4 ms·

where do people get the idea that british were nice in India? They killed millions in WW2 famines alone (to fund the war campaign). The reprisals after 1857 mut

where do people get the idea that british were nice in India? They killed millions in WW2 famines alone (to fund the war campaign). The reprisals after 1857 mutiny is said to have killed 10 million Indians. Right there from two incidents you have 15 million deaths. British were much more save than the Nazis when it comes to genocide of "others", colonization, savagery etc. They get a free pass in the west as opposed to the Nazis simply because British killed Asians, Africans and Native Americans when Nazis killed fellow whites. This is pure racism.

_khau 7y ago
As a Brit, I can confirm that there is a large section of our population that thinks the empire was a positive thing and pines for a return to it. Even the 'white man's burden' is viewed by many as a necessary endeavour. It's the number one criticism I have of my own country (and I have many). It's nationalist propaganda that panders to exceptionalism and it seems to have worked on half of the electorate unfortunately.
- brigandish 7y ago
  I would say a large section of our population want to go back to a certain style of governance that they believe (true or not) was around during the empire, that of strong economic liberalism and free trade with the rest of the world. I'd say it's one of the big philosophical differences with the EU (its protectionism is its main defining characteristic, after all) that has led to the Brexit vote. The number of people who want the empire back though, I reckon you could count those on one hand.
Doubl 7y ago
Europe has not given itself a free pass when it comes to colonialism. For example, at the moment they're hiding a bell in Cambridge University lest it turns out to have formerly been used on a slave plantation. There was no government organised genocide in British colonial history that I know of, not even in Ireland in the 17th century where arguably the worst atrocities were carried out. Saying Britain killed millions in India in WW2 is complete hyperbole.
- dghf 7y ago
  > Saying Britain killed millions in India in WW2 is complete hyperbole. Between two and three million people died in the Bengal Famine of 1943. The extent to which the British regime was responsible is still debated, but it would seem that the Churchill government refused to supply food aid (or at least only supplied a fraction of that requested) and refused the local administration permission to import food themselves.
  - quetzthecoatl 7y ago
    two to three million is conservative estimates - from the famines in bengal, in world war 2 alone. There were other famines in India during WW2. There were other famines in India during british raj. There were other famines in other colonies.
  - Doubl 7y ago
    The person I was responding to said words to the effect that they killed millions of people in India in order to win the war. That simply isn't true. An inadequate attempt to provide relief is not the same thing as actively killing people.
    - quetzthecoatl 7y ago
      The person you were responding to is me, and yes, it is true that millions of indians were killed to fund war. The famine was directly caused by Briton redirecting the harvested grains and other resources from India for war efforts and scorched earth policies to counter the imminent Japanese invasion from the east (Japanese occupied Burma). Time and again it's whitewashed by blaming the poor people that died from whom the grains were forcefully collected, climate (disputed by everyone except the british and not supported by soil analysis or climate models), and the Japanese.
      - Doubl 7y ago
        You are very certain about something about which they're is no consensus amongst even Indian commentators. Some refer to policy failures. No one apart from you is call it a deliberate killing of millions. I'm not sure why you feel the need to be so vehement about it.
ben_w 7y ago
If it was about skin colour, the deaths of a million Irish in the Great Potato Famine would not be considered “totally different” to the deaths of 3-7 million in the Holodomor, also known as (Stalin’s) “Famine-Genocide in Ukraine”. I think it’s mainly that the UK, as the winner, got to write the history books. (I’m not claiming that it cannot be partly racism — how many of “us” know about the Belgian Congo? — but mainly it’s “we are settlers, you are colonisers, they are invaders” and “our boys are heroes, your boys are soldiers, their boys are barbarians” in people’s minds).
- watwut 7y ago
  Racism is not only about skin color. Nazi seen other whites as different race too - Jews, Slavic and British for that matter too.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    I know. My response was in the context of (paraphrased) “why are systematic deaths of Asians, Africans and Native Americans at the hands of Caucasians given a free pass when the same crimes against Jews were correctly prosecuted?” — and that is a difference of skin colour.
    - quetzthecoatl 7y ago
      Where did I mention skin color? I mentioned "others" and racism. In the case of Irish, it was religious fanaticism ("Others"). For the record, I am not saying it's not skin color. Primarily it's race/nationality (=~ skin color), and thus british empire falls on the same side of West/Europe/Caucasian people. What other reason is there for the people of west to not treat the atrocities that colonial empires committed (towards brown/black/native people) the same as what Naizs did to white european jews? Especially given what the colonialists were an order of magnitude more cruel in both savagery and the number of people murdered? As with any puritanism movement, there are other factors determining "purity". Aside from skin color, you have religious denomination.
      - 7y ago

_khau 7y ago

As a Brit, I can confirm that there is a large section of our population that thinks the empire was a positive thing and pines for a return to it. Even the 'white man's burden' is viewed by many as a necessary endeavour. It's the number one criticism I have of my own country (and I have many). It's nationalist propaganda that panders to exceptionalism and it seems to have worked on half of the electorate unfortunately.

brigandish 7y ago
I would say a large section of our population want to go back to a certain style of governance that they believe (true or not) was around during the empire, that of strong economic liberalism and free trade with the rest of the world. I'd say it's one of the big philosophical differences with the EU (its protectionism is its main defining characteristic, after all) that has led to the Brexit vote. The number of people who want the empire back though, I reckon you could count those on one hand.

Doubl 7y ago

Europe has not given itself a free pass when it comes to colonialism. For example, at the moment they're hiding a bell in Cambridge University lest it turns out to have formerly been used on a slave plantation. There was no government organised genocide in British colonial history that I know of, not even in Ireland in the 17th century where arguably the worst atrocities were carried out. Saying Britain killed millions in India in WW2 is complete hyperbole.

dghf 7y ago
> Saying Britain killed millions in India in WW2 is complete hyperbole. Between two and three million people died in the Bengal Famine of 1943. The extent to which the British regime was responsible is still debated, but it would seem that the Churchill government refused to supply food aid (or at least only supplied a fraction of that requested) and refused the local administration permission to import food themselves.
- quetzthecoatl 7y ago
  two to three million is conservative estimates - from the famines in bengal, in world war 2 alone. There were other famines in India during WW2. There were other famines in India during british raj. There were other famines in other colonies.
- Doubl 7y ago
  The person I was responding to said words to the effect that they killed millions of people in India in order to win the war. That simply isn't true. An inadequate attempt to provide relief is not the same thing as actively killing people.
  - quetzthecoatl 7y ago
    The person you were responding to is me, and yes, it is true that millions of indians were killed to fund war. The famine was directly caused by Briton redirecting the harvested grains and other resources from India for war efforts and scorched earth policies to counter the imminent Japanese invasion from the east (Japanese occupied Burma). Time and again it's whitewashed by blaming the poor people that died from whom the grains were forcefully collected, climate (disputed by everyone except the british and not supported by soil analysis or climate models), and the Japanese.
    - Doubl 7y ago
      You are very certain about something about which they're is no consensus amongst even Indian commentators. Some refer to policy failures. No one apart from you is call it a deliberate killing of millions. I'm not sure why you feel the need to be so vehement about it.

ben_w 7y ago

If it was about skin colour, the deaths of a million Irish in the Great Potato Famine would not be considered “totally different” to the deaths of 3-7 million in the Holodomor, also known as (Stalin’s) “Famine-Genocide in Ukraine”. I think it’s mainly that the UK, as the winner, got to write the history books. (I’m not claiming that it cannot be partly racism — how many of “us” know about the Belgian Congo? — but mainly it’s “we are settlers, you are colonisers, they are invaders” and “our boys are heroes, your boys are soldiers, their boys are barbarians” in people’s minds).

watwut 7y ago
Racism is not only about skin color. Nazi seen other whites as different race too - Jews, Slavic and British for that matter too.
- ben_w 7y ago
  I know. My response was in the context of (paraphrased) “why are systematic deaths of Asians, Africans and Native Americans at the hands of Caucasians given a free pass when the same crimes against Jews were correctly prosecuted?” — and that is a difference of skin colour.
  - quetzthecoatl 7y ago
    Where did I mention skin color? I mentioned "others" and racism. In the case of Irish, it was religious fanaticism ("Others"). For the record, I am not saying it's not skin color. Primarily it's race/nationality (=~ skin color), and thus british empire falls on the same side of West/Europe/Caucasian people. What other reason is there for the people of west to not treat the atrocities that colonial empires committed (towards brown/black/native people) the same as what Naizs did to white european jews? Especially given what the colonialists were an order of magnitude more cruel in both savagery and the number of people murdered? As with any puritanism movement, there are other factors determining "purity". Aside from skin color, you have religious denomination.
    - 7y ago