- Joined
- Jul 20, 2011
- Messages
- 53,938
- Reaction score
- 30,987
Not just the Bengal famine, there were other famines not too removed from it such as one in the late 19th century after the EITC was nationalized and capitalism came to become the dominant imperial ideology.1. So the 31 famines over several hundred years has little to do with free market policies then. But this one does.
That he hated Indians is not in question, he's been quoted openly as saying such and I produced such a quote earlier. When first told of the famine his initial response was "Why hasn't Gandhi died yet?"I have no problem with your opinion that Winston Churchill messed things up badly in this case, though your earlier claims that he hated Indians and didn't care if they died did not hold up well.
If you want to ignore that, then fine but history is still there to be known whether you wish to know it or not.
Again, laissez faire capitalism was the ideology of the late British Empire but that does not mean it created a free market that holds up to the standards of laissez faire in theory just as the USSR did not enact communism in a way that holds up to Marxist theory. And yet in the case of the latter you likely do not buy the "not real communism" excuse but in defense of capitalism you do. To me, that suggest ideologically motivated readings of history.2. How can we describe a situation where the prime minister across the globe needs to authorize every movement of shipping as laissez faire? Your own description of this situation is self-refuting.
The natural disaster sparked the famine but that does not mean it was the sole cause. It was the political economy of India that made it vulnerable to famine and also increased their severity. And as I mentioned earlier certain policies aggravated the famine such as the denial policy which lead to the destroying of rice stocks and boats, both of which would've alleviated the famine.3. You are trying desperately to morally equate a famine deliberately caused by Stalin with the intention of starving millions of Ukrainians to death to break their nascent independence movement with a famine caused by a natural disaster where the British brought in 350K tons of foodstuffs from Australia to alleviate the suffering?
In addition, Churchill was said to have preferred to feed a sturdy Greek over an underfed Bengali and created stockpiles in Europe during the famine. He blamed the Indians themselves on their famine and also prevented the an Australian ship from disembarking its foodstuffs in Calcutta. Thankfully he was only a Prime Minister, not a God-Emperor, and it seems the sane and less evil men around him were able to get him to send aid, though even the apologist links admit they were not enough.
You keep misreading me. Its not simply their insufficient response, that would be forgivable. But it was the political economy they imposed upon India that made it vulnerable to severe famine and deliberate policies made with imperial strategy in mind that aggravated the Bengal famine in particular.I can understand the criticism that the Brits ought to have done more, but to equate their insufficient response with deliberate murder seems obtuse to me. I don't think we are going to make much progress in this conversation at least along the current lines, so please have the last word.
Last edited: