From the WSJ:
BANGALORE, India—Call-center company 24/7 Customer Pvt. Ltd. is desperate to find new recruits who can answer questions by phone and email. It wants to hire 3,000 people this year. Yet in this country of 1.2 billion people, that is beginning to look like an impossible goal.
So few of the high school and college graduates who come through the door can communicate effectively in English, and so many lack a grasp of educational basics such as reading comprehension, that the company can hire just three out of every 100 applicants.
India projects an image of a nation churning out hundreds of thousands of students every year who are well educated, a looming threat to the better-paid middle-class workers of the West. Their abilities in math have been cited by President Barack Obama as a reason why the U.S. is facing competitive challenges.
Yet 24/7 Customer's experience tells a very different story. Its increasing difficulty finding competent employees in India has forced the company to expand its search to the Philippines and Nicaragua. Most of its 8,000 employees are now based outside of India.
In the nation that made offshoring a household word, 24/7 finds itself so short of talent that it is having to offshore. ...
Muddying the picture is that on the surface, India appears to have met the demand for more educated workers with a quantum leap in graduates. Engineering colleges in India now have seats for 1.5 million students, nearly four times the 390,000 available in 2000, according to the National Association of Software and Services Companies, a trade group.
But 75% of technical graduates and more than 85% of general graduates are unemployable by India's high-growth global industries, including information technology and call centers, according to results from assessment tests administered by the group.
Another survey, conducted annually by Pratham, a nongovernmental organization that aims to improve education for the poor, looked at grade-school performance at 13,000 schools across India. It found that about half of the country's fifth graders can't read at a second-grade level. ...
Others said cheating, often in collaboration with test graders, is rampant. Deepak Sharma, 26, failed several exams when he was enrolled at a top engineering college outside of Delhi, until he finally figured out the trick: Writing his mobile number on the exam paper.
That's what he did for a theory-of-computation exam, and shortly after, he says the examiner called him and offered to pass him and his friends if they paid 10,000 rupees each, about $250. He and four friends pulled together the money, and they all passed the test.
The Chinese strategy has been to create hundreds of millions of jobs for people to do with their hands, while the Indian strategy has been to create tens of millions of jobs for people to do while sitting on utility chairs tapping on computers and talking on headsets. The Chinese strategy of industrializing first with textiles, moving up to toys, then to industrial parts, and so forth, has worked before in multiple countries over the last 250 years. The Indian strategy of leaping over all that sweaty stuff right to post-industrial jobs appeals to post-industrial Americans, but it's less of a sure thing.
It's worked fine so far for the right edge of India's bell curve, but nobody is very sure what the left 90% of India's bell curve looks like. Here in America, we aren't even supposed to think in terms of bell curves, so we are unequipped to even think about the question.
On the other hand, with China getting a dozen year head start on India at capitalism, would there have been all that much opportunity for India in industry?
Posts
239 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 239 of 239Some countries such as the Saudis or Kawaities are approaching Western nutrition.
How do you know? Just because a country has oil does not mean the money is helping the people. If the leadership is corrupt or disorganized, only a tiny few will benefit from the wealth. And even the rich will tend to be malnourished in countries with great inequality because the disease affects everyone (disease prevents the body from using nutrients)and the bitter low pay workers will be less hygenic.
Yes, China has massive pollution problems, and India has lots of poverty. But UK in 19th century early capitalism was a pretty polluted and sooted place too. The air was thick with smoke, and things were pretty miserable for most people. And if you Zola's GERMINAL, the conditions for the French working class in 19th century France was no rose garden either.
Keep in mind Chinese really got started in the 80s and Indian in the 90s. The question is what will they look like in 50 yrs?
This much is true. China has made great strides and so has India. Who will make greater progress in the future? Who will make the right turns and who will make the wrong turns? Too early to tell, but I think China's basic assets are more favorable.
"A country of 'snake-charmers' and 'Rat-Eaters' getting compared with Eighth wonder of the world. WOW. We must be doing something right."
India has the Taj Mahal and other superb works of architecture.
And Hinduism, for all its populist silliness and dark aspects, is probably the most profound religion ever founded by man.
@catperson,
"How do you know? Just because a country has oil does not mean the money is helping the people."
Now you are verging into the absurd. Currupt governments generally don't deny their people of food, especially if you have a per capita GDP of $90k (Qatar) or $23k (Saudi). There is plenty to be looted, why stir up a revolution by denying people food? The point is, they live much better than the average Middle East people and yet their height and IQ does not change too much when compared to people from the same genetic cluster. For people in these countries, bringing them to Western condition will yield little improvement. What is more relevent here, since India does not have oil, it would be very difficult for her to reach this level of propserity. Even if she did, I doubt the government will do better in wealth distribution. So their IQ potential will be similar to people from these countries.
I heard Arabic numerals were really the creation of Indians, so Indians must be genius at something.
And on occasion, India does produce math wizards and chess geniuses. (Btw, Indians may have invented chess too).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan
And if you peruse through 'Indian' history, you come upon all sorts of events, achievments, narratives, etc. It is one of the richest in the world.
Also, the decline of one civilization in India was replaced by another and then another and then another. Like Hindu religion itself, India was always being born and dying, always 're-inventing' itself.
In this way, 'India' was more interesting than Egypt or Greece. Ancient Egypt was great but having declined and fallen, it was just a long history of nothing. And Ancient Greece was great, but its decline was followed by long Byzantine stagnation. Even today, Greece is asleep. It's glory is all in the past, or ancient past.
But, exciting things were happening in 'India' from ancient times to recent times. Also, 'India' proved time and again to be resilient against and thorugh endless conquests. Pagan Europe perished with the coming of Christianity, but elements of traditional culture in India kept sprouting back despite invasion by outsiders--even the mighty Mughal Muslims. Also, 'India' not only contributed to world civilization--Buddhism, Jainism, 'Arabic' numerals, chess, denim, curry and other spieces, music, etc--but also absorbed many ideas from different cultures. In some ways, Hinduism was oppressive and restrictive, but in other ways, it was more tolerant and open to different cultures. If Judaism, Christianity, and Islam insisted on One God, Hindus sometimes accepted and admired other cultures/religions as different manifestatiosn of Hindu worldview. Christians or Muslims could never make a room in their spiritual realm for Vishnu or Brahma, but some Hindus regarded Jesus or Muhammad as simply another manifestation of cosmic holiness.
But some things about India really freak us out, and this needs to be addressed. One is the filth, but maybe this wasn't entirely the fault of Indians. Lots of people + tropics = stinky. Tropic heat is worse than desert heat. Arabs and Hebrews may have been grubby in the hot sand, but they were not stinky like the Hindus. When you have steaming moist hotness all yr around and lots of people, things are not gonna be pleasant. If India had cold winters it might have been better. Similarly, I hated the deep south when I went down there in the summer. Hot, filthy, stinky, steamy. It felt and stank like corruption. India is like a giant Lousiana. At least Southwest is dry hot. Southeast is moist hot and stinky as hell. I don't know how people can stand it. Kentucky is south enough for me. I aint going below that again unless I really have to.
Another thing we notice is the disconnect between elites and the masses. When we see a poor Chinese guy, we seem him as essentially a rich Chinese who happens to be poor. When we see a rich Chinese guy, we see him essentially as a poor Chinese guy who happens to be rich. Despite economic divides, we sense most Chinese having in common in culture, race, language(despite problems of dialects), history, pride, philosophy, etc.
But we just don't sense it when we see Indians. The difference between Indian elites and many of the poor seem like the difference between Mexican white elites and indigenous poor.
Let's say both China and India have lots of talent at the top. The crucial difference is Chinese at the bottom identify with and psycho-culturally share in the successes of the rich Chinese and believe 'I or my children can do it too'. I'm not sure that kind of mentality or outlook exists among the Indian masses.
Even in Europe, the greater success of France and Germany over Russia owed something to a sense of common identity between elites and the masses. Enlightenment principles, rise of people rights and power, and rise of nationalism led to closer identification between the elites and the masses. But Russia, even on the eve of WWI, was still a nation of snot-nosed aristocrats and masses of poor peasants who felt no real stake in the nation. Unless forward-thinking elites reach out to the masses and guide/inspire them to rise up, the masses may remain mired in poverty and backwardness. Of course, it helps if the nation is homogeneous. An upper crust German may better tolerate/accept a lower-class German climbing the ranks since they are both German; Germany will still be ruled by Germans no matter what. But when we look at Latin America, the whites at the top were reluctant to reach out to the masses of non-whites, and whites in the South also preferred to keep the blacks down. Of course, there could be other reasons for the lower-status of indigenous natives or blacks--namely, lower natural IQ or attitude/emotional differences or problems. But we can't entirely discount culture and history.
Marx said material reality shapes social consciousness, but he was as wrong as right. He was right in the sense that despite the shared values of all Chinese under Confucianism, traditional China was still a society ruled by powerful elites. So, despite all the high-minded Confucian stuff about noble peasants and education/cultivation of character being open to everyone, China was in effect a society divided by class. OTOH, we cannot discount the social impact of Confucianism as an idea; the fact that Confucianism did uphold the ideal of even the lowest member of society having the chance to gain knowledge/wisdom and better himself in society did have a huge impact on the development of modern Asia. For this reason, when major changes did come, East Asian elites were more willing to reach out to the masses and guide them up the social ladder.
But the problem isn't just an elite-mass one but a mass-mass one. Prejudices, taboos, and reactionary customs exist at all levels of society. It's not enough for the elites to be idealistic, well-meaning, and forward-looking if the masses are mired in old ways, superstition, suspicion, corruption, and etc. We tend to think of social/political problems in terms of bad leaders oppressing 'good' masses--like 'bad Gaddafi vs good rebels'--, but the masses could be just as problematic as the leaders or even worse. Turkey's Ataturk was forward-looking modernizer, but much of the resistance came from the lower classes. In Pakistan, modern and progressive leaders are often murdered by religious fanatics. Gandhi was killed by a Hindu fanatic. When progressive Chinese tried to cut off the queues of fellow Chinese, many Chinese refused--not so much out of fear of Manchus as having grown accustomed to queues as a status symbol(despite the fact that it had originally been forced on the Chinese as a sign of humiliation). Even in America, we have small town Southerners raising a fuss about the teaching of evolution in schools cuz it's an affront to the Lord. And many of the Japanese modernizers who sought to expand more rights and power to the people were ironically killed by fanatics from lower-class members who were brainwashed with all the emperor-worship nonsense.
So, even if India were ruled by ONLY by the nicest, fairest, uncorrupt, and forward-looking elites, it will meet massive resistance from below. Though most poor people in the Third World don't have much wealth and power, they still relish the little but culturally significant power that they do have. Even though they may gain more under the new order, the new order also means they lose their cultural-personal power in the home, village, over their wives/sons/daughters. In the Middle East, Muslim men don't mind gaining power/freedom for themselves. They resist westernization because it also gives freedom, equality, and etc to women, non-Muslims, their kids, and etc.
Also, gains in the modern world tend to be impersonal(legal and political) while losses tend to be personal(family, religion, culture)--emotionally more meaningful. You win the right to vote but your wife may win the right to run off with another man, your son gains the right to tell you to 'fuc* off', and your daughter gains teh right to dress like a slut and marry some two-bit hustler.
If a Muslim guy had to choose between having more political/legal rights and retaining his authority over his wife, kids, and communal culture, he may choose the latter. He may not have much in the world, but at least he has the respect in his household and community as a husband, father, Muslim, etc.
In India, even if the elites were modern and fair-minded, the middle classes may not want to help out the lower classes(who may also be seen as another race or caste). And even among the lower classes, there could be many divisions of power and privilege. And, some poor guy may have good reason to believe that he won't gain much from modernization--he will very likely remain poor for the foreseeable future--, but he will CERTAINLY lose what little that he has--power and privilege over people even lower than himself and over his wife and kids. This may matter more in India because of its long long history of caste divisions.
We'd like to think such things would matter less in the Muslim world since Islam taught that all Muslims are equal under God. But Islam also taught that MAN is king of his castle and should have total control over women. While women in some Muslim societies had certain privileges and limited freedoms, it was a matter of customs than of rights. It was not based on the RIGHT of women to choose or be free but merely on customs of how things were done by forebears.
Chinese society too was male-centric, but since Confucianism wasn't a religion but a secular philosophy and since Taosim was fuzzy on social matters, it may have been easier for Chinese to adopt drastic change. Change may have been shocking or upsetting, but it wasn't necessarily unholy, unclean, or sacriligious, as change often seemed to Hindus and Muslims.
(Japan did have a sense of their island nation as a holy land protected by gods from foreign invaders, and it took a very violent American invasion to destroy this myth in the minds of the Japanese; if their gods and the emperor were so holy, why did they fail to save Japan? Even so, this feeling of sacredness must have been extremely strong since many Japanese were willing to kill themselves if the emperor had ordered them to. Fortunately, Japan had a sense of sacredness that could be dispelled and disproven in the eyes of the Japanese by something like defeat in war. But, there is no way Allah can be disproven or dispelled. Same goes for Hinduism. And so Islamic and Hindu resistance to change among the masses goes on.)
Now you are verging into the absurd. Currupt governments generally don't deny their people of food, especially if you have a per capita GDP of $90k (Qatar) or $23k (Saudi).
It's not about denying food. It's about the quality of food. Even the rich in the middle east, south asia, and africa do not have access to all the vitamin enhanced food that has improved North American height & IQ in recent decades.
I agree that non-white caucasoids (indians/arabs/persians) are less intelligent than whites, but it's silly to think their genetic IQ is in the 80s. That's African American level. Non-white caucasoids are clear smarter than blacks. They invented agriculture & pioneered civilization and enslaved blacks for centuries.
Stupid to compare India with the Middle East. India's genetic cluster is highly distinct from all other nations outside the Indian subcontinent, it is a subcontinent of White Caucasians, Mongoloids, Australoids, Dark Caucasians, Dravidians, churned through millenia by a caste system that has made it different from all others on the planet.
Bets are off on India. Nothing but time can answer the question of what they are to achieve.
"What is wrong with this woman. She can fall in love with and marry an Indian man but is having problems loving and accepting the child she made with him because the child is "black"? Isn't her husband even darker than the daughter she begot him?"
I agree. Although the kid will probably feel similarly herself in a few years -- most "mixed" do-- you can't help feeling sorry for her. Could kind of understand this attitude if the mother were a teenager, no experience, etc. But this was a near middle-aged woman who already had children (white ones--her kind) and been out and about in the world. She knew the score. Really, really strange. She's lucky the love of her life (now divorced I think) was Indian. Black, as in African, would have brought in a whole other, and worse, slew of negatives with which she could be tormented, or torment herself.
"Stupid to compare India with the Middle East. India's genetic cluster is highly distinct from all other nations outside the Indian subcontinent, it is a subcontinent of White Caucasians, Mongoloids, Australoids, Dark Caucasians, Dravidians, churned through millenia by a caste system that has made it different from all others on the planet.
Bets are off on India. Nothing but time can answer the question of what they are to achieve."
Wow...one just can;t get more absurd than this, I guess.
Almost any sizeble country is unique in its own way, just like India. Yet that doesn't stop those betting men.
Are all bets off on the "global melting pot" America as well?
South Asia's major racial gene clusters are precisely what genetists need to determinewhat they could achieve with a reliable accuracy.
If India were a subcontinent of White Caucasians and Mongoloids, we know almost for sure what it could become in general.
Yet if in addtion to White Caucasians and Mongoloids, one adds the basic fundation of Australoids and healthy dozes of Negritos, churned through millenia by a "caste system", I am not a betting man but for those who are, it will be ALL BETS ON, no doubt.
BTW, honestly speaking, no one outside India can tell the difference amongst so called "different castes" after millenia of admixing, which is still ongoing on a massive scale. Hence why bother "caste" anyway?
In India there is only ONE caste mostly, which genetically homogenous at sub-continental level.
Regardless what excuses surface from time to time along the line of "whether Indian malnutrition causes low Indian IQ, or low Indian IQ causes the malnutrition in the first place, or 1000 castes or just 1 caste...", the indisputable result of "India v. China, Again" has been right in front of us all the time, that is:
China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, HK, Singapore VS. India, Bangladesh, Mauritius, Srilanka, Fiji...
Again? Pleeeeease.
No amouunt of excuses can get around the obvious IQ gap between above two groups. It's have been like that for a long long time, and will most likely keep like that in the future.
"But, exciting things were happening in 'India' from ancient times to recent times. Also, 'India' proved time and again to be resilient against and thorugh endless conquests..."
I don't know how "resilient" India was, is or will be, but I do know that Indian bragging is truely resilient. Hahaha.
In-credible India!
Indians are not Caucasoid.
India is the Brazil of Asia; it's miscegenation central.
Read:
Bhasin (2006), in the study Genetics of Castes and Tribes of India: Indian Population Milieu:
“India has been peopled by human groups carrying a diversity of genes and cultural traits. We have almost all the primary ethnic strains Proto-Australoid, Mediterranean, Mongoloid, Negrito and a number of composite strains. It is homeland of over 4000 Mendelian populations, of which 3700 endogamous groups are structured in the Hindu caste system as ‘jatis’.
In short, the older view that north Indians are mainly Caucasoid whereas southern Indians are mainly Australoid is incorrect. Indians, both from the north and the south, seem to be a racially admixed population with each individual genotype exhibiting membership in multiple gene clusters, albeit in varying degrees in terms of Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Australoid admixture ratios...
To repeat, most of the major Indian populations are so racially admixed that they exhibit membership in multiple gene clusters and are therefore homogeneous genetically on a subcontinental level."
In an India vs. China matchup, China will win hands down.
In my estimation, Indians are very similar to blacks. They may form their own genetic homogenous cluster, but they are like blacks in a number of ways. They are only slightly more intelligent than blacks -- average IQ of India is 81 -- and their share many behaviors with blacks (dishonesty, deceit, etc.). Having worked with many Indians (probably the cream of the crop IQ-wise from India), I can honestly say these people are not very bright.
In very fundamental behavioral ways, Indians are much closer to blacks than to the Chinese, and the Chinese will mop the floor with Indians.
As a good friend from China likes to say:
"Indians are the blacks of Asia."
Excerpt from 'Tribes' by John Kotkin - Page 219,
20,000 Indians ( Merchant castes )in Hongkong control 10% of its trade.
--
The Sikhs, who are the median Indian IQ, ( page 208 ) of same book,
in the Yuba city region, Sikhs who are 10% of the pop are 33% of Honor roll students
IQ means jackshit if you lack sensible government and economic policies. Look at North Korea.
They both have a long way to go before owning the 21st century.
Nominal per capita data.
USA 47,284
Mexico 9,566
China 4,382
India 1,265
" Excerpt from 'Tribes' by John Kotkin - Page 219,
20,000 Indians ( Merchant castes )in Hongkong control 10% of its trade."
This Indian Bragging makes my day as it seriously made me giggle…
This claim makes the internet hoax that “42% of NASA scientists are Indians” a very very humble understatement.
The stupidity of this disinformation ( assuming the quote is correct instead of being taken out of context in order to mislead) is mind boggling. Given some relevant info on how much is HK’s total trade, even people with low 90’s IQ could easily see the logic hole there being so huge that can park 2 cruise ships.
Hong Kong is among the top 3 premier trade centres of all Asia with The total annual trade (goods, services and re-exports) worth more than 1.2 TRILLION USD – more than India’s entire GDP.
Total Indian population in Hong Kong is about 20,000, 0.2% of HK total population. So basically that statement claims that by controlling 10% of Hong Kong trade, each of 20,000 Indians is multi-millionaire ($ 6 million on average), making them about 120X richer than an average citizen of Luxembourg ( the world’s highest GDP per cap)…
In reality, however, the overwhelming majority of Indians in HK work as convenient store receptionists, tiny hostel (the cheapest and the dirtiest kind) employees, 2-man souvenir, garment and electronics shops, and hotel doormen and chauffeurs (mostly Sikhs), etc.
“Controlling 10% of Hong Kong trade…”, haha, are you all right, mate?
If Indians working in HK as shop receptionists has anything to do with "controlling Hong Kond's trade", then why not use a much more impressive claim along the line:
Indians monopoly Hong Kong's Real Estate Industry. LOL.
(P.S. usually one could find at least 1 Sikh in his traditional dress in front of every decent hotel lobby in Hong Kong).
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1993/11/15/78590/index.htm
--
OVERSEAS INDIANS MAKE IT BIG They are the richest foreign-born group in the U.S., own 60% of all small retail stores in Britain, and account for a tenth of Hong Kong's exports.
" http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1993/11/15/78590/index.htm
--
OVERSEAS INDIANS MAKE IT BIG They are the richest foreign-born group in the U.S., own 60% of all small retail stores in Britain, and account for a tenth of Hong Kong's exports " (recman01)
This is what I call a typical mainstream media disinformation by Indians.
Actually it's good that you bring the issue up, since this kind of disinformation have been propagated so intensely in today's main stream media that an extreme backwater such as India would be named as the potential Superpower, with rather lower-than-global average-IQ Indians being applauded as global IQ superstars.
Now look at the reporters of the article:
By Rahul Jacob REPORTER ASSOCIATE Meenakshi Ganguly.
Is this Meenakshi Ganguly ethnic Indian?
Most likely she is, looking at her photo here:
http://www.hrw.org/en/bios/meenakshi-ganguly
Note that she is Human Rights Watch's South Asia researcher.
I wonder if she even knows what does GDP mean, or what does "Trade" mean, let alone Economics abc. Yet she reports for CNN.Money. How ironic! ROFL
She is claiming things at the same level of what those Africans claim such as "African Blacks invented Chinese civilisation".
Now back to her claim that " (20,000 Indians in HK) account for a tenth of Hong Kong's exports"
What, no "trade" this time, but only "export"? Does she know the difference this time?
Even talking about export, Hong Kong export is as high as 36 billion USD.
So 20,000 Indians "are accounteed for" 3.6 Billion USD export as she claimed - that is on average 1.8 million USD export per year, for each one of them, including 1.8 million USD for 1-year-old Indians infants in Hong Kong. Is she serious?
That number, noverthelss, still, leaves the Lumembourg GDP per head (the highest worldwide) to oblivion.
I guess then that those indian hostel emplees in Hong Kong much have 4-digit IQ to have pulled that out.
And I wonder what those "export items"that they are responsible for? Chickren Curry recipes to the UK's retail shops?
Either way, the logic hole there is still large enough to park 2 cruise ships.
“http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1993/11/15/78590/index.htm (rec1man) “
The CNN article writer Meenakshi Ganguly ( her photo is here: http://www.hrw.org/en/bios/meenakshi-ganguly) is an ethnic Indian or an Indian national, who has degree on Sociology from Delhi, yet she reports for Fortune magazine of CNN Money...
For ages, Western mainstream media has been jammed by ethnic Indians reporting rose-tilted pictures and figures on India and Indians.
Regardless the credibility of her outrageously ridiculous claims, although people can lie and/or propagate disinformation, numbers can’t lie.
Let’s first take a closer look at numbers, shall we?
20,000* is the total population of ethnic Indians in Hong Kong.
HK ‘s total export is 36 billion* USD.
“And these 20,000* Indians are counted for 10% of Hong Kong’s export, averaging 1.8 million per year” as per the claim.
( that is equivalent to claim GDP per cap of Indians in HK is friggin 1.8 million ! :woot: )
(* I noticed that article was written in the earlier 90’s , when HK didn’t have so much export as 36 billion. Yet neither had it so many Indians as 20,000. So generally assuming that HK’s Indian population and HK’s total export has been growing proportionally, the general analysis shown below, even using today’s figures, remains valid.)
Most of these 20,000 Indians are the reflection of the legacy of the British during their colonial rule of Hong Kong when they brought Indians with them mainly as domestic servants. Since HK has not been encouraging immigration from India just like Canada or the US does (rather, HK attracts highly skilled immigrants from the Chinese mainland just like Singapore does), we can reasonablely assume that that these 20,000 are generally not the crème of the crop of Indian “high castes”, but perhaps more a reflection of what average Indians are about.
Firstly, the amount that falls into the working age among these 20, 000 could be as many as 1/3, say 7,000, within which the overwhelming majority are working at HK’s retail sector ( convenient stores, hostels, construction sites, etc) – FACT.
That leaves a tiny amount of Indians, likely in their hunderds , say 700, potentially working in other industries, within which only a faction is exposed to export business. That lowers this 700 further to, say, a couple of hundreds. Don’t forget that even this a couple hundred of Indians include the Smart, the Normal and the Dumb.
Then according to the bell curve, only a small fraction, about 100 or so generously assuming, are in the right place and smart enough to contribute something to HK’s export.
So what the Indian author of that CNN quote effectively claiming becomes :
“about 100 or so ethnic Indians working in HK’s export-related sectors counted for 10% of HK’s total export (value) - which is also a big chunk of total activities/value produced in East Asia”.
The figures just don’t add up or even remotely close by a LONG shot, sorry, and this “story” you cited becomes absolutely insane.
Activity-wise, since last time I checked HK has barely had a Call Centre, neither had it any official record of what value these 100 Indians contributed to the export, so what do these people do exactly for the export (goods or service) that “counted for hefty 10% of Hong Kong’s total, in other words USD 36 million per cap per year ”? Hot air balloons ?
Racial Quotas In Malaysia: Grim Warning For America
By Jared Taylor
Over the course of several trips to the South East Asian country of Malaysia I have been struck by how similar Malaysia’s race relations are to America’s—despite the obvious enormous differences. The official Malaysian policy of dispensing privileges by race may even be a warning of what the future may hold if our current policies and demographic trends continue.
Malaysia is about 60 percent Malay, 25 percent Chinese, and 8 percent Indian. In the 19th century, the British colonial government found that the native Malays did not want to work in tin mines or on rubber plantations, so they imported people who did: Tamils from India. The British also worried that smart Chinese immigrants would dominate the country. They therefore deliberately steered business to Malays and recruited them for government jobs. They feared—rightly as it turned out—that Malays would turn ugly if they thought Chinese were getting too far ahead. The British wanted Malays to keep getting a leg up even after independence in 1957, so when they drafted a constitution for the new country, they included Article 153 specifically to "safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives" through relatively mild preferences in education, the civil service and business licenses.
http://vdare.com/taylor/080929_malaysia.htm
Excerpt from 'Tribes' by John Kotkin - Page 219,
20,000 Indians ( Merchant castes )in Hongkong control 10% of its trade.
I happen to own this book, You should turn to page 318, it stated that it was an estimate by K. Sital, president of the Hong Kong Ass. of Indian Association. So it is not an exact figure at all.
Now, let take a look of some data that can easily be googled. For 2010, Hong Kong Total trade volume(exp +imp) is 823.9 billion
From a Hong Kong government website:
http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistical_tables/index.jsp?charsetID=1&subjectID=3
And Hong Kong is the 10th leading trading partner of India, and in 2010 the total trade between two are 12.6 billion (wiki).
So it is about (12.6/823.9)*100 = 1.53% of the total trade for Hong Kong, not even close to 10%.
Secondly, i don't think Indian control all of those trade, as No single group can control 100% of the trading between two countries. So the claim that Indian control 10% of Hong Kong is quite laughable. But IMO it is in Indian DNA/culture to exaggerate.
http://www.cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011
US welfare rate by country of origin
UK = 7%
India = 19%
Canada = 24%
Korea = 25%
Philipines = 30%
Russia = 30%
China = 35%
Pakistan = 35%
Peru = 40%
Vietnam = 50%
Try to misled again? i advise everyone to go to the website and checkout the real title.
The true title of the Page:
Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children: A Look at Cash, Medicaid, Housing, and Food Programs
There is a huge difference between immigrant household and natives household. @ table 4, it show that:
1: 56.6 of all immigrant household used welfare (all colors).
2: 38.7 of all natives household used welfare.
So, it mean Chinese immigrant used even less welfare than US natives. Not bad at all.
3: While for GDP per capita, Indians are much poorer than Chinese(1265 vs 4382), Indian immigrant seem to be better off than Chinese immigrant. IT just confirmed a widely known fact that US put a much higher criteria for Indian immigration than almost any others group.
"India has the Taj Mahal and other superb works of architecture. "
The Taj Mahal was built the foreign origin Muslim Mughal rulers of India. So was the Red Fort and many other fine buildings, mosques etc. The British also left behind their share. But the hindu kala sahibs who took over from the Brits when they abandoned India have shown no skills in architecture or civil engineering. India is an ugly, shabby, decaying place with third rate infrastructure.
“… 10%...Hong Kong Total trade volume(exp +imp) is 823.9 billion...”
I used HK trade as per 2010 figure (which was about 4X HK’s GDP) , including import, export and re-exports – total roughly USD 1.2 trillion.
One of simplest way to look it:
Indian population in Hong Kong is about 0.28% of HK total population.
Everything being equal, ethnic Indians should have 0.28% share of the total – being trade, or export, or import, or most other things.
Yet everything are not equal, and far from it :
1.HK happens to have the one of the highest average IQs in the world (108) , almost 2sd above their Indian population average – let’s say at least 1sd.
2.HK is a trading giant filled with cutting throat competitions. The bulk of its export & re-export deals with mainland China and other East Asian countries or regions. Ethnic Indians are in fact in the absolute disadvantageous position on Chinese language, (East Asian) culture, (East Asian) network/Guanxi, general trustworthiness perception in the region, etc.
Therefore, it’s perhaps fairer to assume that in reality 0.28% of Indians got much less share ( in almost everything) than they should otherwise be expected.
Let’s just generously assume it’s about 0.20% - either way, it just can’t get over 0.5% without being questioned by reasonable minds.
Yet an ethnic Indian K. Sital (president of the Hong Kong Ass. of Indian Association), claimed it’s 10%. That’s a staggering exaggeration of at least 50X !
Indian internet hoax almost always start like this: some Indian academics or politicians wildly claiming sth, followed closely by numerous Indian mainstream media, then re-quoted repeatedly by all kinds of western mainstream media… it would somehow become a fact within a short period of time - this has a profound historical Indian root. (I’ll come back on this point later, should time allows, with another post to refute the claim that “India invented Chess” from logical level. It’s highly correlated with IQ stuff here and I believe the claim is just another historical scam).
Another claim that “Indians are the wealthiest foreign-born ethnic group in the US” is also ridiculous in my view. I guess that ethnic Indian politicians such as Bobby Jindal would have bragged about it a lot with this line during his Governor run. Someone here cares to shed light on from which source it came from? And whether it’s a full stats or just some wild estimation by a poll? And who are the poll-runner, what method was used?
The US usually don’t have any independent stats on East Indians, as they usually are lumped all together with East Asians and Philippinos, Laos, etc., as single category called “Asians”.
NO matter from where it comes from, the figure is very dodgy to say the least. Just think about it: Indians are the largest illegal aliens in the US after Mexicans. That’s huge amount of Indians uncounted for out there. Obviously the stats, if it is true and valid, only count official residents. Why count only all good apples and ignore all bad apples if one wants to examine and claim the average nature of the basket? It’s biased to the extreme.
Furthermore, the claim contradicts with hundreds of years of direct experiences with Indians in South East Asia, particularly in countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, and to a certain extend HK, Indonesia, etc., where large populations of Indians of ALL castes ( including high castes) have lived side by side with ethnics Chinese , Malays and others. Why Indians are nobody in this region on wealth count while suddenly become the wealthiest group in the US? Have we over-estimated average European IQ in the US? “Crème of the crop Brahmins” doesn’t cut here ( these people also are abundantly available in South east Asia and in their home region in India; and why high castes Brahmins’ home cities in India look like pure garbage dumps and shock even most non-South Asian 3rd world visitors ? ) … Something very fishy is going on here.
The origin of Chess underlies some of the fundamental issues regarding China v. India. The conventional wisdom that “India invented Chess” & all related quotes can be traced to a SINGLE source –Harold J R Murray’s book in 1913. Murray was not qualified to do so as he didn’t know a single world of any Asian language, yet had a strong motive of claiming a Trojan Horse for the British Empire (ie India). Logically his hypothesis is completely bizarre, since whoever (people& culture) invented Chess must possess the following 3 logical traits:
1.The inventor’s own culture must hugely value strategy, discipline and is excels at it.
It’s because Chess is fundamentally a game of strategy, long-term planning and strict execution, none of which chaotic India has known for throughout the history. On the contrary, China/Chinese are a world class master in this category. 2 famous classic Chinese literature explicitly mentioned Chess around 200BC when Sun Tzu wrote The Art of War (Murray didn’t know this) , whereas he claimed that Indian invented it about 600AD.
2.Whoever invented it must belong to a people that have pretty high average IQ.
It’s because Chess, like other board games , is a game for the mass. Extremely high popularity of the game inside the inventor’s own population, like Buddhism to Nepal or automobiles to USA, is crucial to maintain the game throughout the history; otherwise even though the game was invented, we would have never known about it as it’s lost into oblivion soon after the invention.
Playing Chess requires a certain average IQ threshold. Chess has NEVER been popular among Indian mass and most of them haven’t known how to play it or have never heard about it even today; whereas throughout the history till today, most, if not almost any, Chinese adult knows how to play some Chess – it’s an integral part of Chinese classic culture for millennia. Chinese mass play Chess almost everywhere in China during leisure times.
3.Whoever invented Chess most likely must have also invented its logical “cousins”: simple checkers ( simplest), Playing Cards (simpler), and much more different board game “Go” (the most different one ever existed) - China invented all of them.
It’s because just like technologies, board games have their continuous and logical natural flow of evolution from the easy to the difficult. One can’t suddenly come from where and end no where like “India invented Chess” while having no clue about much easier board games and playing cards, to more different “Go” – it’s logically as absurd as saying a man invented cannons yet has no clue on simple hand guns, rifles and larger rockets.
To quote Indian Historical Quarterly, a serious scholarly journal: Chakravarti, Chintaharan, "Sanskrit Works on the Game of Chess", June, 1938, Vol. 14
"Though the game of chess is generally supposed by scholars to be of Indian origin and reference to the game is said to be found in various Indian works from a very early period, Sanskrit works dealing with it and describing its complexity are comparatively rare. As a matter of fact, no early Indian work on the subject is known and until recently the work of scholarship had very few descriptions of the game."
... This journal also cites certain claims that chess was referred to in various writings by ancient Indian authors. However, it states that this was a common trick in those times. When one wanted to gain an audience for one's ideas, one claimed that such-and-such famous long deceased person said or wrote it… In conclusion, Indians can not find even one source in Indian literature regarding chess dated earlier than Sulipani in the 15 century -- ref: http://www.goddesschess.com/chessays/sloanhistory.html
We can now clearly see the historical root of Indian bragging!
Logically, to claim India invented Chess is as to claim England invented chopsticks or Afghans Invented Sushi. It’s just completely absurd.
"OVERSEAS INDIANS MAKE IT BIG They are the richest foreign-born group in the U.S., own 60% of all small retail stores in Britain, and account for a tenth of Hong Kong's exports."
I wonder if British Indians do better than British Pakistanis. Maybe educated British Pakistanis have more in common with educated British Indians. The Pakistani family in MY BEAUTIFUL LAUNDRETTE seemed somewhat above the cut.
And coming from a poor country probably made them hungrier. So, they work long hours in small stores to make some dough and make their kids rise higher.
Working class whites in UK got too deep into punk culture, soccer hooligan culture, and social welfare culture. Mess around in school and then rely on freebies.
"Indians blaming their racism on the British. Now I've heard everything."
"The British also worried that smart Chinese immigrants would dominate the country. They therefore deliberately steered business to Malays and recruited them for government jobs."
Why, it can't be...
" That is why the Chinese thrive despite the Bumiputra Program but the Indians don’t."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_policy_in_Indian_Institutes_of_Technology
wiki:"According to constitutional definition, Malays are Muslims who practice Malay customs (adat) and culture."
wait, what?
"The Taj Mahal was built the foreign origin Muslim Mughal rulers of India. So was the Red Fort and many other fine buildings, mosques etc. The British also left behind their share. But the hindu kala sahibs who took over from the Brits when they abandoned India have shown no skills in architecture or civil engineering. India is an ugly, shabby, decaying place with third rate infrastructure."
You need to google hindu temple architecture, and how many of such temples were razed by the 'foreign origin' 'mosque-builders'.
Perhaps at the end of it all, you will find the Taj Mahal akin to the Hindu-Arabic numeral system.
And this is why I hate reading iSteve comments. It seems to draw the most pretentious and articulate of stormfront frequenters.
I mean, skimming through these have a ridiculous amount of anecdotes as evidence to characterize entire groups, false claims and relying on unproven points.
In short, is there a bio-evolution explanation for the dishonesty and deceit of Indians? What are others' thoughts?
No. There is a cultural explanation. The culture of deceit developed as a result of the need of Indians to survive under foreign rule. A distrust developed for everybody outside the kin group.
"In short, is there a bio-evolution explanation for the dishonesty and deceit of Indians?"
From my experience, Indians are too blunt and abrasive to be truly deceitful. They are better at fooling themselves than fooling others.
"You need to google hindu temple architecture, and how many of such temples were razed by the 'foreign origin' 'mosque-builders'.
Perhaps at the end of it all, you will find the Taj Mahal akin to the Hindu-Arabic numeral system."
There are plenty of Hindu temples in India. The Muslim Mughals financed some of them. The architecture of Hindu temples is completely different from Mughal architecture. Indian temples tend to be rather shabby, not to mention dirty. The best Hindu temples were built outside India in southeast Asia.
"In short, is there a bio-evolution explanation for the dishonesty and deceit of Indians? What are others' thoughts?
No. There is a cultural explanation. The culture of deceit developed as a result of the need of Indians to survive under foreign rule. A distrust developed for everybody outside the kin group."
The "kin group" for the Hindus is not national, it is their caste or sub-caste. The Brahmins felt no loyalty towards lower caste Hindus when India was under foreign occupation. They allied with the Muslim Mughals.
There was a recent poll which found that 75% of Indians considered Brahmins a deceitful people. This is long after the end of foreign rule.
the japanese already reached their genetic potential in terms of iq. Eating anymore sushi isnt going to increase it. If india had not been colonized they would have used their already large economy to start industry. Thailand was not powerful economically compared to 18 century india..thus they were left alone and no progress was made, but it doesnt imply that thailand wont be a power in the future.
India was the most technologically advanced nation, along side China for a long time, thus it is evident, in the future, with improvements in education,prenatal care, nutrition, sanitation and living standards, that the IQ of 85-86.5 for India's impoverished masses can be equal to the Chinese or at least closer to the IQ of 100. What we do know, is that lower caste people, who were sent over to Britain, score 83 in the first generation, but the Flynn Effect rises their IQ scores up to 97. Thus it is safe to assume, that the Indian IQ of the lower caste is somewhere in the vicinity of 97. Due to the Overepresentation of UK Indians in many high IQ positions, there seems to be alot of variance with the IQ of 97, so it is safe to say that Indians score in the UK, in the second generation or so, at 97-112. Lets not forget the Flynn Effect will probably raise that 97 IQ higher.
The Japanese have reached their genetic potential in terms of height, eating sushi wont make them taller. If one has the genetics to become retarded nutrition is not going to help. The whole point is about reaching their genetic potential which is stunted by environmental.factors.
Post a Comment