"Late Victorian Holocausts" ?

#1
This information is something new for me. It is true?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1673991,00.html

Mike Davis tells the story of famines that killed between 12 and 29 million Indians. These people were, he demonstrates, murdered by British state policy.
...
In the labour camps, the workers were given less food than inmates of Buchenwald. In 1877, monthly mortality in the camps equated to an annual death rate of 94%.
...
British troops suppressed the Mau Mau revolt in Kenya in the 1950s...The British responded by driving up to 320,000 of them into concentration camps. Most of the remainder - more than a million - were held in "enclosed villages". Prisoners were questioned with the help of "slicing off ears, boring holes in eardrums, flogging until death, pouring paraffin over suspects who were then set alight, and burning eardrums with lit cigarettes". British soldiers used a "metal castrating instrument" to cut off testicles and fingers.
The author of the article suggests that too few in the UK know these facts. Is he right?

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1674087,00.html

Secondary school teachers are urged to move away from concentrating too much on the Hitler years in new guidance on teaching postwar German history published today by the government's exam regulator.
But WW2 (an important event in the British history) happened exactly in 'the Hitler years'. And I don't understand how it possible 'to move away from concentrating too much' on concentration camps.
 
#3
KGB_resident said:
This information is something new for me. It is true?

The author of the article suggests that too few in the UK know these facts. Is he right?
Until we know that they are 'facts', no. This time of year is the time we get all sorts of filler articles. Be interesting to see what 'facts' he could dream up/substantiate about, say, Gulags to suit his agenda, income on a per word basis and thin news time. Also, the period back then (Indian starvation) was quite different. Even Dwyer was regarded as hero when he got back from Amritsar. Cardigan stood trial for attacking Russian guns with Light Brigade and was found not guilty. Blowing mutineers away from barrel of cannon was also acceptable back then. We were what we were.
 
#5
IndianaDel said:
well KGB, all I will say is are you "Giddy with Success"?
IndianaDel!

What do you mean by the success? As for me then this word hardly could be used in the context of this thread. So I'm simply unable to be 'giddy'.

I suspected that there were crimes (including war crimes) in British colonial pasts. Being aware about Boer war I was sufficiently prepared but anyway the facts (in Gardian's article) are new for me. Do you familiar with them too?

PS. Btw, how many native Americans are living in Indiana now?
 
#7
dutybooty said:
thanks for informing us that WW2 is "an important event in the British history"
Hi Dutybooty!

Thanks for correction.

Yes, I should wrote "absolutely unimportant event" (as it follows form declared policy).
 
#8
IndianaDel said:
Hmmm then KGB, you do not know your Stalin
I would like to asure you that as Russian I know history of my Motherland well enough.

My point: attention to Stalin's atricities (they took place of course) was (and is) so huge because of political reasons (even now, then communism is dead in Russia).

Do you agree with me, that other atrocities were put in the shadow and are hardly known in the West?
 
#9
I agree that History is both subjective as well as Objective. As to the Histriography of the quoted articles, I will have to look in to that.
 
#10
OldRedCap said:
KGB_resident said:
This information is something new for me. It is true?

The author of the article suggests that too few in the UK know these facts. Is he right?
Until we know that they are 'facts', no. This time of year is the time we get all sorts of filler articles. Be interesting to see what 'facts' he could dream up/substantiate about, say, Gulags to suit his agenda, income on a per word basis and thin news time. Also, the period back then (Indian starvation) was quite different. Even Dwyer was regarded as hero when he got back from Amritsar. Cardigan stood trial for attacking Russian guns with Light Brigade and was found not guilty. Blowing mutineers away from barrel of cannon was also acceptable back then. We were what we were.
We were what we were. Couldn't agree more. But should our children forget about it.

Secondary school teachers are urged to move away from concentrating too much on the Hitler years in new guidance on teaching postwar German history published today by the government's exam regulator.
I feel something wrong here. Am I right?
 
#11
Hadnt got a clue about it .Did know there was a famine during ww11
as well which was probably our fault as well . If the powers that be could let the Irish starve , And clear the scots off their land .Certainly starving the Indians would not upset anyone .
History is a big subject ww11 is important as is the empire . But going down the path of mel gibsons version of the english are complete bastards
is as inacurate as how the english civilised the world
 
#12
The winners never get taken to War Crimes courts.
Irish potato famine - there has been some revisionist history on this; I do not know enough to evaulate it so will not post.There is this though
The suggestion that the Famine "amounted to genocide" by the British against the Irish is a divisive issue. Few Irish historians accept outright such a definition, as "genocide" implies a deliberate policy of extermination. All are agreed that the British policies during the Famine, particularly those applied under Lord John Russell, were misguided, ill-informed and disastrous. Irish poet Jonathan Swift had satirized the plight of the Irish in relation to English economic domination almost a century prior to the famine in his masterpiece "A Modest Proposal" (1729). Professor Joe Lee called what happened a holocaust. (See Democide).

The "debate" is largely a moral one, attempting to ascertain whether within the policies of the British Empire lay a racist, forgetful, or simply inconsiderate mentality that, despite its power, made it impotent to handle a humanitarian crisis in its own backyard, or whether a large reduction in Ireland's population was looked on as a favourable outcome by a large segment of the British body politic, who then decided to let nature take its course. Some Irish, British and US historians F.S.L. Lyons, John A. Murphy, Joe Lee, Roy Foster, and James S. Donnelly, Jr., as well as historians Cecil Woodham-Smith, Peter Gray, Ruth Dudley Edwards and many others have long dismissed claims of a deliberate policy of extermination. This dismissal usually does not preclude any assessment of British Imperial rule as ill-mannered or unresponsive toward certain of its subjects.
Here is something re Boer War
The Boer War concentration camps aroused outrage and fury back in Britain, led by temperance crusader Emily Hobhouse. She described “deportations… a burned-out population brought in by hundreds of convoys… semi-starvation in the camps… fever-stricken children lying on the bare earth… appalling mortality.”

The camps provoked Lloyd George to thunder, “When is a war not a war? When it is carried on by methods of barbarism.” Even the all-woman Fawcett Committee, which supported the British war but made intrepid inspections of the concentration camps, was struck by the conditions at Mafeking, where women were washing clothes in water fouled by excreta, or at Brandfort, where an epidemic killed 337 people in three weeks. These places were by no means Auschwitz or Belsen, but they were concentration camps.
I post these to support my point that things were different back then. What was done etc. No use crying over spilt milk.
Better we learn that war can make base animals of anyone. Standards are ignored. We in this modern age are better aware of that and try to act in decency. We can no more correct what was done than we can change the colour of our grandmother's eyes. Rehashing those times only leads to dissent and dispute - almost war eh?
 
#13
NKVD man, that man of yours is being selective again in his posts why did he miss out

"Even in places that had produced a crop surplus, the government's export policies, like Stalin's in Ukraine, manufactured hunger."

Shame on you, you should have him trained better by now for was not Pavlov a Rooshin?
john
And Ireland when the potatoe ( Dan Quayle spelling) was brought ta Europe the population of Ireland was 2 mill by mid 1800s 4 million so cuntry was ripe for problems. Onest.
 
#14
Serge - You are a tedious kind of cove. Always trolling, without any kind of ironic approach towards the Motherland and its parlous political state (fascist Vladimir Putin). :twisted:

You quote Monbiot without any reference to his equally tedious politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot). Go back to condemning the Kulaks you arrse. :evil:

BTW - "12 and 29 million" is a fairly big spread. Ever thought it could be billsheite. Given most of your posts, probably not. :cry:
 
#15
Dear friends!

With a great interest I have read you highly polite and emotionally coloured posts. But I have an imperssion that the quotes from Guardian misled you. Please, reread my first post on this thread and you will discover that my own words are absolutely innocent. Any sort of insulting of you Britishness was not among my intentions.

Gentlemen! I feel that we have a common understanding that there, on this forum we have an excellent possibility to discuss any historical events in a calm academic manner. In this context I very much appresiate your contribution.

Currymunter! As I see you (softly speaking) don't like mr.Putin. By the way I'm not his fan too. But it is too hard task for me to understand how it is connected with the theme of this thread.

John! It seems to me that you are upset. What is the matter? I haven't any idea.

Best regards from Moscow! Happy new year!
 
#16
I don't think your man is looking after you. We will have to have full report on him, means ta say he does'nt shave ! Is he a Football player?
john
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#17
I would treat any article in The Guardian (AKA The Newspeak dictionary) with the contempt it deserves, what you need to understand Sergey is that there is a poicy to rewrite British history in the worst possible light in order to justify some of the policies being imposed on our people now. Our history is being hijacked by those that despise the achievments of The British Empire (Abolishment of slavery for instance) I'm not saying negative things didn't happen but look at what is happening now in some of our former colonies since independence (Zimbabwe for example) and tell me they are better off now? Even if we were responsible for some atrocities, thats the way things were with the world then, we were no worse than anyone else and in fact a damn sight better than most. Put against the 50 Million plus that Stalin did away with, the 20 million Soviets who died as a result of combat and German scorched earth policy pales into insignificance. If we are going to get all historical about atrocities, I suggest you study what happened during the scourging of The North by William the Conqueror following 1066. Every nation has been a victim of atrocities at sometime in the past, it's called the history of the human race.
 
#18
we are evil we are the ultimate bad guys BWhahaaahhahhahahaa!
 
#19
Herrenbloke said:
I would treat any article in The Guardian (AKA The Newspeak dictionary) with the contempt it deserves, what you need to understand Sergey is that there is a poicy to rewrite British history in the worst possible light in order to justify some of the policies being imposed on our people now. Our history is being hijacked by those that despise the achievments of The British Empire (Abolishment of slavery for instance) I'm not saying negative things didn't happen but look at what is happening now in some of our former colonies since independence (Zimbabwe for example) and tell me they are better off now? Even if we were responsible for some atrocities, thats the way things were with the world then, we were no worse than anyone else and in fact a damn sight better than most. Put against the 50 Million plus that Stalin did away with, the 20 million Soviets who died as a result of combat and German scorched earth policy pales into insignificance. If we are going to get all historical about atrocities, I suggest you study what happened during the scourging of The North by William the Conqueror following 1066. Every nation has been a victim of atrocities at sometime in the past, it's called the history of the human race.
Herrenbloke! I agree with your main point. History is history and can't be remade. But history must not be forgotten. I don't think that it would be reasonable to say that 'our atrocities were better than yours' - it is an absurd. As to former British colonies then you haven't mentioned USA. '50 Million plus that Stalin...' Don't you think 'that there were a policy to rewrite Russian history in the worst possible light'?
 
#20
I've no doubt in my mind that British crimes against humanity did happen. They are well enough documented. You can count the concentration camps and the Irish famine out of those however because neither was an orchestrated attempt to kill people.

1: The Boer Camps were a reasonable enough idea until food became scarce and malnutrition led to disease. This caused an outcry in parliament and relifef was provided. The camps were provisioned properly after that and medical attention was given and hygiene improved. The deaths stopped.

2. The Irish famine was caused by the collapse in price for agricultural produce. The potato blight came about as the Irish tenant farmers tried to grow enough on their small plots of land to feed their families. The land became drained and that's what caused the blight. Ireland had 70 MP's in Westminster and they lobbied for both famine relief and changes in the land laws (see the Land Reform act, Ireland c1840). The population of Ireland was 9,000,000 (approx) and it fell to 4,000,000 and never rose above 5,000,000 since. Most of the loss of population was because of emigration but several million did starve to death.

You can call the above a result of inept government but you can't accuse the British government of a deliberate policy of genocide.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
P The Intelligence Cell 1
Adjutant The Intelligence Cell 375
GROWNUPS_BEWARE The Intelligence Cell 0

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top