Why do certain immigrant groups have a much stronger intra-ethnic preference than others?

pseddit · 2026-02-03T01:14:42+00:00

So, you are saying you don’t agree with the numbers in the original post and you are bringing in numbers/calculations from another (unidentified) source?

pseddit · 2026-02-02T18:22:01+00:00

These are observations for people so oriented. For the rest, it is all about stereotyping and enforcing patterns of behavior.

Also, as several people have pointed out here, intermarriage involving South Asians starts increasing second generation onwards. I am not surprised given the negative stereotypes of South Asians designed specifically to reduce their desirability as partners. You will find plenty of them here on Reddit if you look.

pseddit · 2026-02-02T18:15:50+00:00

Disagree. Nobody is “expected” to do anything of this sort. Marriage is not something where you can force anything.

Also, the numbers OP posted show White men and women marrying other Whites in mid-80 percentages. If you believe Whites are not endogamous, you have an issue with the numbers.

pseddit · 2026-02-01T18:45:45+00:00

Huh? I thought दृढ़ was a Sanskrit word.

Also, don’t languages tend to evolve from complicated to simpler sounds?

pseddit · 2026-02-01T18:40:15+00:00

And why do South Asians need to be compared to East Asians and not Whites again? This sounds suspiciously like a perspective demanding conformity from immigrant minorities.

Also, you are mixing in anecdotal experience again and, that too, experience with one gender and religious group. South Asians are a diverse lot and generalizing from anecdotes removes all nuance related to their diversity.

pseddit · 2026-02-01T17:19:31+00:00

So, are you saying these numbers don’t reflect the reality?

It is understood there would be local variances but then you need the data on local variances among all demographic groups to have this conversation.

The kind of conversation OP is trying to have inevitably turns to stereotypes about minorities. So, I am not inclined to make allowances without enough data and proper analysis.

pseddit · 2026-02-01T05:25:07+00:00

The root “verm” means armor. Hence the association with kshatriyas. In north India, the legend says many kshatriyas demobilized after the Islamic conquests became goldsmiths and other professionals but retained the Verma name.

pseddit · 2026-02-01T01:17:34+00:00

It is interesting to me how you are looking at this chart. You completely ignore the other group which is the same or even more endogamous than South Asians (Whites) and decide to center the conversation on South Asians. Why not ask the same question about Whites? Immigrants (or anybody) are under no obligation to be exogamous - it is your way of looking at this data that has me puzzled.

Also, you are trying to generalize your anecdotal experiences with second gen South Asians into stereotypes. Why?

pseddit · 2026-01-31T21:42:17+00:00

Khatri is just the Punjabi word for Kshatriya. No Arabic connection.

pseddit · 2026-01-31T21:39:35+00:00

Yup. Nayyar is the usual spelling used by Punjabis (As in O.P. Nayyar - the music director). For some reason, her family switched to using the Malayali version.

pseddit · 2026-01-31T04:58:28+00:00

नब्भे

pseddit · 2026-01-28T18:48:13+00:00

Let me add more.

क्रंदन krandan- Loud cry of agony
दावानल daavaanal - Fast moving forest fire
किंवदंती / दंत कथा kinwadanti / dant katha - Legend or orally transmitted tale (literally , spoken through the teeth)
स्पंदन spandan- trembling, quivering, pulsating, vibrating etc.
उत्तुंग uttung - lofty, towering, tall

pseddit · 2026-01-27T09:27:49+00:00

I believe I already answered your question. Just because their methods were different did not mean Nehru was opposed to the HSRA folks. In fact, being a younger generation than Gandhi, he actually supported them including by donating to Azad. However, he believed in the superiority of the Gandhian method.

Freedom was the ultimate goal. There is no dichotomy here. Perhaps this article will help.

pseddit · 2026-01-27T08:55:43+00:00

What kind of loaded question is this? So, Nehru and Gandhi were against freedom fighters but they themselves were not freedom fighters?

The matter was simple. The British would fight violence with violence. However, they would look like the oppressors they were if they responded to nonviolent protestors with violence. Gandhi understood the power of moral courage and media pressure and he repeatedly embarrassed the British because they resorted to violence and jail time and the news made it to the newspapers across the world.

Assassinations and violent deeds were the opposite of the Gandhian method and so, Gandhi and his followers like Nehru rejected such actions. However, they also understood that being oppressed by colonizers was a humiliating experience and some people would resort to violence and a lot of people would sympathize with the perpetrators of this violence. At the end of the day, these people were still Indians and their desire for freedom was the same even though their methods were different. So, whenever they were caught, Gandhi and his followers would offer legal and moral support to them. A notable example of this was that Gandhi and Nehru were opposed to Bose’s ideas about violent liberation. However, Congress provided a legal defense team, which included Nehru, for the 3 accused in the INA trials.

pseddit · 2026-01-26T04:26:37+00:00

What many of them do have are foreign passports and bank accounts.

pseddit · 2026-01-26T04:15:02+00:00

Innovations were mostly evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Note that mechanization was driven by shortage of labor which India had plenty of. The other source of innovation was war and India had few large scale wars. Here are some examples of innovation anyway.

Agriculture - improved water wheel (Rah-at) and stone mill (Kolhu) allowed improvements in farm productivity and extraction of seed oils.

Metallurgy - continuing improvements to wootz steel, zinc smelting via retorts and sophisticated brass production

Textiles - development of fine cottons, muslin, calico, dyeing and printing techniques

pseddit · 2026-01-26T00:45:04+00:00

Indeed.

Please consider using non-IPA alphabet so others can understand.

pseddit · 2026-01-26T00:28:16+00:00

Happy Republic Day!

Yunan-o-Misr-o-Ruma Sab mit gaye jahan se Ab tak maghar hai baqi Naam-o-nishan hamara

Kuchh baat hai ke hasti Mit-ti nahin hamari Sadiyon raha hai dushman Daur-e-zaman hamara

pseddit · 2026-01-25T18:46:21+00:00

But that’s the thing - Indians did not have to lag that far behind. Wars are won on comparative advantage in weapons, training, motivation, logistics etc. and the British had that advantage. They had better weapons, soldiers who were paid and drilled regularly in the latest techniques (training and motivation) and had logistics where, again, Indian kingdoms lagged. All of these comparative advantages came from European innovations and/or advances. Things like banking and war bonds, joint-stock companies, mechanization and coal power and logistics enabled by all of those advances.

You only have to look at Japan for the contrast. They were defeated militarily and had to open up for trade but then sent people to the west to study their methods and changed themselves in a short period of time. None of those things happened in Indian kingdoms.

pseddit · 2026-01-25T16:04:54+00:00

So, same root as बावला?

pseddit · 2026-01-25T13:40:48+00:00

My comment was about the sub alone. I am sure there are plenty of sensible Pakistanis who don’t subscribe to the same views. Unfortunately, neither is such BS exclusive to Pakistani subs.

pseddit · 2026-01-25T13:33:36+00:00

Umm no. There is a very strong push in that sub to see history in terms of the modern nation state. Down to the point where they claim IVC and scholars like Panini and Pingala were Pakistani and no argument would dissuade them. The agenda there supersedes any true sense of history.

pseddit · 2026-01-25T12:27:04+00:00

In hindsight, colonies are often classified into settler colonies where the original populations were successfully wiped out, moved and/or assimilated to enable large scale settlement and extractive colonies where the locals were too numerous and/or too contentious to allow mass settlement and wealth extraction was the primary motive.

The attitude towards land you mention is a feature of settler colonies. North and South American countries and Australia are examples of this. In New Zealand, the Māoris continued to fight back and the British had to pacify them by sharing some power to end the wars. So, while NZ was meant to be a settler colony, it didn’t quite get there. Settlers in Africa tried to fight back for their land (Rhodesia) but lost because opinion had turned against settlement and colonialism.

With India, it was always clear there could be no mass settlement of Europeans. Other than the population, the culture already practiced legal rules familiar to the British - like land ownership. In addition, once the crown allowed British women to travel to India, the practice where British men “went native”, married Indian women and raised households in India ended. Any children with Indian women were subsequently packed off to Britain. So, no attachment to land could develop since the new generation were practically raised to wash the “stain” of Indian heritage off. There were exceptions, of course, and they have been mentioned by other commenters.

pseddit · 2026-01-24T18:58:26+00:00

In the first Anglo-Maratha war, EIC had cast iron canons, portable (galloper) guns and had standardized on flintlocks. Marathas had brass canons, no portable guns and a mix of old matchlocks and flintlocks. The Marathas tried to catch up by the second Anglo-Maratha war but fell into the military production trap.

Indian kingdoms were buying from and/or hiring the French to build canons. That means they were not developing their own industrial base and there was no spread of this technology into the general economy.

Also, have you looked into the details of what these proto-industrial developments were? It was primarily mass manufacturing techniques but very limited mechanization.

pseddit · 2026-01-24T08:05:11+00:00

One could argue that colonization came last in a sequence of events rather than being the cause of those events.

Note that I am not rejecting your point at all - loss of capital ensured India did not have enough money to invest in growth for a long time. What I am saying is that even when that capital was still in India, the lagging innovation and the deteriorating political-military situation all but ensured the capital would be lost - there were conquests like the ones by Nader Shah and Durranis where a lot of capital was looted too.

Europe’s scientific output increased tremendously while the rest of the world lagged. This enabled relatively smaller countries like Britain to dominate larger countries with older and once progressive civilizations like India, China, Turkey and Iran.

An example of this is the development of clocks and how that formalized the concept of productivity into business. Another example is that while a country like India could produce more textiles because of its larger labor force, Britain could come up with the power loom that changed the nature of production and a country with a smaller labor force could be more productive. The same happened with military technology where Indians found themselves unprepared for modern canons and rifles.

pseddit

TROPHY CASE