>>581197 >be pooloo >despite vastly outnumbering every other part of the british empire combined get subjugated because you're part of a race of subhumans who fail at war completely >brits starve you into submission >make you fight in two world wars >only then do you get independence, and only because Britain allowed it
>be boer >hobbies: killing black people, slavery, cutting supply lines to camps filled with your family members >only surrender when britain uses concentration camp tactics >abloo bloo so harsh ;(
>be irish >have low IQ >engage in petty tribal disputes for hundreds of years while other european kingdoms centralize >practice human sacrifice >get conquered as you inevitably would >surprised when english don't bend over backwards to send famine relief
or you could accept the empire and enjoy a higher standard of living, security, stability, and increased access to education >no fuck that desu i love the pope too much
>>581197 >How legit is this work? Quite. While title has shock value, its sentiment is warranted, but the author's conclusions were somewhat unnecessary in my view. Otherwise, the facts presented are well corroborated, and are simply astounding considering the absolute negligence of the British during the famines. There are no excuses or justifications, it was simply the most appallingly negligent imperial administration in world history. Note: not the most appallingly malicious, that would be elsewhere.
>>581285 >I don't know any right wing substitutes. I doubt you'd find any. The economic sentiments and particularly the subject of welfare makes the whole event quite a stain on the right wing. Ferguson's glosses on the subject were pathetic too.
>>581197 The book is a great example of how privately-owned, predatorial, globalist companies can in themselves cause a similar level of destruction of human life as their ideological rivals in communism, nazism, etc...
This is the case even if you accept that the figures may be inflated, that the environment played a major role, and that the local ruling dynasties gave as much of a fuck about the people of the subcontinent as the British did.
The flaws of the text stems from the ideological bias of the author, that he tries to use tribalism in respect to the colonizer versus the colonized, without taking into account one point highlighted above, and that these crimes in no way negate other comparable crimes under Stalinist, Maoist, or similar regimes.
>>581317 Sowell might have spoken about it in one of his books, but honestly don't raise your expectations higher than a less hamfisted summary similar to Ferguson. You shouldn't worry too much. I think it's fair to summarize that the only right wing argument favorable for the British in this context is that the Indian's benefited in the long term by the infrastructure and rapid commercialization which they themselves built under British administration. Which is a load of bullshit because in the short term that infrastructure primarily benefited the British, and in the long term it's a fair argument to make that such infrastructure could have emerged from a far more peaceful context benefiting the citizens of India greater than the British Empire has.
>>581377 If you want to be reductive about it, then okay. Pretty ironic considering how many Indian nobles capitulated for the overwhelming dominance of the British allowed by having emerged from an entirely different context, and also to their mutual benefit in exploiting most of the peasant population.
Anything in here about the famine caused by the eternal Anglo in Iran during ww1? About 9 million deaths, about 40 percent of the population perished. And westerners wonder why Iranians have literally always despised Great Britain.
the negligence was systematic tho, they had whole theories as to why and how to be negligent about such things, they knew what they were not doing, but they didnt do it any way
it was amazingly simple as a plan tho, at least in ukraine soviets had to actualy go around and confiscate grain and such, these guys just had to keep the market running and -do nothing-
its just... you might as well blame it on some buerocratic margin of error in cost assesment or symple lack of will to pay for transport, but its just so... its so fucking perfect
i mean there they were effectively reducing entire populations by millions, and all they had to do was -do nothing-
think about that
why do we always bother to -do something- when shit like that occurs
no one ever realy helps, people starve any way, none of the underlying reasons are fixed, none of the problems adressed, billions are wasted, and yet here you have a example of solving entire demographic and economic overloads just by looking the other way for a year or two
actualy india was going trough the same thing, local rulers simply accepted british rue based on stuff like bribes and alliances, there is no way all the soldiers in the british empire could have actualy conquered the whole of india, it was a organised and systematic thing done trough mutual cooperation and codependence of colonial rule and local 'traitors'
>>581472 That kind of attitude shows such an inhuman lack of empathy. If you're serious, I'm just glad you will never be taken seriously in an academic context.
>no one ever realy helps, people starve any way, none of the underlying reasons are fixed, none of the problems adressed, billions are wasted, and yet here you have a example of solving entire demographic and economic overloads just by looking the other way for a year or two This whole blanket statement is so misinformed. But hey, you keep on idealizing the good old economics of the empire. Too bad for you she and her kind are long dead.
>>581472 Not him, I would like to point out that it is comparable in a sense with what the Soviets did in Ukraine, for two reasons.
The first being that the agricultural produce of India that the British put in place was exported almost entirely back to the UK and elsewhere, even during most of the famines the British presided over, and there were instances where during hordes of starving Indians tried raiding food storage or silos, the British would confiscate said produce.
The second comes from an example known as the 'Bengal Famine of 1943' where shipments of food relief from outside the subcontinent was offered, and Churchill responded stating that he wouldn't waste it on the people of India, and instead use them as relief in the European theater of war.
Not only is there evidence of negligence, there is evidence of malevolent intention.
>>581197we >the british empire didn't solve all the world's problems therefore it is evil My great grandfather was an officer in the British army, before he died in ww1 he was sent to Egypt and India, the stories he brought back were basically just of him frolicking with the locals and fighting ISIS like thugs and criminals. In one story in northern India they were chasing down some bandits who basically did whatever they wanted to the local population. It was the custom in the area to buy expensive carpets as dowries and status symbols, when he reached a village near a ravine they had torn up all these carpets to build a rope bridge to speed their egress and their revenge but the rope bridge was too dangerous so they had their engineers build another one.
Oppressors maybe but they were a step up from kings that legalized slavery, impaled political opponents and burned widows. If the British were literally nazis and ruled over you, making you pay a bit of tax, then another group of thugs came down the hills, stole everything you had and raped your daughter, wouldn't you want to sick the nazis on them? Just saying.
>>581507 >Oppressors maybe but they were a step up from kings that legalized slavery, impaled political opponents and burned widows. Oh the >oriental despots narrative, and clearly from such an unbiased source, what a riveting tale.
You might want to know that the welfare of the people was actually considered by those EEEVIL tyrants with emergency granaries in times of famine. The British, once they did instate any kind of welfare system after the worst of the famines were over, had a history of negligence even with such systems. They embezzled much of the peninsula illegitimately through means such as the Doctrine of Lapse.
>>581507 If you read the book, you would quickly realize that this isn't a comparison between a group of thugs and an empire, because the crimes committed between the two are not comparable save for anecdotal or cherry picked exceptions, like the one you put into your post.
The famines that occurred under British rule, and the British response to them are morally comparable to how the USSR handled the Holodomor, including the parts of seizing food produce, even if the locals are starving to death, and showing not only a blatant disregard, but even a malevolent contempt of the locals in the process by exporting virtually all of their annual produce during said famines.
The GDP of the subcontinent drastically dropped as a result of British presence as well.
>>581518 It's also a retarded thing. Feeling any sort of belonging or brotherhood on the basis of a region or loosely connected nation is just asinine. Be your own person. I don't want or feel any obligation to scream USA USA at the top of my lungs.
it's ok guys, slavery and atrocities committed over the course of centuries were just fine, the perpetrators had emergency granaries to serve elites first and the people second, isn't that great?
Luckily the British Empire swooped in and put a stop to all that nonsense
>In fact, eighteenth century Europeans, including some Britons, were involved in buying, selling and exporting Indian slaves, transferring them around the subcontinent or to European slave colonies across the globe. Morever, many eighteenth century European households in India included domestic slaves, with the owners' right of property over them being upheld in law. Thus, although both colonial observers and subsequent historians usually represent South Asian slavery as an indigenous institution, with which the British were only concenred as colonial reforms, until the end of the eighteenth century Europeans were deeply implicated in both slave-holding and slave-trading in the region.
>>581197 My dad's name is Mike Davis. He's not this guy, thank God. This book makes me want to vomit at the thought that people still think the British Empire was full of a sort of well-dressed marauding thug. On one hand in America, you have people who hate the British because they're told it makes them more American, and people who are such Britboos that they drink Earl Gray and watch Dr. Who and have posters of red phone booths and all kinds of other obnoxious shit. I drink coffee, am a proud American, yet I see the British Empire as an overwhelmingly good force in history. If you want to read a great book on it, read "The Rise and Fall of the British Empire" by Lawrence James. http://www.amazon.com/The-Rise-Fall-British-Empire/dp/031216985X This book makes me cry myself to sleep holding a picture of Cecil Rhodes every night.
Seriously, though, the reason why the British were involved in so many "genocides" is because that is the win scenario in guerrilla conflicts. Take the Philippine-American War, for example. So many atrocities committed and swept under the rug. Yet, it ended with the enemy faction gone and the Philippines pacified. It had many of what could be called "genocidal acts". Compare that war to the Vietnam War, where when isolated groups of soldiers got pissed off at the local population for collaboration with the enemy, they wiped out an entire village of people at My Lai. It was made into a huge deal, and those involved would have been done for had it not been for public outcry. Winning hearts and minds doesn't work when you're occupying someone's land. It is a different thing entirely if you drive out a foreign army, but if you're fighting local militias, terrorist groups, or that nation's army, you cannot win the support of the people. Caesar was only able to win Gaul by playing tribes against each other.
>>581550 Hey, what are your thoughts on the holocaust, my man? Just a simple series of events, no moral value judgments to be made, or even entailed in the history of the event itself? Dichotomizing morality and history is one of the dumbest memes on this board.
>>581544 >I am a real American, fight for the rights of every man >This book makes me cry myself to sleep holding a picture of Cecil Rhodes every night. >Frequently Bought Together: Niall Ferguson's turd >some irrelevant ramble about guerrilla warfare yeah quality post
Anyway I'm going to judge a book by its cover and say that your book is biased and highly politicized. Putting the picture of starving people underneath and image of a British officer being doted on is pretty sleezy.
I don't deny that Anglo-Saxons are scum (they are little better than Jews, Turks or Arabs) but OP I think you should go read something positive about the British Empire now.
>>581568 I never said I fight for the rights of every man. I don't believe in rights. I fight for privileges for me and mine.
>some irrelevant ramble about guerrilla warfare Armchair historian who knows nothing about tactics and strategy detected. I have had training on tactics and the principles of warfare as applied to formulating strategic objectives. There is literally no room within conventional military thought to deal with insurgent conflicts and win while still adhering to the law of land warfare.
>>581584 >literally judges a book by its cover and proud of it >can't even read an amazon-tier abstract >generalizations and idiotic hateful comments Fuck off. It's people like you that are the cancer of this board. Go post a philosophy maymay or something.
>>581583 >the Nuremberg Trials were not at all an attempt to do any of those things Yeah, the Western Allies, Soviets, and the defeated Germans just had a grand ol' tea party, and nobody was executed as a result of any verdicts derived from them.
>>581591 >Armchair historian who knows nothing about tactics and strategy detected. >I have had training on tactics and the principles of warfare as applied to formulating strategic objectives. kekkles the irony
>>581591 What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.
>>581594 Good going, you're able to read wikipedia excerpts. Now tell me what are the prerequisites of persecution of war crimes, what is the definition of genocide, and how is men rea defined in the context of international law. Again, it's slightly more complicated than "we be gud dey be evil". You know, after 2k years of moral, legal and theological deliberations on those questions we became quite good at fending off retarded arguments such as yours.
Yet your entire argument boils down to 'hurr you must have read wikipedia if you don't agree.'
As if no such arguments exist inside history textbooks, our media, or the political brass across the Western world.
>no morality applies, its all just events happening >he says this while supporting imperial states that used morality or 'civilizing influences' as a basis for colonialism and their overall foreign policies for a century or more Looks like you're projecting your own ignorance or dishonesty.
>>581599 I love how 4chan is the only place in the world where qualifications actually disqualifies you from the discussion. It gives shitposters everything they need to arrogantly excuse themselves from the conversation, instead of trying to learn through discourse. Because nobody on 4chan actually does anything outside of 4chan.
I literally get paid by the Army to learn and execute shit that /his/ posters have wet dreams about.
>>581618 It doesn't, I don't know why that freak brought it up, I don't think he comprehends that 'holocaust' in the context of colonialism doesn't necessarily refer to instances of retaliation against insurgency.
>>581625 >I love how 4chan is the only place in the world where qualifications actually disqualifies you from the discussion. aw poor baby, doesn't expect to be made a joke of in the internet because he flaunted his >qualifications protip: show, don't tell
>>581623 You are speaking with more than one person and are presented with more than one set of arguments. My own point wasn't that "it's all a series of event", but rather than the jurisprudence that was applied in Nuremberg is, contrary to what you are suggesting, takes into account issues such as jus ad bellum, proportionality, civilian targeting and so on and so forth. It's slightly more complicated than "killing people is bad k?"
i seriosuly dont see how you can even apply morality to such a event, on that scale, that magnitude of systemic destructivness, that historical context, making a overall moral judgment on such a thing is just a silly generalisation and completely misses the point, for it to have meaning it would have to be applicable directly to each and every individual involved, but it isnt, since the thing was the result of a mass process, a whole system of proceses, in which individual human morality meant practicaly nothing, overall it was simply not a factor, and does not ad to understanding of what happened, and what happend was terrifying, traumatic, beyond tragic, precisely because it was so fundamentaly human
by subjecting any such event to a moral evaluation youre not adding or removing anything, it doesent even help to understand what happened, is happening and will continue to happen, which is fascinating and alarming beyond any notion of morality that you or me might have
>Mfw Brits, and Americans while we're at it, act like they were 100% rift and moral in every decision, no matter what damage it causes to everyone else around them, including themselves and future generations.
Why is this? Germans can admit they fucked up, Spaniards can admit they fucked up. Hell, even Frogs can admit they fucked up every once in a while.
Why are they so utterly blind to the consequences of their actions.
>>581634 In time, /his/friend. I have high hopes for this board. As it stands now, with all the /pol/fags around, I'm not expecting anybody to out themselves. Once the dust sort of settles, the /pol/fags leave, and the quality of original posts increases dramatically, you will see a lot of qualified people here. I know for a fact that there are legit academics that browse this board, as well as other military members like myself. Nobody is going to out themselves, because the crab-in-a-bucket mentality /pol/fags will dox the shit out of them.
>>581642 I doubt that I am, appears to be a bit of samefagging or people adopting very similar positions attempting to whitewash or explain away crimes committed by the Anglosphere abroad.
...And I've already made many posts in this thread that do show that what the British did in India is morally equivalent to the crimes committed by the nazis or by the soviets, for someone to turn around and say that morality and history do not apply while defending countries that argued the opposite in colonial endeavours is laughable.
Its smacks of ignorance or dishonesty, and the counter-argument is to effectively engage in 'not as bad as' fallacies, hair-splitting, playing stupid, jingoism, projecting, and skating past posts in the thread that argued otherwise.
Not at all convincing, and it does very much look like shitposting pretending to be rational thought.
>>581679 Not only do you not know who you're talking to, I don't think you even know what their alignment is.
I'm the person you originally replied to, someone other than me is replying to you, and >I doubt that I am, appears to be a bit of samefagging or people adopting very similar positions attempting to whitewash or explain away crimes committed by the Anglosphere abroad. and >for someone to turn around and say that morality and history do not apply while defending countries that argued the opposite in colonial endeavours is laughable. Makes no sense since this entire thread my posts, and the post you originally replied to, have pretty much the same sentiments as you.
tl;dr: Not sure if the other guy doesn't, but I don't actually disagree with you, and you might not have picked up on the sarcasm in my questions.
but no one is actualy defending anyone here, its clear and well known that british used startegies similar to hlodomor all over the place, that millions starved to death in india and ireland etc, weather this was planned or simply a convenient set of circumstance the british capitalised on, we could go on and on counting all the things they did to people all over the globe, but what we are fighting over here is just your moralfaging, youre simply going after people that dont agree with your wiev of such moral judgments being relevant
Nobody questions anglo imperialism because the UK itself was never clearly defeated and thus not subjected to humiliation nor had its heartland plundered. Blame capitalist solidarity or luck or whatever.
The common man's questionable logic of 'it failed because it was destined to fail and therefore was bad' cannot be applied due to this.
>>581197 >as if a book with the word 'holocaust' is going to be anything more than propaganda
>>581523 >The GDP of the subcontinent drastically dropped as a result of British presence as well. untrue. The GDP of India rose drastically under British rule. The reason everyone thinks it fell is because 1) graphs seem to usually present India's share of global GDP, which fell as a proportion because of the explosion of industrial growth in Europe, and 2) because India's population increased even faster so the average Indian remained dirt poor.
India's population remained more or less stable from 300BC to 1600AD at between 100 and 150 million. So at the beginning of the British Imperial period the population of India was approximately 150 million. By independence it had passed 350 million. And before the introduction of contraceptives, increasing population basically meant increasing living standards.
There were always famines in India. That's simply how Indian agriculture worked - it was reliant on the monsoons and if the monsoons failed, people starved. Every generation or so there would be a major famine. The reason this seemed to be 'worse' under the British is because firstly the large population growth meant there were more casualties than before, and secondly previous famines tended to only hit one area, which would be very badly effected. When the British unified India politically and started integrating the economy, instead of hitting at the point of production - i.e. a farmer's harvest failed and he and his family starved - shortages manifested as rising food prices across the continent, meaning that instead of being concentrated in the area the harvest failures hit worst, the poorest people in every part of India went hungry.
>>581719 Most extensive colonial projects fail, and are therefore bad. Any educated person with knowledge of history could have understood that in the 1800s, as indeed was the case. It was an ambivalent project to begin with.
>>581720 >There were always famines in India. That's simply how Indian agriculture worked - it was reliant on the monsoons and if the monsoons failed, people starved. Every generation or so there would be a major famine. The reason this seemed to be 'worse' under the British is because firstly the large population growth meant there were more casualties than before, and secondly previous famines tended to only hit one area, which would be very badly effected. When the British unified India politically and started integrating the economy, instead of hitting at the point of production - i.e. a farmer's harvest failed and he and his family starved - shortages manifested as rising food prices across the continent, meaning that instead of being concentrated in the area the harvest failures hit worst, the poorest people in every part of India went hungry.
And then you go and make yourself look stupid by ignoring that the actual primary cause of the greatest famines in India was the completely unusual, unlike you purport it, effects of the el nino. The British significantly exacerbated the effects of this natural disaster by consciously ignoring its effects while exporting what they could from what agriculture still functioned.
Also, when avoid explicit details of the worst famines in India, British India no less, of the 19th century by framing that period with long-term facts and generalizations about the region's population and agriculture, your reductive intentions show too.
>>581732 tell that to the Chinese. Or the Americans. Or the Russians. Or the Brazilians. Or the Australians. Or the Indonesians. Or any country in North or South America for that matter.
For some reason, colonialism only counts when its done by countries which don't share a land border with the places they're conquering. With is a completely ridiculous definition when you think about it. So why is it used? Because it provided an argument against the European empires while neatly ignoring expansionism by post-WW2 powers like America, Russia and China.
Britain holds onto one tiny island in the South Atlantic and everyone calls them imperialists and thinks Argentina's unprovoked military invasion was somehow justified. Meanwhile, Indonesia genocides papuans and no one gives and shit. China annexes Tibet and although people complain no one actually does anything. Brazil continues to force Native amazonian tribes off their lands and no one even notices because according to a line on the map that bore no relation to the real world until recently, they're technically part of Brazil already. 'Colonialism' is just shorthand for 'fuck Europe'.
>>581764 >Chinese How are they expansive? >Americans Haven't acquired new territory since the 1800s >Russians The Crimea affair, while difficult and slightly violent, can't really be called colonialism in the strict sense. More like irredentism. >Brazilians ? >Australians ?? >Indonesians You lost me
>implying that el nino only became a thing in the 19th century As I said, every few decades the monsoons would fail so badly that there would be a major famine somewhere in India. Saying 'the monsoon failure caused by el nino' instead of just 'the monsoon failure' is somewhat redundant. Unless you're trying to suggest that el nino was a creation of the British (and frankly at this point I wouldn't put it past you)
>>581694 Well a miscommunication would be a good answer, sure, especially given the anonymous nature of this board, and it is easy at times to not pick up if someone is being facetious with a statement/question or not.
Keep in mind there are also paid shills by certain governments who post pro-X nations viewpoints and it can be difficult to discern between said shills and people making simple points.
Doesn't help either there are shitposters on this board who switch positions to bait others while pretending to be serious, had a few arguments in other boards already with people who do that while defending the Anglosphere in all it does.
>>581695 A couple of examples, here >>581333 >>581502 Even the book itself uses said comparisons, at least with the nazis, and others in the thread have done similar, I'm not alone in that department. Many Indians certainly look at British colonial rule that way.
>>581709 >but no one is actualy defending anyone here There certainly are attempts in this thread to explain away British attrocities as I outlined, even if who may be doing it is misattributed.
The 'moralfagging' itself isn't exactly disagreed on by at least one of the others, so I'm not alone in that respect. Likewise, to argue a position that it doesn't apply does depend somewhat, and cannot be argued as a solely British example without an extension to other colonial/imperial regimes in the past, and the real moralfagging itself is done by those trying to make a moral conflict out of the World Wars/Cold War, while ignoring what the skeletons in the closet of the Anglosphere.
>>581518 this is another form of oppression, no worse than shilling imperialism
currently, the ideology causing the most suffering is objectively left wing populists creating propaganda to support dictatorships and corrupt politicians in the undeveloped world just because they claim to be left wing like they are >>581519 >narrative, and clearly from such an unbiased source, what a riveting tale Are you actually accusing me of being an imperialist shill? Do you think no one has ever seen this meme before?
Absolutely everyone in the british empire was pure evil?
The regimes they replaced were better in every respect?
I accept the British were tyrants but at the same time the British did help spread technology by ending isolationism and due to the liberal elements back home they made some effort to do things like end slavery. However you say that the British were 100% worse all the time every time in absolutely every situation, you are willing to insult a fellow anon's great grandfather by implying he is a liar. You are like those edgy anarchists who graffiti war memorials
Who is the one with the narrative here? If your motivation is to remove the narrative used to justify imperialism, isn't this a moral goal? Shouldn't you also be interested in removing the justification for tyranny in all its forms? Doesn't that mean you should take an honest look at what tyranny exactly is and how it ended.
Also, history is boring when it is just some one sided shill or someone hysterical over racism spouting memes. >>581523 > the crimes committed between the two are not comparable So we are not allowed to perform one of the most basic logical processes needed to make objective inferences about history. Everything must be subjective and of course your particular subjective perspective.
>>581764 >For some reason, colonialism only counts when its done by countries which don't share a land border with the places they're conquering. Because that's the definition it had since the times of the greeks, you idiot. Look at greek colonies outside the eastern mediterranean for example. It's not a conspiracy against Europe, it's a term coined by the europeans themselves that became a bad word after WW2 with the formation of the UN. Of course there were some cases of late micro-colonialism in the Americas, Chile and the United States being an example, but today Rapa Nui and Hawaii are both full members of their respective countries.
>>581772 >Americans >Haven't acquired new territory since the 1800s Britain acquired the Falklands in the 1830s, and that hasn't stopped the Argentinians bitching about imperialism. Likewise with places like Curaçao. Also, Hawaii and Alaska didn't become states until the 1950s. Also, what about not-quite-a-state puerto rico, and other places like guam?
>Russia Russia in the east is made up of a bunch of quasi-independent republics of the native siberian peoples. Yet no one calls these colonies (or even is aware of them, apparently)
>Brazilians Brazil only started really exploring the Amazon in the later 20th century. There are still tribes living there today who have very little contact with the outside world. Yet these people are considered 'brazilians' for some reason, despite the fact that they probably don't even know what Brazil is, and no one complains when they're chased off their land by loggers.
>Australians Again, just because they acquired their territory in the 19th century doesn't mean it doesn't count
>Indonesians I should have said javanese. Upon independence from the Dutch there was the question of whether all the disparate peoples would remain part of a single country. The native peoples of Papua, for example, are about as far removed ethnically from the javanese as the javanese were from the Dutch. There was meant to be a free referendum on independence after the dutch left, but the Indonesians conducted this by rounding up a bunch of papuan elders and threatening to shoot them if they didn't vote to stay. Ever since the Indonesians have been merrily slaughtering papuans (several hundred thousand at least, so far) and sending more javanese to colonise the island, and no one seems to care much.
>>581810 This is correct. Another point: settler colonialism is not the same as colonialism per se. Settler colonialism is what you get when a group of people leaves/is expelled from a certain country and goes to settle somewhere else, peacefully or not. Most examples of European "colonialism" that survived to our time is just that, like in the case of commonwealth countries, South Africa, and so on. However there is a huge difference between the two forms at every possible level.
>>581810 >Hawaii are both full members of their respective countries. Guam. American Samoa. Puerto Rico. US Virgin Islands. etc, etc.
>>581793 >You seem to forget that the country fell apart into warlordism and Tibet was considered one breakaway state. I've never understood why Chinese people seem to feel that reminding everyone that their ancestors were also imperialist bullies is an argument. There weren't any Han chinese in Tibet. By that logic the british should be able to walk back into India whenever they feel like it.
>>581807 >So we are not allowed to perform one of the most basic logical processes needed to make objective inferences about history. Everything must be subjective and of course your particular subjective perspective. You are most certainly allowed to voice any viewpoint you wish, I am not holding a gun to your head, if anything I am disagreeing by highlighting that the objective crimes committed by individual thugs in India is incomparable to those of imperial domains, at the very least by scale.
This is before any consideration of 'subjectivity', because I am highlighting that the 'objective moral claim' made by that poster is fallacious and/or attempting to negate any crimes the British themselves committed that would dwarf his anecdotal claim.
>>581818 >puerto rico, and other places like guam? Trivial. Also the residents or PR (don't know about Guam) get full citizenship and legal rights, and can move to the continental US without any restrictions afaik. Russia and Brazil are both examples of relations between majority and minority groups within the country. It might be a shitty affair, hell it might even be outright genocide, but it's not colonialism. >Again, just because they acquired their territory in the 19th century doesn't mean it doesn't count It kinda does. Otherwise almost no acquisitions is legitimate. Also see: settler colonialism. >I should have said javanese. Upon independence from the Dutch there was the question of whether all the disparate peoples would remain part of a single country. The native peoples of Papua, for example, are about as far removed ethnically from the javanese as the javanese were from the Dutch. There was meant to be a free referendum on independence after the dutch left, but the Indonesians conducted this by rounding up a bunch of papuan elders and threatening to shoot them if they didn't vote to stay. Ever since the Indonesians have been merrily slaughtering papuans (several hundred thousand at least, so far) and sending more javanese to colonise the island, and no one seems to care much. Yeah ok.
>>581844 >Trivial. Also the residents or PR (don't know about Guam) get full citizenship and legal rights, and can move to the continental US without any restrictions afaik. I'm not saying its a bad thing. I'm just saying that if somebody invaded Guam, everyone would expect the US to flip its shit, whereas with the Falklands so many people acted like the Argentinian invasion was Britain's fault for not just handing the islands over, despite the fact the two situations are more or less identical.
>Russia and Brazil are both examples of relations between majority and minority groups within the country. It might be a shitty affair, hell it might even be outright genocide, but it's not colonialism. You seem to be arguing semantics. I'm talking about why so much weight is given to one type of conquest while other types are ignored.
>It kinda does. Otherwise almost no acquisitions is legitimate. Again, that's never stopped anyone bitching about Europe's colonies
>>581823 >>581844 >Also see: settler colonialism. I'm curious - which are you trying to say is better? Because in one case, the natives are expelled from their land or slaughtered, and in the other they get to keep their land but are under foreign rule. And yet the nations founded by the first method draw the least criticism.
>>581836 >There weren't any Han chinese in Tibet. Wrong. That's not the justification of China for ruling Tibet.
Instead, Tibet was always under the Chinese Hegemony since the disappearance of the Tibetan State thanks to warring monks. That Hegemony increased under the Ming, with an actual military detachment within Tibet. The Qing inherited Ming's role as overlord of Tibet.
Tibet formally joined China not by a Chinese invasion: but by a Nepali one. The Gurkhas were gunning to create a Himalayan Empire and saw Tibet as fertile ground to start that. Tibet crapped its pants and asked Qing China for help, pretty much declaring to everyone that they ceased to be an independent entity and relied solely on China for protection. Slowly they got absorbed by Imperial Administration and was formally declared a province by the end of the 18th Century.
Let that sink in: Tibetans brought it to themselves.
The only reason why the Dalai Lama is in Exile is that the PRC is Anti-Theocratic. Had the KMT won, he'd be a Chinese religious head of a still Chinese Tibet instead
>>581879 >There weren't any Han chinese in Tibet. >Wrong. That's not the justification of China for ruling Tibet. >wrong the fact that its not the justification they use doesn't mean its wrong.
>Let that sink in: Tibetans brought it to themselves. Do you have any idea how many European colonies were annexed this way? If this was a justification for conquest Britain would have a claim to half of India and a big chunk of Africa.
Honestly, the sheer brazenness of Chinese people never ceases to amaze me.
>>581899 >Do you have any idea how many European colonies were annexed this way? Do you have how many chunks of contemporary nation states were acquired this way? It's called vassalage and it dates from the Peloponnesian War at the very latest.
>>581899 >Do you have any idea how many European colonies were annexed this way? Europeans directly attacked the place they want to colonize and told the world "THE LOCALS THERE WANTED US TO HELP" afterwards
Its different from the Chinese absorption of Tibet, which is...the locals wanting in under your protection since they really cant totally fucking do it.
They can't even function as a state anymore. It was the various Tibetan Monasteries and their religious squabbles fault that their fucking state got ruined past any semblance of a state that it cannot defend itself anymore. Not China's.
>>581920 >Europeans directly attacked the place they want to colonize and told the world "THE LOCALS THERE WANTED US TO HELP" afterwards okay, apparently you don't have any idea how European colonisation functioned.
>>581253 India was mostly taken over through economic means, most Indians considered themselves as part of the common wealth and enjoyed many benefits, any time there was a rebellion it was usually indians that put it down.
>Things were better back when the god-king was stealing my goats and skullfucking my wife. Now that I have electricity I can comfortably complain about the handful of times they screwed up while extracting me from the stone age.
>>581373 It's totally crazy to expect Britain, which outclassed India in technology and organisation so utterly to develop and equal relationship with a country so obviously inferior to it. India should be happy that we invented this technology and that it did eventually make its way to them. Britain's direct involvement also created an educated class of Indians that played an important part in the ruling of the newly independent India. Famines were indeed unfortunate but there were many less well recorded ones before Imperial involvement. Maybe it was for the better in the end, a harsh thing to say, but India's population was skyrocketing out of control during this period, and this is a serious problem today. At the end of the day, it is an indisputable fact that the rest of the world is much better off (let's say materially, to avoid any philosophical arguments) because of British innovation. This is their lasting legacy, not famines or massacres that barely dented already burgeoning populations.
>>581523 >The famines that occurred under British rule, and the British response to them are morally comparable to how the USSR handled the Holodomor,
I don't see how.
Firstly the Soviet Famine of 1932-1933 was produced as an exceptional nationalist narrative, the "holodomor," by CIA funded white reactionaries. Nobody has done this for the Indian famines.
>including the parts of seizing food produce, even if the locals are starving to death,
Secondly, the Soviet Union at the highest level immediately acted to institute food aid during the Soviet Famine of 1932-1933.
> and showing not only a blatant disregard, but even a malevolent contempt of the locals in the process by exporting virtually all of their annual produce during said famines.
Thirdly, the Soviet Union did not seize grain during the 1932-1933 famine, but the Party had engineered a situation where peasants would be utterly reliant upon party controlled market structures during crises, having removed local pre-capitalist methods of famine amelioration.
The only way in which Indian and Soviet famines are comparable is that they're both the result of capitalism.
>>583675 >these two famines are in no way identical and here is why >the Holodomor is CIA fiction or propaganda to spread lies about how wonderful Soviet Union was >everything that isn't my hyper specific form of communism is automatically capitalism Stalin apologist opinion discarded.
Double-chins leftard political board is where you belong.
>>585293 Time for you to read the Radio America / Radio Free Europe archives.
>CIA fiction or propaganda to spread lies about how wonderful Soviet Union was I wasn't aware until now that the CIA believed the Soviet Union was wonderful. Please supply your source.
>everything that isn't my hyper specific form of communism is automatically capitalism Wage labour, profits and the expanded reproduction of the value form existed in the Soviet Union (Andrle, Fitzpatrick, Lenin "NEP"). The expanded value form using wage labour to produce profits is the definition of capitalism.
>>585306 >CIA fiction/propaganda to spread lies denying* how wonderful the USSR was Left out a word after having difficulty posting this the first time... 4chan spam issues, likely surrounding key words.
>Wage labour, profits and the expanded reproduction of the value form existed in the Soviet Union Golly gee, you mean communism, the political ideology which promises a stateless, classless, borderless society somehow might be grounded in fantasy, and that the bloodthirsty murderers who founded the USSR may not have seen this?
>>585350 Thank you for agreeing that communism is an unworkable, retarded theory, that even most of its real world practitioners realize this by changing it, and that you're a shitposting denier of the crimes they committed, because you're hair splitting over ideological fundamentalism.
>>585354 >Thank you for agreeing that communism is an unworkable, retarded theory, that even most of its real world practitioners realize this by changing it,
Of course it is. Communism is a praxis of the proletariat, not the ideology of a bunch of intelligentsia.
>and that you're a shitposting denier of the crimes they committed
I directly attributed the starvation in the Ukraine to their policy of politically destroying the peasantry and to their gross failure to distribute effective food aid.
>hair splitting "Splitting hairs" is the phrase. And there's a big difference between a capitalist economy where wage labour exists and profits are extracted and a society where the working class manages itself.
>>585364 >I directly attributed the starvation in the Ukraine to their policy of politically destroying the peasantry and to their gross failure to distribute effective food aid. By attributing it to capitalism, and claiming that the Holodomor itself is CIA propaganda.
>"Splitting hairs" is the phrase. Both uses are valid, your 'correction' is unwarranted, as is your Soviet revisionist history.
>>585388 >By attributing it to capitalism The soviet nomenklatura individually and collectively as the controllers of the trusts and banks in the Soviet Union benefitted from capitalism. They were capitalists.
I didn't attribute the famine to capitalism, I attributed it to the particular features of the nomenklatura's class war against the peasantry. As the Ural-Siberian method's popularity with urban workers shows, the Soviet proletariat would have implemented a similarly barbaric attack on the Soviet peasantry. You need remedial literacy.
>and claiming that the Holodomor itself is CIA propaganda.
The white reactionary Ukrainian associations were funded by the CIA front RA/RFE. The description of the Soviet Famine of 1932-1933 as a peculiarly and deliberate genocide, ie "The Holodomor" narrative was produced by these organisations.
At no stage have I denied the existence of the 1932-1933 Soviet famine.
>as if your Soviet revisionist history I guess you don't want the current state of research in Soviet studies either. Thanks for demonstrating that you have no interest in history. Kindly fuck off to >>>/x/
Mike Davis has a point about the Famines in British India, but of course, since he is a communist and his book is nothing more than revolutionary propaganda, he has to include sections about famines in other parts of the world so he could claim that this phenomenom was "inherent" to capitalism and not just the Brits acting like cunts to a subjected people, like most Empires in history do.
So he had to include sections about famines in places like Northeast Brazil, that didn't even had private property and wage labour until the 1960s.
>>585461 Says the one that denies, because it doesn't fit his political narrative and interests, the intent of the Soviet government to instrumentalize a famine in Ukraine to destroy the social basis for Ukrainian nationalism.
>>585558 >How do you turn a famine into an instrument?
By, I don't know... using it to weaken a population that wants nothing to do with your political union?
>Which is weird because the Soviet Famine of 1932-1933 was a general famine.
Maybe you're confusing it with the famines of 1924-25
>And which is also weird because the Ural-Siberian method started, not in the Ukraine, but in, oh shit, Trans-Ural Siberia.
Immaterial. What's important is that they spread and inflamed the famine in the Ukraine.
>And it makes it really fucking weird that the Politbureau's reaction to the famine was to authorise immediate and sufficient grain shipments into the republic from other republics.
Nobody wants to be caught in the act. Yes, they can authorize grain shipments. That's meaningless if they're still exporting the domestically produced grain from the Ukraine. This is, assuming you're not pulling some /pol/ tier denialism about this.
>>585614 >By, I don't know... using it to weaken a population that wants nothing to do with your political union? I can see you're ESL. I'll stop teasing you about your metaphor's content and bus being in disagreement.
>Maybe you're confusing it Nope. It was multi-republic.
>still exporting grain from the Ukraine Which they didn't. Read some post-archival research for fucks sake.
>>585708 And now we see the tanky! Confronted by his own inconsistent logic as he seeks to lash out with insults, out of context quotes... Anything to point away from his slowly dawning realization that maybe he's not as brilliant as his mommy back in Marin County told him that he was.
>>585429 When someones trying to grab you by the emotions right from the cover (never mind the first page) it's not generally going to be a good sign is it? Still his publisher probably picked it for him, sells more copies and all that.
Thread replies: 160 Thread images: 15
Thread DB ID: 444605
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.