Are the British white the weakest male race?

[Franco Vazquez]

From what I see, British whites are really weak and effeminate in comparison to other whites in Europe, America etc and other races. Their accent is sissy too.

[surajmal]

You mean the one that conquered the entire world?

[Franco Vazquez]

They did but not anymore. A lot of them are really effeminate. The current generation of UK is worst and thats why they have fallen way behind US now

[surajmal]

2 minutes ago, Franco Vazquez said:

They did but not anymore. A lot of them are really effeminate. The current generation of UK is worst and thats why they have fallen way behind US now

Phenotypic markers don't get filtered down in a few decades. Unless, the population get affected by severe drought/disease which clearly UK has not as it is still a developed economy. 

[Gollum]

If they are weak and effeminate then what does it make us desis , this is a racist thread IMO.

[Franco Vazquez]

Majorities of desis are not effeminate. Current white generation of UK is not really that good and thats why you could see dwindling interest in a gentlemen's game like cricket there. I am in a uni group and there are very few masculine white guys

[Muloghonto]

what really are 'masculine traits'  in your books ??

 

cricket is a dying game anywhere where it has competition from entertainment from other sports. Its a sport that is fundamentally classist and does not belong in the modern world. 

[Franco Vazquez]

Its not just about cricket but many British white are not masculine and dominating now as they used to be during British empire. 

[MechEng]

Franco is not being completely wrong though, that's the price to pay for ultra political correctness. Otherwise, how do you explain passive police and rapid emergence of no go zones throughout that place?

[MechEng]

35 minutes ago, surajmal said:

You mean the one that conquered the entire world?

Wouldn't have been possible had our maharajas stood united against them and not fought amongst themselves for power.

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, MechEng said:

Wouldn't have been possible had our maharajas stood united against them and not fought amongst themselves for power.

They would've easily beat us, like they beat the Marathas, the Sikhs, etc. 

If you look at the actual battles, the Brits won, despite being outnumbered usually close to 2:1 and still took 2-3x less casualties than Indians. Superior training, superior military system, superior logistics and superior equipment, as well as vastly superior commanders. 

 

They'd have done to us what they did to China and given how India didn't have a strong centralized government history or a strong racist society, we'd have crumbled after being beaten (unlike China).

 

[MechEng]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

They would've easily beat us, like they beat the Marathas, the Sikhs, etc. 

If you look at the actual battles, the Brits won, despite being outnumbered usually close to 2:1 and still took 2-3x less casualties than Indians. Superior training, superior military system, superior logistics and superior equipment, as well as vastly superior commanders. 

 

They'd have done to us what they did to China and given how India didn't have a strong centralized government history or a strong racist society, we'd have crumbled after being beaten (unlike China).

 

You're partly right, their insular attitude caused their own downfall. Instead of evolving and innovating as a society, the princely state kings choose to stay involved in territorial disputes. Also not many know that Parsis played a big role in the 1857 war win, the Parsis prioritised their community over anything and as soon as the East India Company came to Surat, they were the first Indian people to learn English and started adopting their culture (their community benefited from this even if came at a cost betraying the country), they were extremely good with paper work and were the backbone of war logistics. Without Parsis, British Empire was impossible in India. 

[Franco Vazquez]

Yeah as MechEng said they are ultra politically correct which leads most of them to be feminists, bi, SJWs whereas races like mixed, black, brown aren't like this and they are quite masculine

[Franco Vazquez]

10 minutes ago, MechEng said:

You're partly right, their insular attitude caused their own downfall. Instead of evolving and innovating as a society, the princely state kings choose to stay involved in territorial disputes. Also not many know that Parsis played a big role in the 1857 war win, the Parsis prioritised their community over anything and as soon as the East India Company came to Surat, they were the first Indian people to learn English and started adopting their culture (their community benefited from this even if came at a cost betraying the country), they were extremely good with paper work and were the backbone of war logistics. Without Parsis, British Empire was impossible in India. 

It wasn't just Parsis but also Sikhs and Gurkhas who helped them and not to mention better quality of weapons which they had

[cric_fan]

Wtf is this

[Singh bling]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

what really are 'masculine traits'  in your books ??

 

cricket is a dying game anywhere where it has competition from entertainment from other sports. Its a sport that is fundamentally classist and does not belong in the modern world. 

O Really , Bengali's were hardcore football fans but now BD is extremely cricket crazy nation

[Muloghonto]

15 minutes ago, MechEng said:

You're partly right, their insular attitude caused their own downfall. Instead of evolving and innovating as a society, the princely state kings choose to stay involved in territorial disputes.

Territorial disputes are not the issue here. If you look at Europe, they've fought continuously with each other since the fall of the Roman Empire and innovated progress and technology over the centuries.

India's problem- which was pretty much the problem everywhere not named Europe, came down to this:

1. destruction of cities. Cities are repositories of knowledge, skill and craft. Look at Europe- how many cities did Napoleon burn ? or Frederick the Great ? or Louis XVI ? or any such European monarch. The answer is almost always the same- zero. Not only that, they didn't rape the countryside either. They fought their wars and whomever won, took charge of the government. A bit like ancient (pre-Huna arrival) India. Which is why ancient India was great - a perfect combo of continuous warfare to keep social and technological evolution going, but no rape and destruction of the commoners, to preserve the progress. Nowhere else did we have this.

We like to blame the Muslims for doing untold rape, pillage and destruction of our centers of learning, but we also did the same- though not at the same scale, but enough to wipe out any meaningful progress over time. The Rashtrakutas utterly annihilated Kannauj. The Pallavas sacked Badami. The Palas destroyed Utkala (Orissa). The list goes on. 

 

2. Lack of education. Europe blew up the old world order, over time, by inventing the printing press. By the time 1600s rolls around, about 25% of European population was literate. The average literacy rate for non-printing press societies- even the highly advanced ones like Romans, Greeks, Ancient India, etc. hovered around the 5-10%.  By the time 1800s rolls around, around 40% of Europe was literate, while rest of the world was still stuck in the 5-10% or less zone. 

Innovation & progress,is a long term social endavor. Europe had a decisive advantage, due to far greater brain power, due to far greater literacy rate. 

 

15 minutes ago, MechEng said:

Also not many know that Parsis played a big role in the 1857 war win, the Parsis prioritised their community over anything and as soon as the East India Company came to Surat, they were the first Indian people to learn English and started adopting their culture (their community benefited from this even if came at a cost betraying the country), they were extremely good with paper work and were the backbone of war logistics. Without Parsis, British Empire was impossible in India. 

Good for the Parsis, they were smart. There was no country back then, no motherland. Only despots who saw their domain as their personal fiefs and jagirs to do what they wish. Its the British that gave us a sense of nationhood, which was lost since the fall of the Magadh Empire. I too would've done the same - rather work for a foreign government that designate me a second class citizen, but offers peace, stability and future growth for my children, than throw my lot in with a local king who goes around killing civillians and destroying cities and when this king (who i supported) dies, there is a good chance those he oppressed will rise up and come kill me, like my king did to them. 

 

Compare the Brits to the Marathas for example. While the Marathas sent raiding parties to loot & pillage Bihar, Bengal and Orissa (Bargi raids), causing untold death and destruction, the British chose to politically manuever the Nawabs of Bengal, Awadh into an open field of battle, annihilate them and then incorporate their lands into the British Company lands. 

Yes, they subjected heavy tax (which common Indian folks were accustomed to since the Delhi Sultan times) and yes, they were treated as 2nd class citizens. But guess what ? still better than looking over your shoulder every other day hoping not to die from some random raiding party from another wannabe king and his raping & pillaging armies. 

 

There is a reason why the British Empire succeeded with so few people from Britain running it, in places like India, Arabia, Burma, etc. Because people prefer stability over instability and British government, with their rule of law, provided stability. 

[Muloghonto]

10 minutes ago, Green Monster said:

Bengalis are by far the weakest of males around the world racially,

 

0 physical acumen, and 0 mental acumen 

Thats why bengalis have more nobel prizes in science than entire nation of Pakistan put together. 

 

As for physical acumen - we are not cavemen who need brute strength to succeed in the world. Havn't for a long time. This is why us puny Bengalis have had empires spanning entire north India, while you Marwaris and Punjabis- much 'stronger physically' have struggled to even put together a solid small kingdom. 

The Tamils are even punier than us and they had the first ever trans-oceanic empire and put together an empire the likes of central India and Pakistan has never ever seen. 

[Singh bling]

1 hour ago, Franco Vazquez said:

From what I see, British whites are really weak and effeminate in comparison to other whites in Europe, America etc and other races. Their accent is sissy too.

Anywhere where society embrace , western liberal values , men will become effeminate.Men have instinct to protect their culture , language , religion , women.Western liberal Atheistic values take all these from men .You can't say we want to protect women because it's sexist, Your religion is demonized , you are told that your culture is extremely racist.So you have no instinct to protect anything.

[Muloghonto]

24 minutes ago, Franco Vazquez said:

Yeah as MechEng said they are ultra politically correct which leads most of them to be feminists, bi, SJWs whereas races like mixed, black, brown aren't like this and they are quite masculine

as far as i can see, its still the white brits that dominate every meaningful persuit in britain: their military, their universities, their research papers, their wealth. So i dont understand why you think they are not 'masculine' - and if they are not 'masculine' despite having all these things in their favor, maybe its time to stop being masculine and get along with the program to equal them in every meaningful benchmark.