Found this cuck
Posted Dec 31, 2021, 3:56 AM UTC
12435
-68 upvotes for the original comment
66 upvotes for the reply
Now let’s replace South Asia with p much any other former colonial region and see that upvote/downvote ratio change
45
Imagine if a hong Kong person praised china, he would be banned
28
Looks like we found ourselves a white worshipping street shitter.
Tell him to be quiet and go find a toilet.
36
Bangladeshis are not street shitters.
1†
The ones who white worship to this degree are symbolic street shitters.
Metaphorical street shitters, if you will.
17
Fuck Churchill. The upvote downvote ratio show just how propaganda has worked for these dogs. Stockholm syndrome at its finest
32
Angl*phobia is based
31
I don't know about India or Bangladesh but majority of Pakistani political elite's ancestors were the traitor families who simped for Brits and consolidated power that way. Wouldn't be surprised if majority of dynasties of politicians in other South Asian countries are the same.
So much for Brits being not corrupt.... These ruling elites are still using their penal codes to find loopholes to do corrupt shit as well as their divide and rule tactics. I hate seeing internalized racism in my fellow brown people.
I hope we all collectively p*ss on Churchill's grave.
19
Uhhh... History shows that the "freedom fighter class" at the time were no less bigoted and narrow-minded than brits in favor of dividing, discriminating etc. It's just that Brits were ideologically united, had momentum on their side, had access to firepower and leveraged all of these chinks in our armor.
15
How did they leverage Chinese/east asian people?
-1
He's like a Jew, who defends Hitler
10
[removed]
6
[deleted]
1
[deleted]
1
Wtf... This guy probably worships Savarkar
1†
Of course the retard had to bring savarkar out of nowhere.
10
“The situation, he [Savarkar] said, was that His Majesty’s government
must now turn to the Hindus and work with their support…. Our interests
were now the same and we must therefore work together… Our interests are
so closely bound together, the essential thing is for Hinduism and
Great Britain to be friends and the old antagonism was no longer
necessary. The Hindu Mahasabha he went on to say favoured an unambiguous
undertaking of Dominion status at the end of the war.”
The OG cuck
-1†
Nonsense. Savarkar was jailed and tortured in the Andamans for fighting against the British. Yes, he wrote mercy petitions - what of it? The same could be said of Ram Prasad Bismal. Heck, even Gandhi had no problem praising the British Raj, while Nehru literally slept with the enemy, Edwina Mountbatten.
2
How does this make him savarkar worshipper?
3
Because they like licking British boots.
-1†
found a jihadist
-2†
Fyi I'm an atheist.
Do you also enjoy licking British boots like Savarkar?
12
Lol ... I would rather take Desi Goon Politician who would at least standup against a foreign Invader than being subserviant to the White Man and his justified prejudice ... The British during their rule went out of their way to crush any competition from India against their Textile, Railroad, Steel etc industries through Trade tariffs, access to capital and at the same time exploiting our natural resources and their make the native buy the products back .. That a worst deal..
1
No way thats real wtf are those words "anglophobic" this is the mentality of the average white person lord help us
1
Churchill was a bad man but he was kinda right about people having 8 children and not being able to feed one
-4†
Well people used to have that many children because back then children used to help in chores and their farms. When Britishers loot their crops and charge high tax how tf are people supposed to feed their children. Demographics back then were different.
20
Or was it because we wanted sons instead of daughters
-1†
Data from a NY times article called "Average Size of Households In U.S Declines to Lowest Ever Recorded".
"The average number of people per household was 5.55 in 1850, 5.04 in 1880, 4.76 in 1900 and 4.54 in 1910. It declined to 4.34 in 1920, 4.11 in 1930, 3.67 in 1940, 3.37 in 1950 and 3.33 in 1960."
Couldn't find a source for Indian family size so we can just go with your 8.
We'll take the 1930 and 1940 figure since that's around the time period we want to talk about. Sure, India's 8 would be far higher than America's 4.11 and 3.67, however it is to be expected.
America is a developed country, they're going to have less kids - a growing number of women, not just the lower class, have jobs as phone operators, meanwhile I doubt that's going on in British India. It's a trend that as women tend to get more educated and work more, they'll probably not have as much time to raise kids. (Japan is a good example of this.)
Plus, this isn't just an Indian thing. This is a trend across many underdeveloped countries which have a very high family size.
Besides, a ruler telling people they deserve to starve for having too many children is still, in my opinion, a shitty thing to do, especially when said leader's country may partially be the reason for pushing the country to a less developed path.
3
Not sure why people are being defensive and downvoting this. How many first world countries have populations where the average household has 8 kids? Countries outside the periphery and semi periphery have a couple kids on average. More people means fewer resources for society at large, and it is quite costly to feed 8 mouths as a laborer. That is not how you become rich!
1
It is not and does set you back, but it also isn't anything these first-world countries haven't done in the past.
1
No point in downvoting you lmao ur right it makes me so fucking mad when I see people in BD/India/PAK in some rural village with 6 kids despite being poor as shit. It's unsightly.
0†
Too much patriotism can hold you back..look what those murican maga activists look like to others
0†
[deleted]
tHeY gAb uS tRAinS ! pLEasE dOn'T lOoK aT tHE faMInE tHEy cAUseD !