You made a big mess of text, which I had trouble deciphering, you really can't blame me for mistaking your position when your writing is so incomprehensible. Anyway, essentially what you are saying is that you know for a fact that if Britain hadn't gotten involved India would have developed faster, and that I begged the question by assuming it wouldn't have. That's fair, I did make an assumption, but it's a matter of speculation, so you don't really know either. But, I see no particular reason why India was destined to go through an industrial revolution just after the British would have invaded. What I know is that the going rate of Indian technological development was quite slow, and the British invading increased that rate precipitously. Maybe it would have gone up for some reason even without the British, but again, we don't know and I haven't seen a strong case that it would, you just assert it. It's not "basic reality", it's speculation. Still, Britain deprived India of the right to find that out for themselves, which I can agree is a bad thing.
"...and the stupid argument brought up that your stealing all the jobs is stupid cause i actually work and I know how this process works.
1 A firm hires an employee an employee produces stocks for the company over the years the employer reinvests into the company and start looking for workers more employees means more jobs in the future. And automation is just increasing this process."
I never brought up the issue of stealing jobs, I don't know where you got that, but I will address this anyway because your explanation misses an important point. Yes, the overall pool of jobs will increase to meet the increase in population. However, foreign workers will do the job for cheaper/have lower unionization rates. As countries develop, worker's rights naturally increase because workers have more money/leverage. But foreign workers interrupt this process, making work options worse for the people already in that country.
"Another retarded straw man no 1 deserves anything but at the same time governments can't put a strong ban on immigration which absolutely makes shit 10x harder for non white ethnic groups to get in why do it by race at all ? cause currently they put favourable stats if your white if your an ethnic British person or a south African white person you get treated like family but if your not you need to have ridiculous expectations not possible for most of these countries."
"I never said Indian's deserve to come to the west not even that they need to but if they want to because it's easier in the west then the government has no fucking right to resrict that and moving on from that if that Brit's didn't intervene in the first place India would at least be 2nd world and moving up to the status of china and slowly to japan."
"Also I used British impearlism as a justification for why i'm in the west my dad was a capable person who was starving to death in his country he made it here to improve his standard of living that's it my point was without the brits India would be 2nd world that much I know and there is a great difference in living standard there a 3rd world is where every 1 is fucking starving a 2nd world is where you get poor people but generally the standards of living are bare minimum human level."
I straight up don't understand your position here. You say Indians don't deserve to come to white countries, but you say that "governments have no right" to restrict that. So if they have no right to restrict it, isn't that effectively the same as deserving? You also seem to say that it's not because of colonialism, but you keep putting them together like they are related. So really, I don't understand. Perhaps you are saying that borders shouldn't exist, and everyone should be able to go anywhere they please in order to improve their lives. Please explain.
>>You made a big mess of text, which I had trouble deciphering, you really can't blame me for mistaking your position when your writing is so incomprehensible. Anyway, essentially what you are saying is that you know for a fact that if Britain hadn't gotten involved India would have developed faster, and that I begged the question by assuming it wouldn't have. That's fair, I did make an assumption, but it's a matter of speculation, so you don't really know either.>>
This isn't speculation on my end India was already at a gdp of 25 percent of the global world ecanomy if the brits didn't invade I can gurantee they wouldn't be per say first world because the cultures are do different in what we define as a first and 2nd world ecanomy but they would be near japan and china and hong kong on the innovation index.
I also say this because during war time an econamy cannot develop as fast and since the brits weren't under any major threats nothing like the fucking mughals at the time it's very fair to say that an ecanomy under threat of war is not gonna function well and it's not gonna catch up as fast as an econamy not under strain.
Also the Industrialization periods is happening know in India it's not like these 3rd world nations aren't improving they've done more than what the British empire has done in terms of improvement for the average person in the last 80 years. Although the Indian government isn't the best handling things but to out deny British occupation as a hazard which stifled growth is stupid.
>>But, I see no particular reason why India was destined to go through an industrial revolution just after the British would have invaded. What I know is that the going rate of Indian technological development was quite slow, and the British invading increased that rate precipitously. Maybe it would have gone up for some reason even without the British, but again, we don't know and I haven't seen a strong case that it would, you just assert it. It's not "basic reality", it's speculation. Still, Britain deprived India of the right to find that out for themselves, which I can agree is a bad thing.>>
As explained previously it was going slow because they were in war time decay technoloigal innovations also slowed down in soviet russia due to improper management resources by the government officals, war time factions etc etc it all boils down to ecanomics and game theory.
The only way for an economy to flourish is to have an safe functional society other wise you get stagnation rather than improvent. Essentially my argument isn't British occupation fucked over India entirely but it slowed down any potential that could have been there and it's taking longer for Indians to catch up. And that by 2060 it will be the world 3rd largest economy.
>>I never brought up the issue of stealing jobs, I don't know where you got that, but I will address this anyway because your explanation misses an important point. Yes, the overall pool of jobs will increase to meet the increase in population. However, foreign workers will do the job for cheaper/have lower unionization rates. As countries develop, worker's rights naturally increase because workers have more money/leverage. But foreign workers interrupt this process, making work options worse for the people already in that country.>>
1 That only happens with illegals, there functionally allowed to that normally and if illegal immigration was your concern then why lump in migration as a whole ?.
2 This doesn't interrupt the process because A illegals need to understand the language which is difficult as it is, b they need to provide a pass port which i've done for other job interviews in the past, and c they need a reference for the national insurance number which only legal's can get so even this is so fucking wrong.
The only jobs lost are the non skilled labour jobs and they grow every single year double skilled labour jobs because skilled laboured people need to upgrade there premises they also need to build more area's like i've seen this process up close.
>>I straight up don't understand your position here. You say Indians don't deserve to come to white countries, but you say that "governments have no right" to restrict that. So if they have no right to restrict it, isn't that effectively the same as deserving? You also seem to say that it's not because of colonialism, but you keep putting them together like they are related. So really, I don't understand. Perhaps you are saying that borders shouldn't exist, and everyone should be able to go anywhere they please in order to improve their lives. Please explain.>>
1 Calling the west a white country is mis placed by me America is 50 percent non white British is 20 percent non white these 2 countries i'll use as a reference point so I misplaced the term. British isn't even an ethnicity it's an nationality which is different the British empire themselves gave other colonized countries this right not the other way around.
2 Deserve implies there is a metric base line for which a person is required to travel to come to a foreign land that is what i disagree with each person has there natural rights I don't belive in states rights everyone has a right to travel of there own accord as long as there not harming other people and why would they.
1 IF they did they get shipped back to there own country so what was the point of all that trouble to start with.
2 If there terrorists which are a large minority btw of any racial group they weren't planning on working here any ways and there gonna find a way here regardless so why lump in normal people travelling why make the metric base line so fucking stringent that only ethnic white people are allowed.
And again no 1 would even want to live in the west if there own countries weren't in shambles post colonialism middle east especially you didn't create the wealth of the west workers in the west did but you the individual is not a collective and the collective can never force the individual to miss out on his rights.
>>So if they have no right to restrict it, isn't that effectively the same as deserving? You also seem to say that it's not because of colonialism, but you keep putting them together like they are related.>>
1 I used there right to travel irrespective colonialism as a basic natural rights point of view a state a non phyical does not have the right to restrict travel the people in the country of origin does not have a right to restrict the travel of others.
2 I used colonialism as a reason as to why the 3rd world is in shambles still and also why it's not wrong for some 1 who is in a objectively bad stand point to travel across and work in foreign countries. That is better off oh and btw majority of my people don't live in the uk they live in the UAE and arab countries.
3 As I said before deserve implies the government has any fucking say in the movement off other peoples to begin with you don't the only time a government has that right is when there are literal terrorists and there at war but if there not at war and there not terroists the assumption isn't guilty until proven innocent especially when were working with the laws of averages terrorists are a massive fucking minority.