4 ms·

I am saying there is no consensus because there are different conclusions about the situation drawn by different scholars. You are saying that's not a convincin

by Doubl 7y ago

I am saying there is no consensus because there are different conclusions about the situation drawn by different scholars. You are saying that's not a convincing approach to take, that you could do the same about tobacco, which I don't believe, actually. You then proceed to state your opinion as fact despite it being most likely the result of a, relatively speaking, cursory reading of others' writings on the topic. What leads you to dismiss the views of other scholars who happen to have come to a different conclusion on the Bengal famine?

srean 7y ago
So what is it that differentiates yor denial from WWII holocaust denials. If you take them into account one can argue, just like you have that there is no 'consensus'. I dont find your arguments anymore illuminating than theirs. Regarding tobacco there is no need to believe or disbelieve. You can just checkout 25 years of scientific research, many funded by the tobacco companies. Pray tell us what is it that I claimed as a fact in my comment above that is not a fact. Are we disputing meaning of 'deliberate' or are we disputing that food supply redirection happened on its own without deliberation ... like by way of mysterious magic. What makes you think my knowledge about these matters is limited to previous comments. BTW there were more than one British sponsored famine in Bengal so do educate yourself before you jump to defend.
- Doubl 7y ago
  Firstly, you're the one who keeps going off on tangents, first on tobacco, then on the Holocaust and finally on other British "sponsored" famine in Bengal none of which are relevant. Even a cursory googling of the 1943 famine will demonstrate that the causes for it are far from settled as far as the academic community are concerned. You, however seem to have no doubts on the matter. That doesn't inspire me to believe that your knowledge of it runs deep, rather the opposite in fact.
  - srean 7y ago
    Tobacco and WWII holocausts are relevant to the style of your argument. Your argument was there is no 'consensus'. What I am pointing out is your argument is no different from the scholarship that continues to deny Jewish holocaust and deny that tobacco causes cancer. My respect for such denial arguments are roughly equal. Can you explain why the other famines are not relevant when we are on the topic of British excesses and resistance movements that led to independence. Are the lives lost to the other famines less valuable ? The death toll for the 18th century British made Bengal famine is around 10 million about 5 to 6 times more than the 1943 one. You still have not clarified which part of deliberate you are contesting. Are you saying destruction of grains and diverting of supplies were not deliberate ? I presume it does not come as a surprise that denial of foodgrain causes starvation and death. Or is your position that the British tjought the 'natives' do not deserve/ need those ? "Oops we did not realize you guys need to eat too, sorry cant have that, the Japs are coming, enjoy the scorched earth. BTW nothing is deliberate the grains self destruct or runaway on their own"
    - Doubl 7y ago
      I think you've gone completely over the top there, old boy. I'm out, cheerio!

by Doubl 7y ago

srean 7y ago

So what is it that differentiates yor denial from WWII holocaust denials. If you take them into account one can argue, just like you have that there is no 'consensus'. I dont find your arguments anymore illuminating than theirs. Regarding tobacco there is no need to believe or disbelieve. You can just checkout 25 years of scientific research, many funded by the tobacco companies. Pray tell us what is it that I claimed as a fact in my comment above that is not a fact. Are we disputing meaning of 'deliberate' or are we disputing that food supply redirection happened on its own without deliberation ... like by way of mysterious magic. What makes you think my knowledge about these matters is limited to previous comments. BTW there were more than one British sponsored famine in Bengal so do educate yourself before you jump to defend.

Doubl 7y ago
Firstly, you're the one who keeps going off on tangents, first on tobacco, then on the Holocaust and finally on other British "sponsored" famine in Bengal none of which are relevant. Even a cursory googling of the 1943 famine will demonstrate that the causes for it are far from settled as far as the academic community are concerned. You, however seem to have no doubts on the matter. That doesn't inspire me to believe that your knowledge of it runs deep, rather the opposite in fact.
- srean 7y ago
  Tobacco and WWII holocausts are relevant to the style of your argument. Your argument was there is no 'consensus'. What I am pointing out is your argument is no different from the scholarship that continues to deny Jewish holocaust and deny that tobacco causes cancer. My respect for such denial arguments are roughly equal. Can you explain why the other famines are not relevant when we are on the topic of British excesses and resistance movements that led to independence. Are the lives lost to the other famines less valuable ? The death toll for the 18th century British made Bengal famine is around 10 million about 5 to 6 times more than the 1943 one. You still have not clarified which part of deliberate you are contesting. Are you saying destruction of grains and diverting of supplies were not deliberate ? I presume it does not come as a surprise that denial of foodgrain causes starvation and death. Or is your position that the British tjought the 'natives' do not deserve/ need those ? "Oops we did not realize you guys need to eat too, sorry cant have that, the Japs are coming, enjoy the scorched earth. BTW nothing is deliberate the grains self destruct or runaway on their own"
  - Doubl 7y ago
    I think you've gone completely over the top there, old boy. I'm out, cheerio!