Colonialism in the subcontinent thread

[Member 60376]

There was a lot of misinformation, human error and you know, WW2 going on at the time. Whatever. if you want to believe that comically evil British(and Indian!) members of the government and civil service conspired to kill people - despite hundreds of years of trying to avert famines - then so be it. As Hanlon's razor states, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".

This is my last reply to you, because honestly, this conversation is getting on my nerves. A meaningful debate needs both parties to be at least aware of the topic, and sadly - and this is not a dig at you - I am increasingly certain you have little knowledge of the Indian partition and the years leading up to it

If you read up on the famine, you would find, without any reasonable doubt, that the administration was aware of the precarious situation in Bengal but chose not to act on it - in fact it took steps which worsened the situation leading to deaths

This is not the first time in history that man-made famines have happened, nor will it be the last. And for the record I did not ever call these people evil or Hitler-esque - which you are well within your rights to find comical. History will judge them, I do not need to

I am going to leave this argument by saying that the reaction to the 1943 Bengal famine was a valid tactic to subdue the most restive region in the most important colony of an Empire that was busy in fighting a war. If you want to revise history, feel free to

 

[africanspur]

"Fundamentally, the exit strategy of all the European empires was the same once they had agreed to leave"

That's a pretty big claim. And one which the system of governance left in place post-Imperial rule would fall under. The British's implementation of Parliamentary democracy was a better way to go about it than leaving a power vacuum - which was the usual move.

" Draw completely arbitrary borders, creating volatile regions and interfering in internal affairs well after the final colonial officers are gone."

Borders.
Borders.

Not sure how many more times I can say it tbh.

We can start a whole other discussion about the governance systems they left behind (and one which I've already responded was better from the British than others) but I was talking about the drawing of borders .

 

[Lu Tze]

Yeah I'm out. I've repeatedly admitted that the British and Indian administrations made countless mistakes and exacerbated problems left right and centre. They fecked up and cost millions their lives through stupidity. I just dispute that it was done with malicious intent on the whole. The famine and the partition are incomparable to the Holocaust. But I can see that this isn't going anywhere so we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Ryan's Beard]

I think africanspur wants to talk about the borders the British Empire left behind, rather than the systems of government it tried to leave in place.

Am I right?

 

[VidaRed]

Yeah I'm out. I've repeatedly admitted that the British and Indian administrations made countless mistakes and exacerbated problems left right and centre. They fecked up and cost millions their lives through stupidity. I just dispute that it was done with malicious intent on the whole. The famine and the partition are incomparable to the Holocaust. But I can see that this isn't going anywhere so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Even the nazis "fecked up and cost millions of lives through stupidity"

 

[africanspur]

I think africanspur wants to talk about the borders the British Empire left behind, rather than the systems of government it tried to leave in place.

Am I right?

Dammit Ryan's beard, can you not bloody read?

Glad to know I am articulating myself in an least a semi-comprehensible manner!

 

[adexkola]

I've already said that one of the main positives of the British was that they weren't the French or Belgians (from an African perspective anyway).

I was responding to the charge that the British exit strategy in terms of partition was better than the alternative. Fundamentally, the exit strategy of all the European empires was the same once they had agreed to leave (and again, the French were complete bastards). Draw completely arbitrary borders, creating volatile regions and interfering in internal affairs well after the final colonial officers are gone.

I'm not sure about the French's approach, but the borders of most British colonies were set during the Scramble for Africa when the entire continent was divided. Ghana, Nigeria, Cape Town to Cairo... all that was agreed on prior to colonization. The case of the British dividing the Indian subcontinent does not apply to Africa.

They fecked up on Sudan, that nation should have been divided from the start. Nigeria in hindsight may seem like an error, but you're not dividing it into 250 countries, one for each ethnic group. I say that as a southern Nigerian who would be chuffed to bits if the North just fecked off into a sinkhole. They were lucky in Eastern Africa, the region was/is much more homogeneous. But boundaries were set a long time ago.

The British by and large spent years cultivating Parliamentary democracy and self-governance prior to their departure. That is absolutely not the route most empires went down. It's just not. It's a lie to suggest otherwise. Belgians. Nope. French. Nope. Germany. Nope. Spain. Nope. Italy. Nope. Even the USA. Nope.

This is largely true, to their slight credit.

The British in some colonies (primarily Ghana, Nigeria, Eastern Africa to a lesser extent) cultivated a handful of native educated elites, educating them in Oxford and Sandhurst, with the intention of slowly turning power over to the colonies fully. But India threw a fecking spanner in the works; once Ghana obtained her independence the British were working against the clock, struggling with peoples that wanted independence and wanted it now, to hell with a measured approach. As Macmillan told the South African parliament, the "Wind of Change" blowing through the colonies was too strong for the British to fully resist without horrible consequences. East Africa was 20 years behind West Africa regarding preparedness for independence, nevertheless all British holdings in Africa were divested by 1970.

 

[adexkola]

I think africanspur wants to talk about the borders the British Empire left behind, rather than the systems of government it tried to leave in place.

Am I right?

Borders (in Africa at least) were drawn up by a combination of European powers at the Berlin Conference in 1884! Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Sudan, Zambia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Egypt... their borders in 1884 do not significantly differ from their modern boundaries. Like I said to africanspur, the Indian Partition was a problem unique to the Indian subcontinent, in other places borders were established long before independence.

 

[NM]

Yeah I'm out. I've repeatedly admitted that the British and Indian administrations made countless mistakes and exacerbated problems left right and centre. They fecked up and cost millions their lives through stupidity. I just dispute that it was done with malicious intent on the whole. The famine and the partition are incomparable to the Holocaust. But I can see that this isn't going anywhere so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Then you have no clue how the British operated at the time.

 

[africanspur]

I'm not sure about the French's approach, but the borders of most British colonies were set during the Scramble for Africa when the entire continent was divided. Ghana, Nigeria, Cape Town to Cairo... all that was agreed on prior to colonization. The case of the British dividing the Indian subcontinent does not apply to Africa.

They fecked up on Sudan, that nation should have been divided from the start. Nigeria in hindsight may seem like an error, but you're not dividing it into 250 countries, one for each ethnic group. I say that as a southern Nigerian who would be chuffed to bits if the North just fecked off into a sinkhole. They were lucky in Eastern Africa, the region was/is much more homogeneous. But boundaries were set a long time ago.

I'm talking about borders all across the British empire. The areas I know most about are Africa, the ME and the subcontinent. I can't talk with any real knowledge on the other areas of the British empire.

It doesn't really matter when the borders were set (and now I am talking specifically about Africa). Arbitrary borders were set from offices in London, Paris etc without any real input from the natives, local geography etc. Just because that was what the officers decided the borders should have looked like in the 1800s, doesnt mean they should have remained as such in the 1900s.

I didn't say we should have split up Nigeria into 250 countries. What may have been more likely or more logical is to split it into 2/3/4 big entities, based on the large ethnic groups. The important thing was to take into account the wishes of the local population. They want one large country called Nigeria? Great? They want 2, an Islamic North and a Christian South? Great. You want 3? 4? 100? Again, whatever allows for the most chance of self determination and least chance of strife going into the future.

 

[adexkola]

I'm talking about borders all across the British empire. The areas I know most about are Africa, the ME and the subcontinent. I can't talk with any real knowledge on the other areas of the British empire.

It doesn't really matter when the borders were set (and now I am talking specifically about Africa). Arbitrary borders were set from offices in London, Paris etc without any real input from the natives, local geography etc. Just because that was what the officers decided the borders should have looked like in the 1800s, doesnt mean they should have remained as such in the 1900s.

That's fair enough.

I didn't say we should have split up Nigeria into 250 countries. What may have been more likely or more logical is to split it into 2/3/4 big entities, based on the large ethnic groups. The important thing was to take into account the wishes of the local population. They want one large country called Nigeria? Great? They want 2, an Islamic North and a Christian South? Great. You want 3? 4? 100? Again, whatever allows for the most chance of self determination and least chance of strife going into the future.

As far as I know, with Nigeria the overwhelming majority were content with Nigeria. Nigeria's original structure consisted of 3 regions (Northern, Western and Eastern), each with high levels of autonomy. The seeds of today's troubles in Nigeria started in 1966, when a Coup d'etat initiated by junior soldiers from the East resulted in the deaths of prominent leaders from the North and West. The British were long gone by this time.

 

[KM]

This is my last reply to you, because honestly, this conversation is getting on my nerves. A meaningful debate needs both parties to be at least aware of the topic, and sadly - and this is not a dig at you - I am increasingly certain you have little knowledge of the Indian partition and the years leading up to it

If you read up on the famine, you would find, without any reasonable doubt, that the administration was aware of the precarious situation in Bengal but chose not to act on it - in fact it took steps which worsened the situation leading to deaths

This is not the first time in history that man-made famines have happened, nor will it be the last. And for the record I did not ever call these people evil or Hitler-esque - which you are well within your rights to find comical. History will judge them, I do not need to

I am going to leave this argument by saying that the reaction to the 1943 Bengal famine was a valid tactic to subdue the most restive region in the most important colony of an Empire that was busy in fighting a war. If you want to revise history, feel free to

Fighting a losing battle DN. I've already tried and lost. Some like living in ignorance.

 

[Member 60376]

Fighting a losing battle DN. I've already tried and lost. Some like living in ignorance.

Unfortunately I become angry much too quickly nowadays, so had to stop

This thread is not really a "current event" - does it even need to be around any more? If it has to remain, then can you please change its title to just colonialism - as Africa etc are also being discussed?

 

[kotha]

To say the British weren't malicious is an ignorant statement..

Jallianwala Bagh massacre shows how ruthless they were..

http://www.jallianwalabagh.ca/pages.php?id=4

 

[adexkola]

I'm reading up on the famine, and Wikipedia says Britain implemented a scorched earth policy in 1940 in Bengal. What is this about?

 

[Lu Tze]

I'm reading up on the famine, and Wikipedia says Britain implemented a scorched earth policy in 1940 in Bengal. What is this about?

AFAIK in 42 it was implemented to deny the Japanese resources if they had invaded Bengal after their acquisition of Burma, which did not seem an impossibility at the time. Don't know about 1940. It should be noted that Burma supplied a significant amount of Bengal's food, and the loss of that territory was a contributory factor to the famine.

 

[Nedved]

For the few who actually believe colonialism brought certain good things with it such as technology:

All other ideas and inventions have spread sooner or later, more often through trade than through warfare. Colonialism may have been a catalyst for such technological or administrative advancements, but at the cost of the subjects' own cultural, financial and political growth. Not to mention suffering.

 

[Nedved]

My indian friend came up with this rather crude but effective analogy. Britain was a rich handsome arrogant and intelligent man who raped the poor village girl when she didn't give him what he wanted. The village girl became pregnant and gave birth to a child who later on became rich handsome and intelligent and made his mother proud.

More like, the rich handsome arrogant man rapes the poor girl, kills her father, steals everything they own and then runs away, forgetting his iPhone 5 on their kitchen table.

They would never have had an iPhone without the colonialist. Win-win.

 

[Member 60376]

AFAIK in 42 it was implemented to deny the Japanese resources if they had invaded Bengal after their acquisition of Burma, which did not seem an impossibility at the time. Don't know about 1940. It should be noted that Burma supplied a significant amount of Bengal's food, and the loss of that territory was a contributory factor to the famine.

Do you have a source for this? Bengal is probably the most fertile region in India, with over 90% of it's land fit for multi-crop cultivation

 

[Lu Tze]

Do you have a source for this? Bengal is probably the most fertile region in India, with over 90% of it's land fit for multi-crop cultivation

Here ya go. "By 1940 15% of India's rice overall came from Burma, while in Bengal the proportion was slightly higher given the province's proximity to Burma" (Bayly and Harper: Forgotten Armies: The Fall of British Asia, 1941-1945 (2005), p.284.)

Obviously 15-20% of the rice is not by any stretch of the imagination most of the food, but it is a significant amount, especially in the context of the worse-than-usual natural conditions, and the fact that even a 5% drop could be significant in terms of starvation. Plus, there were refugees from the newly conquered Burma whose food demands exacerbated the already tough situation.

 

[Member 60376]

Thanks, did not know that. Wonder what % of it is applicable to West Bengal and what to East Bengal (later East Pakistan)

One has to remember the Bengal presidency of British India comprised of today's West Bengal, Bangladesh and parts of Bihar and Orissa. It was a very large region, and a very fertile region. The famine ripped apart the predominantly agrarian economy of the area, and it worsened after independence with a massive refugee influx from East Pakistan in 1947 and 1971

It was only after a complete agricultural reform was done by the left front government in the 1970s that productivity increased again

 

[NM]

Here ya go. "By 1940 15% of India's rice overall came from Burma, while in Bengal the proportion was slightly higher given the province's proximity to Burma" (Bayly and Harper: Forgotten Armies: The Fall of British Asia, 1941-1945 (2005), p.284.)

Obviously 15-20% of the rice is not by any stretch of the imagination most of the food, but it is a significant amount, especially in the context of the worse-than-usual natural conditions, and the fact that even a 5% drop could be significant in terms of starvation. Plus, there were refugees from the newly conquered Burma whose food demands exacerbated the already tough situation.

That alone doesn't change anything mate. I've studied Indian history in both India and the US. Got the unbiased version in the States, and I'd still strongly argue the famine wasn't due to only natural causes.

 

[Lu Tze]

The famine wasn't only due to natural causes, definitely not NM. Like most things that go terribly wrong there were a lot of factors in play. However I don't really want to argue further. I just thought I'd answer the question/provide a source, and maybe shed a little more light on the fact that it would have been a tough situation even with the best administration - which was obviously not present.

I mean just looking at it from the natural disaster PoV it was an especially tough year, with a cyclone(not that unusual, I guess?), with three tidal waves(I dunno but this sounds p. bad) and then there's the exceptional factor that year of the "brown spot" which was a fungus that decimated a lot of the rice crop. That, plus the loss of the Burmese food supply, plus Burmese refugees - and the difficulty in shipping with the Germans sinking hundreds of thousands of tons of shipping created almost a perfect storm. That was exacerbated even further due to the other provinces being wary of fully supporting Bengal in fear of creating a famine in their own territory. But if the administration hadn't made a lot of terrible mistakes then millions of lives could have been saved.

 

[naturalized]

No, just no

The worst Bengal famine under British rule happened in 1943

Partition of Bengal happened in 1905, coincidentally just about when the Bengali renaissance was at it's peak, and when Bengal was starting to lead the call for independence

Most of the stuff that went wrong with British India was post 1857, and more specifically, post 1905

Jalianwala Bagh, Hindu Muslim riots, famines - most of them. It also so happened that India was demanding independence at the time

Coincidence?

Please understand that India is a unique case. India was and is rich in resources. Had a rich civilization, geographically strategic. The British empire leeched India. Absolutely the opposite to what they did with fishing villages like Singapore or HK where they had to build things from the ground up

India was systematically drained of her resources unlike some other colonies

Which is why you cannot compare the effects of British rule in the subcontinent to that in SE Asia, as an example

Yeah, I take your point on this, true. India is very much an outlier in its colonial experience in that it's pretty much the only example of a powerful country colonized by another and therefore had relatively little to gain, economically, from the experience.

To be fair, though, that's precisely the point I was making from the beginning, before this thread was dedicated specifically to colonialism in the subcontinent - that, seen holistically and discounting the outliers, colonialism, particularly the US and UK variants, were far from the simplistic exploitative narrative that many are keen to peddle.

 

[Haddock]

Could it be that what a lot of people decry about colonialism is simply premodern people doing premodern things to each other?



With all due respect, that's a completely ridiculous thing to say, and I'd apologize if I were you. That's completely out of line in any semi-serious debate, to call someone else a racist on very thin justification.

No I will not apologise. I'm sorry but these arguments saying "it wasn't so bad , look at the benefits" all strike an incredibly smug racist tone. Would you say Napoleon and his rule brought the British People huge benefits? After all the Code Napoleon influenced plenty of laws in Britain. And did he not have the right Idea in wanting to Unite Europe to prevent wars? Something that currently exists (The EU). If you want to argue that many of the colonised nations did indeed require technological innovation by all means that is a great and pertinent point, however realise that there are better ways. I am not angry about Imperialism , I realise states are not moral drivers , people are. Look at China and my own country India today! Buying up African Lands to exploit the farms when the same has been done to their grandfathers (literally, since it's not even a century since the two got independence). An example of what VS Naipaul called 'the mimic men'.

As for 'premodern people doing premodern things' that is not a good argument. The civil rights era in America was in the modern age , yet I have seen written testimonies and several of the old hollywood era of the 1970s who are only in their 60s or 70s today have openly stated that they started realising what Black folks went through AFTER seeing the images on TV. Human revulsion with regards to things like murder or ill treatment is not something premodern. Now the people of the 19th century may not have known what conditions were like but modern day commentators have no right to claim some sort of 'cultural' superiority given our knowledge of the past and expect to be taken seriously.

There is plenty of literary if not (probably not) any scholalrly work from the 19th and early 20th century on the way people in the colonies were treated. Joseph Conad's 'Heart of darkness' ignoring Chinua Achebe's accusations of racism describe the state of the Congo. Or here - read this piece by Arthur Conan Doyle on the Congo http://www.kongo-kinshasa.de/dokumente/lekture/crime_of_congo.pdf

 

[Haddock]

To say the British weren't malicious is an ignorant statement..

Jallianwala Bagh massacre shows how ruthless they were..

http://www.jallianwalabagh.ca/pages.php?id=4

In fairness, Dyer was sacked and heavily reprimanded by the top Brass. Still his mates at the local Gymkhana including Rudyard Kipling collected enough money for him so he could retire in peace. I read about it in "Freedom at Midnight" by Collins and Lapierre. Great book beautifully written with so many great ancedotes, Lord Mountbatten comes out of it looking quite good.

 

[NM]

@Haddock top post.

 

[Mozza]

For the few who actually believe colonialism brought certain good things with it such as technology:

All other ideas and inventions have spread sooner or later, more often through trade than through warfare. Colonialism may have been a catalyst for such technological or administrative advancements, but at the cost of the subjects' own cultural, financial and political growth. Not to mention suffering.

Correct, you need only look at Japan, 200 years of technological issolation ended in the 1860s and they rapidly became a world power without the need for colonialist masters

 

[Jippy]

Correct, you need only look at Japan, 200 years of technological issolation ended in the 1860s and they rapidly became a world power without the need for colonialist masters

That does kind of overlook the fact that Japan's security was safeguarded by the US in the post-war period allowing it to purely focus on rebuilding its economy to be a trading partner with the US. Same as Germany under the Marshall Plan etc...

 

[Mozza]

That does kind of overlook the fact that Japan's security was safeguarded by the US in the post-war period allowing it to purely focus on rebuilding its economy to be a trading partner with the US. Same as Germany under the Marshall Plan etc...

Im talking pre war, 1860s leading up to world war 2, they fielded air craft carriers, they were a 1st world nation

 

[Jippy]

Fair enough, I'm thinking more recent. @Haddock The Romans left us some lovely roads and ditto the Normans and their castles!

 

[naturalized]

No I will not apologise. I'm sorry but these arguments saying "it wasn't so bad , look at the benefits" all strike an incredibly smug racist tone. Would you say Napoleon and his rule brought the British People huge benefits? After all the Code Napoleon influenced plenty of laws in Britain. And did he not have the right Idea in wanting to Unite Europe to prevent wars? Something that currently exists (The EU). If you want to argue that many of the colonised nations did indeed require technological innovation by all means that is a great and pertinent point, however realise that there are better ways. I am not angry about Imperialism , I realise states are not moral drivers , people are. Look at China and my own country India today! Buying up African Lands to exploit the farms when the same has been done to their grandfathers (literally, since it's not even a century since the two got independence). An example of what VS Naipaul called 'the mimic men'.

As for 'premodern people doing premodern things' that is not a good argument. The civil rights era in America was in the modern age , yet I have seen written testimonies and several of the old hollywood era of the 1970s who are only in their 60s or 70s today have openly stated that they started realising what Black folks went through AFTER seeing the images on TV. Human revulsion with regards to things like murder or ill treatment is not something premodern. Now the people of the 19th century may not have known what conditions were like but modern day commentators have no right to claim some sort of 'cultural' superiority given our knowledge of the past and expect to be taken seriously.

There is plenty of literary if not (probably not) any scholalrly work from the 19th and early 20th century on the way people in the colonies were treated. Joseph Conad's 'Heart of darkness' ignoring Chinua Achebe's accusations of racism describe the state of the Congo. Or here - read this piece by Arthur Conan Doyle on the Congo http://www.kongo-kinshasa.de/dokumente/lekture/crime_of_congo.pdf

Are you actually serious? You're incapable of discussing historical events without calling people racists? Because they disagree with you? I'm not actually white or British, you know - what does that make me, a self-hating person?

If we were discussing WWII and I pointed out that for all the harm WWII did it also spurred the tide of anticolonialism that ended the French and British Empires, would that make me a Nazi?

 

[naturalized]

Would you say Napoleon and his rule brought the British People huge benefits? After all the Code Napoleon influenced plenty of laws in Britain. And did he not have the right Idea in wanting to Unite Europe to prevent wars? Something that currently exists (The EU).

Erm.

... yes?? Not so much Britain, but in the half of the world that operates on Civil Law, the Napoleonic Code served as the basis of basically all their future jurisprudence.

Look, I realize this is an emotive issue. But at some point, you need to historically objective about things. Why stop at the Napoleonic Code? What about the Code of Justinian, which served as the basis for almost all of Europe's laws for a millenium? What about the Code of Hammurabi? Can we not evaluate it rationally without being tainted by the thought of all the poor Celts that the Romans killed in order to propagate their rule? (Because I sense this will shortly be misunderstood, I am obviously not comparing pre-colonial India to Celtic Gaul.)

I don't think I've ever seen people get so worked up so quickly, and over so little, on this board - not that I've been here long, I suppose. But this is actually getting absurd. People who think colonialism maybe just maybe wasn't the historical equivalent of genocide are racists. I've heard it all now.

 

[Nedved]

Erm.

... yes?? Not so much Britain, but in the half of the world that operates on Civil Law, the Napoleonic Code served as the basis of basically all their future jurisprudence.

Look, I realize this is an emotive issue. But at some point, you need to historically objective about things. Why stop at the Napoleonic Code? What about the Code of Justinian, which served as the basis for almost all of Europe's laws for a millenium? What about the Code of Hammurabi? Can we not evaluate it rationally without being tainted by the thought of all the poor Celts that the Romans killed in order to propagate their rule? (Because I sense this will shortly be misunderstood, I am obviously not comparing pre-colonial India to Celtic Gaul.)

I don't think I've ever seen people get so worked up so quickly, and over so little, on this board - not that I've been here long, I suppose. But this is actually getting absurd. People who think colonialism maybe just maybe wasn't the historical equivalent of genocide are racists. I've heard it all now.

Fan of hyperboles?

Colonialism occurred in the century most of us were born in and we're living in a world that is a direct result of it. You can't deny the colonialist themselves were racist and fascist, driven by greed and imperialism. Your opinions on colonialism is a demonstration of your values, just as is the case with the American Civil War. Trying to argue for the positive effects of Belgian rule in Kongo is not quite the same as defending Genghis Khan's conquests.

When do we need to be historically objective about things? Events that occurred a 200 years ago? 100 years ago? 75? Can I seek to justify the actions of Hitler or Stalin, objectively, without being called a bigot?

 

[naturalized]

Fan of hyperboles?

Colonialism occurred in the century most of us were born in and we're living in a world that is a direct result of it. You can't deny the colonialist themselves were racist and fascist, driven by greed and imperialism. Your opinions on colonialism is a demonstration of your values, just as is the case with the American Civil War. Trying to argue for the positive effects of Belgian rule in Kongo is not quite the same as defending Genghis Khan's conquests.

When do we need to be historically objective about things? Events that occurred a 200 years ago? 100 years ago? 75? Can I seek to justify the actions of Hitler or Stalin, objectively, without being called a bigot?

I'm genuinely trying to understand you here. Let me see if I understand you.

There is a timeframe within which we may not dispassionately analyze something that occurred if it was sufficiently terrible. It is not allowed, to talk about things, with historical objectivity, so long as it happened within the century we were born in. Is that correct? How is this timeframe determined, and by whom?

May I talk to Eboue about 9/11, or will he react the same way to me? May I talk to Shinji Kagawa about Hiroshima?

This is the opposite of what a discussion forum is supposed to operate like.

 

[KM]

I don't think I've ever seen people get so worked up so quickly, and over so little, on this board - not that I've been here long, I suppose. But this is actually getting absurd. People who think colonialism maybe just maybe wasn't the historical equivalent of genocide are racists. I've heard it all now.

People are getting worked up because the death of millions is attributed to misinformation or human error when it's obvious the reasons were something else. I wonder how would a thread which justifies the actions of Hitler or seeks to detail the positive of Hitler's reign would be welcomed at the Caf.

 

[Nedved]

I'm genuinely trying to understand you here. Let me see if I understand you.

There is a timeframe within which we may not dispassionately analyze something that occurred if it was sufficiently terrible. It is not allowed, to talk about things, with historical objectivity, so long as it happened within the century we were born in. Is that correct? How is this timeframe determined, and by whom?

May I talk to Eboue about 9/11, or will he react the same way to me? May I talk to Shinji Kagawa about Hiroshima?

This is the opposite of what a discussion forum is supposed to operate like.

I asked you a question, but I see you avoided it.

It's certainly allowed to say whatever you want. Just expect to be called an idiot if you say that Hitler or Stalin, despite murdering people, brought discipline, purpose and a sense of unity to the their people. Ergo, they did something good and much needed, if we can disregard the other misunderstandings.

Imagine the Confederate States had won the Civil War. Sure, there was slavery and all that, but they would also have spread their rich culture and possibly made the USA, and therefore also for its black citizens, a nicer country.

Pretty stupid statements, are they not? I'm allowed to say them, but I'll have to live with being called tasteless or even a racist.

 

[naturalized]

People are getting worked up because the death of millions is attributed to misinformation or human error when it's obvious the reasons were something else. I wonder how would a thread which justifies the actions of Hitler or seeks to detail the positive of Hitler's reign would be welcomed at the Caf.

KM, with respect, I wasn't referring specifically to the dispute over the Bengal famine issue. That's for those who were involved in it to discuss.

I'm talking about the notion that people may not rationally discuss colonialism without being racist if they take a particular point of view, because it happened within a specific timeframe and is still a live, emotive issue for some. If they do not adhere to that line, they're racist. To my mind, that's the opposite of how the CE is supposed to operate.

I don't even disagree about the factual premises being raised in this thread. I dislike being called a racist because I sincerely hold a different historical evaluation than someone else. That's absurd.

I asked you a question, but I see you avoided it.

It's certainly allowed to say whatever you want. Just expect to be called an idiot if you say that Hitler or Stalin, despite murdering people, brought discipline, purpose and a sense of unity to the their people. Ergo, they did something good and much needed, if we can disregard the other misunderstandings.

Imagine the Confederate States had won the Civil War. Sure, there was slavery and all that, but they would also have spread their rich culture and possibly made the USA, and therefore also its black citizens, a nicer country.

Pretty stupid statements, are they not? I'm allowed to say them, but I'll have to live with being called tasteless or even a racist.

I don't mind being called an idiot - discussion on the Caf, particularly CE, is a contact sport.

I mind very much being called a racist. It's a cheap shot, it's inappropriate, and it's completely unnecessary.

 

[KM]

KM, with respect, I wasn't referring specifically to the dispute over the Bengal famine issue. That's for those who were involved in it to discuss.

I'm talking about the notion that people may not rationally discuss colonialism without being racist if they take a particular point of view, because it happened within a specific timeframe and is still a live, emotive issue for some. If they do not adhere to that line, they're racist. To my mind, that's the opposite of how the CE is supposed to operate.

I don't even disagree about the factual premises being raised in this thread. I dislike being called a racist because I sincerely hold a different historical evaluation than someone else. That's absurd.

I don't approve of calling you racist or anyone else for that matter just because they've a different opinion. I'm just telling you that why this might be a touchy topic for people. I know that I was very close to lose my temper whilst discussing the famine with Lu Tze.

 

[Nedved]

KM, with respect, I wasn't referring specifically to the dispute over the Bengal famine issue. That's for those who were involved in it to discuss.

I'm talking about the notion that people may not rationally discuss colonialism without being racist if they take a particular point of view, because it happened within a specific timeframe and is still a live, emotive issue for some. If they do not adhere to that line, they're racist. To my mind, that's the opposite of how the CE is supposed to operate.

I don't even disagree about the factual premises being raised in this thread. I dislike being called a racist because I sincerely hold a different historical evaluation than someone else. That's absurd.



I don't mind being called an idiot - discussion on the Caf, particularly CE, is a contact sport.

I mind very much being called a racist. It's a cheap shot, it's inappropriate, and it's completely unnecessary.

Do you understand the difference between saying that Hannibal spreading Phoenician culture was a good thing, and defending colonialism in the 19th or 20th century?