Live data from Hacker News

Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World

bloomberg.com

121–130 of 237 posts

Re: Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World

#121
post #55

Twitter is an amazing machine of outrage, misunderstanding and hatred. It allows the benign comment to be taken as an offense and it amplifies genuine offensiveness, bullying, witch-hunting and harassment. There are some wonderful things Twitter does, especially around real time news of non-controversial events such as natural disasters, but if the service is a net positive for the world, it's by the slimmest of marg…

Amazing how restricting all communication to 2-sentence soundbites leads to misunderstanding and loss of nuance.

Re: Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World

#122

Finally he gets caught out for saying stupid shit. Every thing this man says is self serving (which is fine) but he tries to disguise it as profound knowledge. Ben Evans is 10x worse however, he is one idiotic twat.

By 'says' in your comment, I hope you mean 'tweet'. Andresseen has said and done many smart things.

Ahh yes, an important distinction. I do mean Tweet. His tweets really sit at odds with me. He was someone I looked up to at one point, but the main interface (Twitter) I have with him portrays a very different person than the one I thought he was.

Re: Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World

#123
post #100
post #56

First, a disclosure: I hate Facebook, I think Free Basics is evil, and I think Marc Andreesen says a lot of stupid shit. That being said, this whole uproar is just more proof that social media is totally, utterly broken. Let me explain. While I think Marc is on the board of an evil company and that his thought process on this matter is incredibly ignorant, I really appreciate the fact that he shares his point of view…

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World

#124
post #32

Extremely stupid tweet by Andreessen. He probably doesn't even realize that, like most ignorant people. FYI it was socialism that held back the Indian economy during the 70s and 80s. And it was colonialism that drained the country's wealth for over two hundred years. Here, Mr. Andreessen, educate yourself: https://www.google.com/search?q=bengal+famine

He probably meant "Anti-West" attitudes, not anti-colonialism. Coming from a third world country myself, I know there is a tendency to deny and dismiss some socially disruptive innovations because of their origin. There is a cultural trust issue there.

India is pro-modernism. It has nothing to do with cultural trust. We just don't want to take in Western culture into India because we believe our culture, tradition and identity, that has been inherited from our ancestors for over thousands of years, needs to be protected. It is nothing against the Western culture. When we visit foreign countries we don't demand that our customs be followed but instead assimilate with that country's culture. Why do you think there are so many Indians in every part of the World living harmoniously? The same cannot be said about some other countries who are actually "Anti-West" and actively seek to change Laws in Western countries to suit their customs/traditions. We don't do such things and never will.

Re: Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World

#125
post #14

I don't particularly like the guy, but is there a campaign of deliberate misinterpretation going on? Yes, probably a really stupid thing to say, and perhaps wrong for many reasons. No, he did not say India should have kept Britain as its colonial power, or any of the other incredible interpretations now flying around the Twittersphere. Jonny Axelsson: Anti-semitism not the opposite of semitism. Now whether anti-colon…

> I don't particularly like the guy, but is there a campaign of deliberate misinterpretation going on?

Yes. We live in a sound bite news era and if you can interpret the sound bite (tweet) in a wholly different way than intended and shout it loud enough, the original truth of the statement doesn't matter. Many of the headlines about political candidates are contradicted by the actual speeches, but SNL, late night, and reporters can make money off their interpretations.

Re: Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World

#126
post #111
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I never see mentioned in this debate is the fact that America was a British colony as well, and colonial status definitely drained American wealth for centuries (though obviously, the occupation of India was far more brutal). But I think it's highly unlikely that America ever would've become a superpower without the benefit of British culture, institutions, and law.

> though obviously, the occupation of India was far more brutal The 'Americans' were the occupiers. Native Americans have quite a tale to tell about brutality.

European, and later American, treatment of Native Americans was not colonization, just straight-up genocide. It's not really relevant to the question of the long-term impact of British institutions in former colonies.

Re: Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World

#127

Extremely stupid tweet by Andreessen. He probably doesn't even realize that, like most ignorant people. FYI it was socialism that held back the Indian economy during the 70s and 80s. And it was colonialism that drained the country's wealth for over two hundred years. Here, Mr. Andreessen, educate yourself: https://www.google.com/search?q=bengal+famine

On the subject on British attitudes towards the third world, an illuminating example is that of Iran. English prospectors found oil in Iran in the early years of the 20th century, a find that in the words on Winston Churchill was "a prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams". Britain established what was then the largest refinery in the world in Abadan, Iran, operated with was effectively slave labour, and spent the decades leading up to fifties with extracting vast fortunes. The Shah goverment was mostly a puppet regime and due to the British refusal to allow independent audit of the books of the Anglo-Persian oil company, only a few percent of the actual profit ended came back to the Iranian people.

The Iranian people finally rose against the imperial influence of the British and ejected all British citizens in the early years of the fifties. Mossadegh, the prime minister, rose to prominence on an anti-english platform, initially demanding a 50% share of profits and reasonable treatment of Iranian labour. The British, under Attlee as well as with Churchill back in control, selfishly rejected all attempts at comproimise, and produced several internal reports that spoke of how inferior the Iranians were as a race.

Finally, having lost their influence, the English turned to the US for assistance in overthrowing the democratically elected government. Truman resisted, but Eisenhower relented, with John Foster Dulles enthusiastically moving forward with a coup. The Shahs absolute power was reestablished, and his oppressive rule paved way for the Islamic revolution two decades later.

One of many illustrative examples of how the English could never be considered benevolent rulers.

(As described in All the Shah's men, by Stephen Kinzer)

Re: Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World

#128
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should find out what India's share of world GDP and trade was when the british arrived.

I really hate this argument, the change in GDP share is because the West industrialised and the East didn't, before that it was mostly a matter of population, per capita GDP didn't matter so much. Not to say I have any idea what would have happened without colonialism, but thinking that India would have retained their share of world GDP is naive.

Is it a coincidence that industrial revolution happened in a country which was taking raw material from its colonies at zero cost?

Owning India is what allowed Britain to fund its own development (as well as all its international wars). The british destroyed india's local textile sector (which was world-famous), shipped all the cotton to Britain, and sold clothes BACK to Indians. That's how this industrial revolution happened.

This is what Mahatma Gandhi opposed and encouraged Indians to make their own yarn. That's where his association with the "charkha" and swadeshi movement comes from.

Re: Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World

#129
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I never see mentioned in this debate is the fact that America was a British colony as well, and colonial status definitely drained American wealth for centuries (though obviously, the occupation of India was far more brutal). But I think it's highly unlikely that America ever would've become a superpower without the benefit of British culture, institutions, and law.

How about German culture, institutions and law? How about Bohemian? Austrian? Italian? Czech? Polish? America was last a British colony, but it was far from a uniform culture of expat British. And it reinvented itself violently upon rebellion. Into something quite new in the world. Or at least not seen in a long time. And definitely not British.

You forget Dutch, the culture that gave Manhattan its name (among other things). And French, which during and after the American Revolution was probably the most popular and influential culture among US elites.

Apart from that, I agree wholeheartedly. The US phenomenon cannot be reduced to "some rogue British colony that stroke it rich".

Re: Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World

#130
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see what's wrong with this, specifically. It's his account, he can block whoever he wants. People take this stuff way too personally. I've blocked a few people simply because I don't like their stuff in my feed. One of them bugged me for months afterwards to unblock him, even though it's completely inconsequential and I don't say much interesting anyway. IMO this is a flaw with twitter. Blocks are two-way: I…

>IMO this is a flaw with twitter. Blocks are two-way: I don't see their stuff, and they don't see my stuff. But whenever I'm blocking someone, it's just because I don't want to see their stuff. There's no reason to tie those together. Twitter tried to fix this and it was a PR disaster for them. http://archive.is/YMJCg

Well of course it was a PR disaster, they "fixed" it by removing the original blocking functionality altogether!

Both "don't show me their stuff" and "don't show them my stuff" are useful, they just shouldn't be bundled.

Post reply on HN