longer passe, you see CHINA and India with huge Internal resources back as worlds top economies.

If you say so. Your facts are nicely chosen.

You need to stop believing the myth the white man built to hide all the atrocities committed while making it seam like Europeans are advanced because they are smarter. That is nothing but bull as can be seen by the mighty UK built on PLUNDER is now just reduced to being a small island nation.

This is going to be how the world economy will look like by 2030 as per pwc. China at the top followed by US and India very close to each other with UK on the way out of top 10 and France outside the top 10.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ranked-pwc-predicts-the-most-powerful-economies-in-2030-2017-2

If you have a lot of people, you should have a larger economy. Are there enough resources for them to have western levels of consumption? Probably not. Western consumption is why smaller populations are able to have larger economies.

China is resource restricted. They are ranked 140 for arable land per person. That's not enough for western levels of food, in particular meat. India is ranked 105. In China's case, it is why Chinese companies are buying up land and companies abroad so that they can feed their own population.

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Agriculture/Arable-land/Hectares-per-capita

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-feeding-china/

Now you don't want to talk about the absolute size of the economy but rather the per capita. Becasue you can no longer make a case for absolute numbers. A country's power is based on absolute numbers and that changes the equation for everything. US is not the wealthiest by per capita. That would be Norway or Singapore but are they equal to the US? Nope.

Meat is a major culprit in climate change. So eating eat doesn't make anyone better, just dumber. You seem to be stuck in the 1950s Malthus false theory of resource crunch. With hybrid,drought resistant crops , smarter water usage and higher productivity/yield there is no need to have any more land to feed the billions. If there is a need then China and India are gonna colonize parts of Africa, who is gonna stop them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has to do with technological superiority. Europeans were able to colonize when they did due to technological advantages in ships, weaponry, farming, etc. In the post-Enlightenment period, Europeans somehow managed to gain a technological advantage over competitors in the Middle East, Asia, North America, and Africa. For much the previous millennia, Europeans had actually lagged behind much of the world when it came to technological revolution.

The big question: why did Europe have a sudden leap in technological improvement while other continents did not? It's still a bit of a mystery. I would say that the rise of sophisticated and centralized religious institutions - such as the Catholic Church and Church of England, plus the creation of universities affiliated with such religions - may have contributed to the concentration of European intellectuals. This, in turn, allowed them to more easily acquire knowledge and gain technological breakthroughs at a much faster pace than in previous centuries. Still, other continents also had sophisticated university systems that were even older than Europe's.

There's no straight forward answer. I honestly believe it was mostly a combination of favorable geography, temperate 4-season weather, and a strong dose of luck.

More myths and lies. Europe was nowhere near as technologically advanced as China until 1500s. China was the one that invented gun powder and had ships 4 times the size of the Ship Columbus sailed. India was also sailing the SE Asia for centuries before that.

The explanation for bolded above as to the mystery of how Europe became more advanced than China is, the Plundered resources from Americas and slave labor. The two Asian giants simply couldn't muster enough resources from within to match the plunder from Americas and lil later Africa. Then there was 200 years of slave labor that killed textile industry in Asia because not only they were outdone by the plunder BUT ALSO BY FREE SLAVE LABOR. SoChina suffered a long decline and India's decline was lil faster than China's.

The straight forward answer is New resources from the new continents, slavery, geography, climate, arable land, in other words, All of the above.

But now that there are no more plunder from new land and slavery is no longer passe, you see CHINA and India with huge Internal resources back as worlds top economies.

If you say so. Your facts are nicely chosen.

You need to stop believing the myth the white man built to hide all the atrocities committed while making it seam like Europeans are advanced because they are smarter. That is nothing but bull as can be seen by the mighty UK built on PLUNDER is now just reduced to being a small island nation.

This is going to be how the world economy will look like by 2030 as per pwc. China at the top followed by US and India very close to each other with UK on the way out of top 10 and France outside the top 10.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ranked-pwc-predicts-the-most-powerful-economies-in-2030-2017-2

If you have a lot of people, you should have a larger economy. Are there enough resources for them to have western levels of consumption? Probably not. Western consumption is why smaller populations are able to have larger economies.

China is resource restricted. They are ranked 140 for arable land per person. That's not enough for western levels of food, in particular meat. India is ranked 105. In China's case, it is why Chinese companies are buying up land and companies abroad so that they can feed their own population.

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Agriculture/Arable-land/Hectares-per-capita

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-feeding-china/

Now you don't want to talk about the absolute size of the economy but rather the per capita. Becasue you can no longer make a case for absolute numbers. A country's power is based on absolute numbers and that changes the equation for everything. US is not the wealthiest by per capita. That would be Norway or Singapore but are they equal to the US? Nope.

Meat is a major culprit in climate change. So eating eat doesn't make anyone better, just dumber. You seem to be stuck in the 1950s Malthus false theory of resource crunch. With hybrid,drought resistant crops , smarter water usage and higher productivity/yield there is no need to have any more land to feed the billions. If there is a need then China and India are gonna colonize parts of Africa, who is gonna stop them?

I'm curious why you think eating meat makes you dumb. Unless you are consuming insects its inefficient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And then I look over to europe and see that as bad as the UK and France are doing, they are a lot better off than Spain & Portugal.

Is there something just inherent in Spanish and Portuguese culture that lends to more dysfunction when it comes to general economics and government administration?

If the British colonized mexico and south america, I don't think we would have the same issue we do today.

I think this split reflects Northern European culture vs Southern European culture.

I once heard that the regions further away from the equator are more successful, and while there are exceptions, there is a lot to it. Northern v Soithern Europe, as you mention, and Canada/US vs Mexico/CA, but many others too.

The theory is that ancient people needed to be more resourceful to live in colder climates, and thus the population was self-selecting as to whom ventured from the warmer areas, where humans originated, to colder climates.

Thats all BS based on white man myth. China and India are for the most part tropical countries and they have been the human history's two longest surviving continuous civilizations. India and China also were the two largest economies throughout human history until about 1800s when plundered resources from Americas and Slave labor brought their economy down. The two Asian giants are back to being the top economies this century, rightfully claiming their place in the top.

India doesn’t seem too impressive with its pollution and unsanitary conditions and people pooping in the streets.

You are one of the few simple people who look at one aspect and declare everything else is bad. India is worlds 3rd largest economy, worlds 2nd largest market, a thriving and worlds fastest growing large economy. Did you know India receives the 3rd most VC capital after CHina and US? Do you know India is the second fastest (after China) growing solar and wind energy market? India is also producing a lot of global companies and is building high speed rail while the US has zero high speed rail.

Its like when you look at US and ignore everything but point to US being the country with largest prison population, highest gun ownership and a resulting high crime rate, severe problems of racism and white supremacy, Anti-science people who don't believe in scientists, too many religious nuts and finally , ISn't US the country with a con man liar as President. That sure sounds US is run by a thug dictator, but that is far from the truth. Don't you think so?

India's issues of endemic corruption and cronyism are some of the things the British weren't able to change, which arguably have held them back from being more dominant.

[Anonymous]

This thread seems to be feeding the “keep those brown people out” idea that is at the heart of the modern day GOP, by implying that Spanish speakers are somehow inferior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread seems to be feeding the “keep those brown people out” idea that is at the heart of the modern day GOP, by implying that Spanish speakers are somehow inferior.

Not really.

[Anonymous]

This thread just makes me wish we had better, or at least accurate, history books for K-12.

It is embarrassing.

[Anonymous]

The Spanish/Portuguese populated areas where there had been great indigenous cities/empires (Inca, Maya, Aztec) and much higher numbers of indigenous peoples. They lived side by side and developed the hacienda system (much like our southern plantation system). The British developed the slave trade to compete economically. The Spanish definitely used the native population as labor, but viewed them in a different way; they intermarried and created a "mestizo" group.

The southern part of the US was similar in some ways to many parts of Latin America . . . mainly agricultural. Without the northern states, the US as a whole would have been much more similar to the "hacienda" economy of Latin America. Even to this day, the southern US states are poorer and not known for good schools (in general). More than a few Confederates fled to Latin America after the Civil War.

[Anonymous]

Economic success and power don’t necessarily equate to happiness. Far from it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report?wprov=sfti1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has to do with technological superiority. Europeans were able to colonize when they did due to technological advantages in ships, weaponry, farming, etc. In the post-Enlightenment period, Europeans somehow managed to gain a technological advantage over competitors in the Middle East, Asia, North America, and Africa. For much the previous millennia, Europeans had actually lagged behind much of the world when it came to technological revolution.

The big question: why did Europe have a sudden leap in technological improvement while other continents did not? It's still a bit of a mystery. I would say that the rise of sophisticated and centralized religious institutions - such as the Catholic Church and Church of England, plus the creation of universities affiliated with such religions - may have contributed to the concentration of European intellectuals. This, in turn, allowed them to more easily acquire knowledge and gain technological breakthroughs at a much faster pace than in previous centuries. Still, other continents also had sophisticated university systems that were even older than Europe's.

There's no straight forward answer. I honestly believe it was mostly a combination of favorable geography, temperate 4-season weather, and a strong dose of luck.

More myths and lies. Europe was nowhere near as technologically advanced as China until 1500s. China was the one that invented gun powder and had ships 4 times the size of the Ship Columbus sailed. India was also sailing the SE Asia for centuries before that.

The explanation for bolded above as to the mystery of how Europe became more advanced than China is, the Plundered resources from Americas and slave labor. The two Asian giants simply couldn't muster enough resources from within to match the plunder from Americas and lil later Africa. Then there was 200 years of slave labor that killed textile industry in Asia because not only they were outdone by the plunder BUT ALSO BY FREE SLAVE LABOR. SoChina suffered a long decline and India's decline was lil faster than China's.

The straight forward answer is New resources from the new continents, slavery, geography, climate, arable land, in other words, All of the above.

But now that there are no more plunder from new land and slavery is no longer passe, you see CHINA and India with huge Internal resources back as worlds top economies.

If you say so. Your facts are nicely chosen.

You need to stop believing the myth the white man built to hide all the atrocities committed while making it seam like Europeans are advanced because they are smarter. That is nothing but bull as can be seen by the mighty UK built on PLUNDER is now just reduced to being a small island nation.

This is going to be how the world economy will look like by 2030 as per pwc. China at the top followed by US and India very close to each other with UK on the way out of top 10 and France outside the top 10.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ranked-pwc-predicts-the-most-powerful-economies-in-2030-2017-2

If you have a lot of people, you should have a larger economy. Are there enough resources for them to have western levels of consumption? Probably not. Western consumption is why smaller populations are able to have larger economies.

China is resource restricted. They are ranked 140 for arable land per person. That's not enough for western levels of food, in particular meat. India is ranked 105. In China's case, it is why Chinese companies are buying up land and companies abroad so that they can feed their own population.

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Agriculture/Arable-land/Hectares-per-capita

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-feeding-china/

Now you don't want to talk about the absolute size of the economy but rather the per capita. Becasue you can no longer make a case for absolute numbers. A country's power is based on absolute numbers and that changes the equation for everything. US is not the wealthiest by per capita. That would be Norway or Singapore but are they equal to the US? Nope.

Meat is a major culprit in climate change. So eating eat doesn't make anyone better, just dumber. You seem to be stuck in the 1950s Malthus false theory of resource crunch. With hybrid,drought resistant crops , smarter water usage and higher productivity/yield there is no need to have any more land to feed the billions. If there is a need then China and India are gonna colonize parts of Africa, who is gonna stop them?

I'm curious why you think eating meat makes you dumb. Unless you are consuming insects its inefficient.

In the evolutionary cycle Humans started eating meat much later. Once agricultural societies were established meat became an occasional delicacy even though hunter gatherers continued to consume meat. The problem with meat is we still haven't evolved to process it completely and so our body accumulates it as fat,cholesterol creating heart diseases. Besides it takes a whole lot more water, area and crops to make one KG of beef.

Below is the carbon footprint of various food. We are killing the earth much more by eating meat than by average miles driven/day.

https://www.greeneatz.com/foods-carbon-footprint.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has to do with technological superiority. Europeans were able to colonize when they did due to technological advantages in ships, weaponry, farming, etc. In the post-Enlightenment period, Europeans somehow managed to gain a technological advantage over competitors in the Middle East, Asia, North America, and Africa. For much the previous millennia, Europeans had actually lagged behind much of the world when it came to technological revolution.

The big question: why did Europe have a sudden leap in technological improvement while other continents did not? It's still a bit of a mystery. I would say that the rise of sophisticated and centralized religious institutions - such as the Catholic Church and Church of England, plus the creation of universities affiliated with such religions - may have contributed to the concentration of European intellectuals. This, in turn, allowed them to more easily acquire knowledge and gain technological breakthroughs at a much faster pace than in previous centuries. Still, other continents also had sophisticated university systems that were even older than Europe's.

There's no straight forward answer. I honestly believe it was mostly a combination of favorable geography, temperate 4-season weather, and a strong dose of luck.

More myths and lies. Europe was nowhere near as technologically advanced as China until 1500s. China was the one that invented gun powder and had ships 4 times the size of the Ship Columbus sailed. India was also sailing the SE Asia for centuries before that.

The explanation for bolded above as to the mystery of how Europe became more advanced than China is, the Plundered resources from Americas and slave labor. The two Asian giants simply couldn't muster enough resources from within to match the plunder from Americas and lil later Africa. Then there was 200 years of slave labor that killed textile industry in Asia because not only they were outdone by the plunder BUT ALSO BY FREE SLAVE LABOR. SoChina suffered a long decline and India's decline was lil faster than China's.

The straight forward answer is New resources from the new continents, slavery, geography, climate, arable land, in other words, All of the above.

But now that there are no more plunder from new land and slavery is no longer passe, you see CHINA and India with huge Internal resources back as worlds top economies.

If you say so. Your facts are nicely chosen.

You need to stop believing the myth the white man built to hide all the atrocities committed while making it seam like Europeans are advanced because they are smarter. That is nothing but bull as can be seen by the mighty UK built on PLUNDER is now just reduced to being a small island nation.

This is going to be how the world economy will look like by 2030 as per pwc. China at the top followed by US and India very close to each other with UK on the way out of top 10 and France outside the top 10.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ranked-pwc-predicts-the-most-powerful-economies-in-2030-2017-2

If you have a lot of people, you should have a larger economy. Are there enough resources for them to have western levels of consumption? Probably not. Western consumption is why smaller populations are able to have larger economies.

China is resource restricted. They are ranked 140 for arable land per person. That's not enough for western levels of food, in particular meat. India is ranked 105. In China's case, it is why Chinese companies are buying up land and companies abroad so that they can feed their own population.

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Agriculture/Arable-land/Hectares-per-capita

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-feeding-china/

Now you don't want to talk about the absolute size of the economy but rather the per capita. Becasue you can no longer make a case for absolute numbers. A country's power is based on absolute numbers and that changes the equation for everything. US is not the wealthiest by per capita. That would be Norway or Singapore but are they equal to the US? Nope.

Meat is a major culprit in climate change. So eating eat doesn't make anyone better, just dumber. You seem to be stuck in the 1950s Malthus false theory of resource crunch. With hybrid,drought resistant crops , smarter water usage and higher productivity/yield there is no need to have any more land to feed the billions. If there is a need then China and India are gonna colonize parts of Africa, who is gonna stop them?

I'm curious why you think eating meat makes you dumb. Unless you are consuming insects its inefficient.

In the evolutionary cycle Humans started eating meat much later. Once agricultural societies were established meat became an occasional delicacy even though hunter gatherers continued to consume meat. The problem with meat is we still haven't evolved to process it completely and so our body accumulates it as fat,cholesterol creating heart diseases. Besides it takes a whole lot more water, area and crops to make one KG of beef.

Below is the carbon footprint of various food. We are killing the earth much more by eating meat than by average miles driven/day.

https://www.greeneatz.com/foods-carbon-footprint.html

I don't disagree, but it still doesn't answer the question of why it makes you dumber.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And then I look over to europe and see that as bad as the UK and France are doing, they are a lot better off than Spain & Portugal.

Is there something just inherent in Spanish and Portuguese culture that lends to more dysfunction when it comes to general economics and government administration?

If the British colonized mexico and south america, I don't think we would have the same issue we do today.

I think this split reflects Northern European culture vs Southern European culture.

I once heard that the regions further away from the equator are more successful, and while there are exceptions, there is a lot to it. Northern v Soithern Europe, as you mention, and Canada/US vs Mexico/CA, but many others too.

The theory is that ancient people needed to be more resourceful to live in colder climates, and thus the population was self-selecting as to whom ventured from the warmer areas, where humans originated, to colder climates.

Thats all BS based on white man myth. China and India are for the most part tropical countries and they have been the human history's two longest surviving continuous civilizations. India and China also were the two largest economies throughout human history until about 1800s when plundered resources from Americas and Slave labor brought their economy down. The two Asian giants are back to being the top economies this century, rightfully claiming their place in the top.

India doesn’t seem too impressive with its pollution and unsanitary conditions and people pooping in the streets.

You are one of the few simple people who look at one aspect and declare everything else is bad. India is worlds 3rd largest economy, worlds 2nd largest market, a thriving and worlds fastest growing large economy. Did you know India receives the 3rd most VC capital after CHina and US? Do you know India is the second fastest (after China) growing solar and wind energy market? India is also producing a lot of global companies and is building high speed rail while the US has zero high speed rail.

Its like when you look at US and ignore everything but point to US being the country with largest prison population, highest gun ownership and a resulting high crime rate, severe problems of racism and white supremacy, Anti-science people who don't believe in scientists, too many religious nuts and finally , ISn't US the country with a con man liar as President. That sure sounds US is run by a thug dictator, but that is far from the truth. Don't you think so?

India's issues of endemic corruption and cronyism are some of the things the British weren't able to change, which arguably have held them back from being more dominant.

More lies about the superiority of the British/west. Corruption is a by product of ALL SOCIALIST countries. Russia is corrupt as is Brazil or Argentina or Italy. WHY? Because in all these countries government controlled or ran corporations which leads to nepotism, inefficiencies, and corruption. US was VERY CORRUPT back in the robber Barron days of late 18th and early 19th century. Please read some US history. US corruption peaked during prohibition,because government was trying to control movement of goods.

Also, did you forget that the US SELECTED the most corrupt, ignorant liar as president? And the conman's cult would love to be corrupt and powerful like the good ole Russia. Beware nothing is permanent. The hard earned institutional setup will go away very quickly if we are not vigilant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has to do with technological superiority. Europeans were able to colonize when they did due to technological advantages in ships, weaponry, farming, etc. In the post-Enlightenment period, Europeans somehow managed to gain a technological advantage over competitors in the Middle East, Asia, North America, and Africa. For much the previous millennia, Europeans had actually lagged behind much of the world when it came to technological revolution.

The big question: why did Europe have a sudden leap in technological improvement while other continents did not? It's still a bit of a mystery. I would say that the rise of sophisticated and centralized religious institutions - such as the Catholic Church and Church of England, plus the creation of universities affiliated with such religions - may have contributed to the concentration of European intellectuals. This, in turn, allowed them to more easily acquire knowledge and gain technological breakthroughs at a much faster pace than in previous centuries. Still, other continents also had sophisticated university systems that were even older than Europe's.

There's no straight forward answer. I honestly believe it was mostly a combination of favorable geography, temperate 4-season weather, and a strong dose of luck.

More myths and lies. Europe was nowhere near as technologically advanced as China until 1500s. China was the one that invented gun powder and had ships 4 times the size of the Ship Columbus sailed. India was also sailing the SE Asia for centuries before that.

The explanation for bolded above as to the mystery of how Europe became more advanced than China is, the Plundered resources from Americas and slave labor. The two Asian giants simply couldn't muster enough resources from within to match the plunder from Americas and lil later Africa. Then there was 200 years of slave labor that killed textile industry in Asia because not only they were outdone by the plunder BUT ALSO BY FREE SLAVE LABOR. SoChina suffered a long decline and India's decline was lil faster than China's.

The straight forward answer is New resources from the new continents, slavery, geography, climate, arable land, in other words, All of the above.

But now that there are no more plunder from new land and slavery is no longer passe, you see CHINA and India with huge Internal resources back as worlds top economies.

Thank you. It amazes me how few people recognize the way in which SLAVE LABOR affected world economies. White washing at its finest.

—White Woman

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread just makes me wish we had better, or at least accurate, history books for K-12.

It is embarrassing.

Sadly US education preaches the mythical exceptionalism and greatness of the white man and the west WITHOUT truly critical and evidence based analysis of our history along with world history. The reason for this is if we teach the kids the truth then we should also tell them about the horrors unleashed by the Europeans: the genocide, the plunder, the slavery, the murders and rape by millions. History is ofcourse replete with both the good and the bad but we don't want to talk about the bad. And that is the problem. We produce people believing in a history that is so truncated it just becomes an outright lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And then I look over to europe and see that as bad as the UK and France are doing, they are a lot better off than Spain & Portugal.

Is there something just inherent in Spanish and Portuguese culture that lends to more dysfunction when it comes to general economics and government administration?

If the British colonized mexico and south america, I don't think we would have the same issue we do today.

I think this split reflects Northern European culture vs Southern European culture.

I once heard that the regions further away from the equator are more successful, and while there are exceptions, there is a lot to it. Northern v Soithern Europe, as you mention, and Canada/US vs Mexico/CA, but many others too.

The theory is that ancient people needed to be more resourceful to live in colder climates, and thus the population was self-selecting as to whom ventured from the warmer areas, where humans originated, to colder climates.

Thats all BS based on white man myth. China and India are for the most part tropical countries and they have been the human history's two longest surviving continuous civilizations. India and China also were the two largest economies throughout human history until about 1800s when plundered resources from Americas and Slave labor brought their economy down. The two Asian giants are back to being the top economies this century, rightfully claiming their place in the top.

India doesn’t seem too impressive with its pollution and unsanitary conditions and people pooping in the streets.

You are one of the few simple people who look at one aspect and declare everything else is bad. India is worlds 3rd largest economy, worlds 2nd largest market, a thriving and worlds fastest growing large economy. Did you know India receives the 3rd most VC capital after CHina and US? Do you know India is the second fastest (after China) growing solar and wind energy market? India is also producing a lot of global companies and is building high speed rail while the US has zero high speed rail.

Its like when you look at US and ignore everything but point to US being the country with largest prison population, highest gun ownership and a resulting high crime rate, severe problems of racism and white supremacy, Anti-science people who don't believe in scientists, too many religious nuts and finally , ISn't US the country with a con man liar as President. That sure sounds US is run by a thug dictator, but that is far from the truth. Don't you think so?

India's issues of endemic corruption and cronyism are some of the things the British weren't able to change, which arguably have held them back from being more dominant.

More lies about the superiority of the British/west. Corruption is a by product of ALL SOCIALIST countries. Russia is corrupt as is Brazil or Argentina or Italy. WHY? Because in all these countries government controlled or ran corporations which leads to nepotism, inefficiencies, and corruption. US was VERY CORRUPT back in the robber Barron days of late 18th and early 19th century. Please read some US history. US corruption peaked during prohibition,because government was trying to control movement of goods.

Also, did you forget that the US SELECTED the most corrupt, ignorant liar as president? And the conman's cult would love to be corrupt and powerful like the good ole Russia. Beware nothing is permanent. The hard earned institutional setup will go away very quickly if we are not vigilant.

What lies are you referring too?

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/45-indians-paid-bribe-in-past-one-year-survey/articleshow/62003995.cms 45% of Indians admitted to paying a bribe in 2017. That holds an economy back. China has simliar issues with bribery.

India has problems with Nepotism. China as well. Its not really news. I hear plenty of complaints about it from my relatives in China.

I certainly would admit that the British/West are note pure when it comes to those aspects, but not to the degree where that behavor is accepted as normal.

You don't happen to be Indian?

[Anonymous]

When it comes to Empires, the U.S. might end up being the shortest lived of all. Might not even be thought in history books.