Anybody familiar with young children will recognize this use of passive voice as the phase where the child admits that something bad happened, but is not comfortable assigning responsibility yet. "The lamp got broken".
Hitler actually stole that look from him. He was a huge fan of Chaplin's movies back in the day. And that is why no one can dress like Charlie Chaplin for Halloween anymore 😔
He went there to support Home Depot's lack of opposition to the Georgia voter suppression law that made it illegal to give people standing in line to vote food or water
Yes, he's that much of an anti democracy weirdo
No, he's clearly never been to a Home Depot or any other home improvement store before or since
No, he wasn't going to build anything with a single board of wood even shorter than he is
No, there's no reason other than (completely unnecessary for anyone who knows what Home Depot sells since the name is behind him in letters much taller than him) branding and pure idiocy to put one board in a plastic bag.
Yes, the person working the checkout definitely asked him "are you sure you want me to put it in a bag? We don't have one that fits.."
Yes, the fact that the unnecessary bag is plastic might well be a childish "haha I'm using oil based resources unnecessarily! In your face, snowflakes!" message to people who care about climate change
Yes, he called the board "magnificent"
Yes, he's enough of an out of touch weirdo that he did this with a straight face, thinking it would make him look like a badass defender of freedom rather than a sad little weirdo doing performative nonsense to excuse the inexcusable from demagogues on his "side" while demonstrating his "never did physical labor in his life" privilege
Yes, he's also the guy whose wife is a doctor with a dry ass pussy
I mean, Winston Churchill most definitely was a villain. He wasn’t the villain of WWII, but undoubtedly a villain.
He was intensely racist, had no problem using Indian people in his army while censoring their letters, as a famine he had a hand in creating killed over three million people.
That’s no excuse for peddling propaganda-Nazi propaganda, though. I thought that was kind of this guy’s shtick?
He looks like he's constantly bewildered. He uses it so that he can give the appearance that what's going on is insane and that he's the last normal man standing...
And for the most part it just makes him look clueless...
I actually was worried he was an adult with disabilities being exploited by Fox when I first actually watched his show. The fact that he laughed at the idea that tacos are Mexican an origin when it's "obviously an American food from California!" Did not help
The dude is doing a live tour right now, or is about to be, and one of his shows is gonna have Alex Jones as a guest. This is not surprising and if anything, is super expected.
I was following several youtube channels about farming. I was listening to a podcast where a few of them talk. The last couple of episodes have been peeling the mask off. One was talking about watching this shitbag and then went into weird pseudoscience, and that was when the podcast and two of the three people on it lost my subscription. Sucks because their actual content related to farming, animal husbandry, and building was useful, but they don't get my views, subs, or money if they're going to support people like Carlson.
He was the host of CNN but eventually moved to Fox News and gained quite the following before a misinformation lawsuit caused the company to fire him (fall guy)
In his depression he travelled to Russia and found the passion to start a fake news podcast. And that takes us to today
A pro-Nazi television host who used to have a lot of air time on Fox. He hired white supremacists to write his topics. It was obvious to everyone with multiple brain cells that he is a far-right racist.
It was honest. From what I read, and I regret reading it, the article is not political and the scummy pundit isn’t even talking about a politician. IMO, it doesn’t fit this community and should have been posted in !news@lemmy.world instead. I didn’t want to read anything about Tucker Carlson which is why I asked the question.
Churchill was the villain his entire life, he's been hailed a hero despite his history. Hitler was evil too but the number of deaths directly attributed around the world to Churchill makes Hitler look like an amateur. The only difference is Hitlers victims were mostly white, Churchill's were mostly brown and history always placed a different significance to brown and black deaths
The only difference is Hitlers victims were mostly white
Holy fuck, how fucking convenient that the victims of white supremacy (and groups of people who have been consistently excluded from and oppressed by white Christian societies) can be considered white when it fits the twisted game of oppression olympics you're trying to play here, to what, virtue signal? Be a contrarian? Or do you genuinely think the holocaust gets some sort of special status because white supremacist society somehow suddenly cares about Jews and Roma people (or queers, for that matter)?
I don't think anyone here would argue with you that Churchill wasn't a murderous piece of shit, but leaning in to holocaust denial is never going to help you make a case for anything other than that you're a holocaust denier.
No ones denying the Holocaust, I'm pointing out that Hitler is viewed as the bigger villain because he was killing white people. Society in general does not give a flying fuck if brown people are killed. Churchill was basically given a pass and essentially viewed as a hero despite his history.
I think the major difference here is malice. Did Churchill set out cause these deaths or was it greed and/or stupidity? Honest question worth discussion, I haven't heard of this prior.
Policy lapses such as prioritizing distribution of vital supplies to the military, stopping rice imports and not declaring that it was actually a famine were among the factors that led to the magnitude of the tragedy, he added.
So we're comparing some possible logistics mistakes, in a distant colony, during a defensive war where the ruling country was being bombed on their own soil. Comparing those "incendental" deaths to those of an aggressive conquering army literally rounding up their own citizens and those of the lands they conquered, to be killed.
Right.
She wrote that famine was caused in part by large-scale exports of food from India. India exported more than 70,000 tons of rice between January and July 1943 as the famine set in, she said.
That quantity seems pretty low. In comparison, I found an old post that indicated 300,000 tons of food aid had been supplied to Gaza over 190 days, so similar time spans, to a much smaller population.
Of course, exporting food while the residents are starving is terrible. But this is one study and one interpretation of results.
This certainly sounds like yet another bad faith strawman talking point by Nazi sympathizers.
Yeah, I just don't see the comparison the OP made here. I'm willing to relent that Britain has done more harm than good to India but I'm no expert so I'd defer to someone smarter here.
But the even crazier thing is that the article isn't even talking about famine caused by the British Raj... No, they're saying Churchill was the aggressor and Hitler was pushed into a fight he didn't want. And the craziest part is the statement that the concentration camps were mercy kills to prevent starvation.
I don't agree with their point comparing it to the Nazis, but I think this interpretation is being way too generous in reaction to that. Famines in India under British colonial rule were a frequent occurrence. Between 1850 and 1899, 15 million Indians died from no less than 24 major famines. The horrors inflicted through Britain's nakedly colonial rule were not just innocent mistakes or the product of unexpected circumstances - this was simply the modus operendi of the empire. Frequent atrocities, oppression, and mass death were the status quo for much of the world's population during this time period.
Obviously, the Nazis had no problem with any of that, they were only upset that they weren't the ones getting to do it.
Pushing back against the idea that Churchill was worse than Hitler is good, but criticism of Churchill's role in the famine outside of that comparison is perfectly valid and has academic support, for example, Amartya Sen's work.
Ok, so Churchill was an imperialistic prick, debatable even for his time (though the wellknown history of centuries of atrocities commited by imperialistic Britain seems to contradict that...). Sure. I don't think many would defend those actions through today's lens.
But even that article just throws dozens of famine in Indias colonial history squarely at Britain's feet with zero evidence that they were avoidable.
Droughts, disease, infestations happen, and have happened throughout history. We are now better than we ever have been at addressing those crisis at a global scale, and there is still plenty of famine and food insecurity in the world.
This reads more, as I said before, a strawman argument that doesnt do anything to establish that Churchill is responsible for millions of deaths - genocide to be compared with concentration camps.
I really encourage you to look more into Amartya Sen's work and his thesis that famines don't just happen naturally and are virtually always traced back to political causes. Of course there are bad harvests and the like that can exacerbate a bad situation, but farmers are typically able to stockpile enough during good years to weather it. To say that 24 famines over the span of 50 years just happened naturally, at the exact same time that Indians were subject to exorbitantly high taxes and other horribly exploitative conditions, is a completely absurd and revisionist claim. It seems like you're knee jerk defending Britain even when we're discussing one of the darkest parts of its history. In addition to Sen's work, you should also learn more about the conditions in India under colonialism, if you think the British deserve such extreme benefit of the doubt.
Who is defending Britain's colonialism? I'm pushing back at some pretty extreme historical recharacterizations.
This is all some pretty ridiculous Captain Hindsight retconning. There have been tons of agricultural blunders in humanities history. Depletion of soils, monocultures extremely susceptible to disaster, etc.
We learn and adapt. That's humanity.
Resource mismanagement is certainly a factor, and colonies were obviously rife with it. And just as obviously, the conquerors historically didn't exactly care much about the damage they did.
In nature, species boom when there's abundance, and rubber band back hard when scarcity hits directly after a big boom.
At a glance, India's population was almost 10% of the world population during WW2.
Literally laying all the blame at the feet of British mismanagement is a pretty extreme take.
So now we've veered into full-blown Malthusianism. You can't treat human populations the way you treat animal populations. More humans means more people working and growing food, whereas animals simply graze or hunt on preexisting resources. Malthusian claims have been thoroughly debunked repeatedly throughout history, and have never been backed by any sort of evidence whatsoever.
Again, if you choose to reject history and evidence in favor of knee jerk defending colonialism and using long discredited theories, then I don't really see what I can do here. You are simply wrong and in contradiction of scholarly work on the subject.
FWIW I didn't down vote you, but I don't think all malice is equal. Driving with a heart condition or narcolepsy and killing someone isn't the same as driving through a crowd to get revenge.
Do you have a source on Churchill's death tool in comparison to Hitler's?
Churchill was undeniably horrible and the naked colonialism of the British Empire had normalized atrocities occurring on a daily basis. But even so, I'm skeptical that his numbers would "put Hitler to shame," considering the scale of the wars and genocide Hitler caused.
The victors always get to paint the picture that is history. I was pretty shocked learning things about that war (and period of time, in general) that were incredibly important but somehow eluded being taught to me in school.
Not ready to jump onboard the conspiracy train but it's interesting nonetheless.
I don't normally reply with something so blunt but this is a pretty shitty comment. This kind of half speak rhetoric is a major issue causing misinformation and its usage is far too pervasive.
And I'm not even saying you're wrong but if you want to prove the point the burden is on you.
95 Comments
yesman@lemmy.world · 124 pts · 1y
Anybody familiar with young children will recognize this use of passive voice as the phase where the child admits that something bad happened, but is not comfortable assigning responsibility yet. "The lamp got broken".
Fedizen@lemmy.world · 42 pts · 1y
"Man dies of bullet holes in police custody"
mosiacmango@lemm.ee · 22 pts · 1y
"A casualty occurred after a weapon was discharged."
tja@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 1y
Cyclist got hit by a car
littlewonder@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y
Oh, so that's who they've got running the media these days. That makes sense.
Soup@lemmy.cafe · 2 pts · 1y
Good point!
vegeta@lemmy.world · 109 pts · 1y
Has Tucker had plastic surgery? I'm just asking questions.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 1y
I'm sorry, but he just looks like Charlie Chaplin.
pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online · 24 pts · 1y
It's a shame Hitler ruined the mustache, because that's the only part of mine that grows in full.
ThePantser@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1y
Such a rascal of a tramp
mysticpickle@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 1y
Hitler actually stole that look from him. He was a huge fan of Chaplin's movies back in the day. And that is why no one can dress like Charlie Chaplin for Halloween anymore 😔
someguy3@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y
You know I was just thinking he looked a little younger. Glp1 maybe? (I don't know all of what it does.)
feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
Botox, and plenty of it.
negativenull@lemmy.world · 57 pts · 1y
Fedizen@lemmy.world · 36 pts · 1y
bro they have supermarkets? in russia?
mosiacmango@lemm.ee · 36 pts · 1y
Hes a trust fund kid. Probably the first supermarket he's ever been inside.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 1y
Big "Ben Shapiro goes to Home Depot" energy 😄
DontRedditMyLemmy@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1y
First time I've seen this one. So many questions!
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1y
Allow me to answer a few potential ones:
He went there to support Home Depot's lack of opposition to the Georgia voter suppression law that made it illegal to give people standing in line to vote food or water
Yes, he's that much of an anti democracy weirdo
No, he's clearly never been to a Home Depot or any other home improvement store before or since
No, he wasn't going to build anything with a single board of wood even shorter than he is
No, there's no reason other than (completely unnecessary for anyone who knows what Home Depot sells since the name is behind him in letters much taller than him) branding and pure idiocy to put one board in a plastic bag.
Yes, the person working the checkout definitely asked him "are you sure you want me to put it in a bag? We don't have one that fits.."
Yes, the fact that the unnecessary bag is plastic might well be a childish "haha I'm using oil based resources unnecessarily! In your face, snowflakes!" message to people who care about climate change
Yes, he called the board "magnificent"
Yes, he's enough of an out of touch weirdo that he did this with a straight face, thinking it would make him look like a badass defender of freedom rather than a sad little weirdo doing performative nonsense to excuse the inexcusable from demagogues on his "side" while demonstrating his "never did physical labor in his life" privilege
Yes, he's also the guy whose wife is a doctor with a dry ass pussy
DontRedditMyLemmy@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
I regret having only one upvote
acockworkorange@mander.xyz · 2 pts · 1y
Have one more.
einlander@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
It's his best friend Plank.
militaryintelligence@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
It's big, it's heavy, it's wood
negativenull@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 1y
And they sell multiple kinds of bread too!
5oap10116@lemmy.world · 56 pts · 1y
Breaking: Nazi continues to nazi after years of naziing
BigMacHole@lemm.ee · 33 pts · 1y
THIS is EXACTLY why Republicans are the ONLY PARTY for Jews! You're not a REAL JEW unless you vote for the Pro Nazi Party!
HawlSera@lemm.ee · 11 pts · 1y
I mean that is pretty much the sentiment I've been getting from the Pro-Israel crowd
dojan@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 1y
I mean, Winston Churchill most definitely was a villain. He wasn’t the villain of WWII, but undoubtedly a villain.
He was intensely racist, had no problem using Indian people in his army while censoring their letters, as a famine he had a hand in creating killed over three million people.
That’s no excuse for peddling propaganda-Nazi propaganda, though. I thought that was kind of this guy’s shtick?
Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 1y
This is less than mild shock
Ragdoll_X@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 1y
He's been doing that ever since his media career started in the 90s.
cm0002@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 1y
Well I am shocked! Shocked! Well, not that shocked.
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1y
Well, I am shocked! Absolutely stunned. No, no. Wait. I meant unsurprised and jaded.
slickgoat@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 1y
Why does Tucker Carlson look like he just realised he sharted.
HawlSera@lemm.ee · 11 pts · 1y
He looks like he's constantly bewildered. He uses it so that he can give the appearance that what's going on is insane and that he's the last normal man standing...
And for the most part it just makes him look clueless...
I actually was worried he was an adult with disabilities being exploited by Fox when I first actually watched his show. The fact that he laughed at the idea that tacos are Mexican an origin when it's "obviously an American food from California!" Did not help
SkyezOpen@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1y
The worst part is that he isn't that stupid. He's just genuinely that evil.
stoly@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1y
That’s his concerned look. It probably works on his fans.
rayyy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
He is weird that way.
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org · 17 pts · 1y
Tucker hanging out with nazis? Why, I find that hard to believe. /s
IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 1y
"Accused"?
I'd be surprised if this absolute failure of a human being wasn't spreading Nazi propaganda.
samus12345@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 1y
He's just asking questions.
LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 1y
The dude is doing a live tour right now, or is about to be, and one of his shows is gonna have Alex Jones as a guest. This is not surprising and if anything, is super expected.
SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
They're basically the same now, except Bowtie McPutin has actual production values
Soup@lemmy.cafe · 13 pts · 1y
I accuse the sky of being made of air!
DogPeePoo@lemm.ee · 12 pts · 1y
Well if the jack boot fits…
Machinist@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1y
Don't forget: this weirdo wants his green chocolate candy to be gendered and fuckable.
ATDA@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1y
Can Fucker's tan guy tell tRump's tan guy that it can in fact go up to the eyes.
Then at least he'll have done something positive in this life via association.
hannesh93@feddit.org · 7 pts · 1y
Was that the video Musk spread on his Twitter account? I knew it was bad because of Tucker in general - but this?
Kalysta@lemm.ee · 6 pts · 1y
Pretty sure this is a fact, not an accusation.
Etterra@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1y
Oh somebody finally got around to saying it out loud huh.
militaryintelligence@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1y
I hate his fucking stupid face so much
VerbFlow@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1y
Are these the same people who claim opposing Israel is "antisemitism"?
tiredofsametab@fedia.io · 4 pts · 1y
I was following several youtube channels about farming. I was listening to a podcast where a few of them talk. The last couple of episodes have been peeling the mask off. One was talking about watching this shitbag and then went into weird pseudoscience, and that was when the podcast and two of the three people on it lost my subscription. Sucks because their actual content related to farming, animal husbandry, and building was useful, but they don't get my views, subs, or money if they're going to support people like Carlson.
socsa@piefed.social · 4 pts · 1y
What is this, 2013?
paschko_mato@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 1y
Who the fuck is Tucker Carlson?
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca · 14 pts · 1y
He was the host of CNN but eventually moved to Fox News and gained quite the following before a misinformation lawsuit caused the company to fire him (fall guy)
In his depression he travelled to Russia and found the passion to start a fake news podcast. And that takes us to today
xorollo@leminal.space · 3 pts · 1y
Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 1y
A weirdo on TV
s1ndr0m3@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
A weirdo on the social media site formerly known as Twitter. He's not allowed on TV anymore.
stoly@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1y
You sweet child how I envy you.
paschko_mato@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1y
We have our own weirdos here in Europe ..
barsquid@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
A pro-Nazi television host who used to have a lot of air time on Fox. He hired white supremacists to write his topics. It was obvious to everyone with multiple brain cells that he is a far-right racist.
Snapz@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
...yet again.
barsquid@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
Yes, by me. I have been making that accusation for years whenever the topic comes up.
jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
Oh hey a 15-year-old headline.
easydnesto@sh.itjust.works · -6 pts · 1y
Is Tucker Carlson in politics?
Kbobabob@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1y
Yes. He's part of the Nazi party.
stoly@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1y
Formerly a “news” type with a talk show. Eventually became too extreme even for Fox News.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · 6 pts · 1y
That wasn't an honest question, fam, guy's trying to pretend a well known political pundit spreading propaganda isn't political.
stoly@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y
Thank you
easydnesto@sh.itjust.works · -2 pts · 1y
It was honest. From what I read, and I regret reading it, the article is not political and the scummy pundit isn’t even talking about a politician. IMO, it doesn’t fit this community and should have been posted in !news@lemmy.world instead. I didn’t want to read anything about Tucker Carlson which is why I asked the question.
MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world · -8 pts · 1y
::: spoiler The Independent - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for The Independent:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/tucker-carlson-nazi-podcast-elon-musk-b2606800.html ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml · -18 pts · 1y
Churchill was the villain his entire life, he's been hailed a hero despite his history. Hitler was evil too but the number of deaths directly attributed around the world to Churchill makes Hitler look like an amateur. The only difference is Hitlers victims were mostly white, Churchill's were mostly brown and history always placed a different significance to brown and black deaths
ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 1y
Holy fuck, how fucking convenient that the victims of white supremacy (and groups of people who have been consistently excluded from and oppressed by white Christian societies) can be considered white when it fits the twisted game of oppression olympics you're trying to play here, to what, virtue signal? Be a contrarian? Or do you genuinely think the holocaust gets some sort of special status because white supremacist society somehow suddenly cares about Jews and Roma people (or queers, for that matter)?
I don't think anyone here would argue with you that Churchill wasn't a murderous piece of shit, but leaning in to holocaust denial is never going to help you make a case for anything other than that you're a holocaust denier.
ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml · -2 pts · 1y
No ones denying the Holocaust, I'm pointing out that Hitler is viewed as the bigger villain because he was killing white people. Society in general does not give a flying fuck if brown people are killed. Churchill was basically given a pass and essentially viewed as a hero despite his history.
Plavatos@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 1y
Looked it up, referring to this?
Churchill’s policies to blame for millions of Indian famine deaths, study says
I think the major difference here is malice. Did Churchill set out cause these deaths or was it greed and/or stupidity? Honest question worth discussion, I haven't heard of this prior.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 1y
This article provides some quotes that certainly seem to indicate that malice played a role, or at best callous indifference.
Wrench@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
So we're comparing some possible logistics mistakes, in a distant colony, during a defensive war where the ruling country was being bombed on their own soil. Comparing those "incendental" deaths to those of an aggressive conquering army literally rounding up their own citizens and those of the lands they conquered, to be killed.
Right.
That quantity seems pretty low. In comparison, I found an old post that indicated 300,000 tons of food aid had been supplied to Gaza over 190 days, so similar time spans, to a much smaller population.
Of course, exporting food while the residents are starving is terrible. But this is one study and one interpretation of results.
This certainly sounds like yet another bad faith strawman talking point by Nazi sympathizers.
Plavatos@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 1y
Yeah, I just don't see the comparison the OP made here. I'm willing to relent that Britain has done more harm than good to India but I'm no expert so I'd defer to someone smarter here.
But the even crazier thing is that the article isn't even talking about famine caused by the British Raj... No, they're saying Churchill was the aggressor and Hitler was pushed into a fight he didn't want. And the craziest part is the statement that the concentration camps were mercy kills to prevent starvation.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
Hitler, famously didn’t want fights that Adolf hitler. The poles were taunting him, just like the French, the Russians, the communists, his own party…
Wrench@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
Well, they're Republicans. Those Pollacks were just dressing too slutty. Hitler had to invade. And France? Come on now.
Wrench@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
And for scale
70,000 tons, distributed over 389m people, is 0.0003598972 pounds of food were taken away from each Indian person, over a 6-7 month period.
Riiiiight.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 1y
I don't agree with their point comparing it to the Nazis, but I think this interpretation is being way too generous in reaction to that. Famines in India under British colonial rule were a frequent occurrence. Between 1850 and 1899, 15 million Indians died from no less than 24 major famines. The horrors inflicted through Britain's nakedly colonial rule were not just innocent mistakes or the product of unexpected circumstances - this was simply the modus operendi of the empire. Frequent atrocities, oppression, and mass death were the status quo for much of the world's population during this time period.
Obviously, the Nazis had no problem with any of that, they were only upset that they weren't the ones getting to do it.
Pushing back against the idea that Churchill was worse than Hitler is good, but criticism of Churchill's role in the famine outside of that comparison is perfectly valid and has academic support, for example, Amartya Sen's work.
Wrench@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1y
I read the article in your other post.
Ok, so Churchill was an imperialistic prick, debatable even for his time (though the wellknown history of centuries of atrocities commited by imperialistic Britain seems to contradict that...). Sure. I don't think many would defend those actions through today's lens.
But even that article just throws dozens of famine in Indias colonial history squarely at Britain's feet with zero evidence that they were avoidable.
Droughts, disease, infestations happen, and have happened throughout history. We are now better than we ever have been at addressing those crisis at a global scale, and there is still plenty of famine and food insecurity in the world.
This reads more, as I said before, a strawman argument that doesnt do anything to establish that Churchill is responsible for millions of deaths - genocide to be compared with concentration camps.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 1y
I really encourage you to look more into Amartya Sen's work and his thesis that famines don't just happen naturally and are virtually always traced back to political causes. Of course there are bad harvests and the like that can exacerbate a bad situation, but farmers are typically able to stockpile enough during good years to weather it. To say that 24 famines over the span of 50 years just happened naturally, at the exact same time that Indians were subject to exorbitantly high taxes and other horribly exploitative conditions, is a completely absurd and revisionist claim. It seems like you're knee jerk defending Britain even when we're discussing one of the darkest parts of its history. In addition to Sen's work, you should also learn more about the conditions in India under colonialism, if you think the British deserve such extreme benefit of the doubt.
Wrench@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1y
Who is defending Britain's colonialism? I'm pushing back at some pretty extreme historical recharacterizations.
This is all some pretty ridiculous Captain Hindsight retconning. There have been tons of agricultural blunders in humanities history. Depletion of soils, monocultures extremely susceptible to disaster, etc.
We learn and adapt. That's humanity.
Resource mismanagement is certainly a factor, and colonies were obviously rife with it. And just as obviously, the conquerors historically didn't exactly care much about the damage they did.
In nature, species boom when there's abundance, and rubber band back hard when scarcity hits directly after a big boom.
At a glance, India's population was almost 10% of the world population during WW2.
Literally laying all the blame at the feet of British mismanagement is a pretty extreme take.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 1y
So now we've veered into full-blown Malthusianism. You can't treat human populations the way you treat animal populations. More humans means more people working and growing food, whereas animals simply graze or hunt on preexisting resources. Malthusian claims have been thoroughly debunked repeatedly throughout history, and have never been backed by any sort of evidence whatsoever.
Again, if you choose to reject history and evidence in favor of knee jerk defending colonialism and using long discredited theories, then I don't really see what I can do here. You are simply wrong and in contradiction of scholarly work on the subject.
ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml · -1 pts · 1y
Expanding colonialism is always malice
Plavatos@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1y
FWIW I didn't down vote you, but I don't think all malice is equal. Driving with a heart condition or narcolepsy and killing someone isn't the same as driving through a crowd to get revenge.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 1y
Do you have a source on Churchill's death tool in comparison to Hitler's?
Churchill was undeniably horrible and the naked colonialism of the British Empire had normalized atrocities occurring on a daily basis. But even so, I'm skeptical that his numbers would "put Hitler to shame," considering the scale of the wars and genocide Hitler caused.
Intrama@lemmy.world · -28 pts · 1y
The victors always get to paint the picture that is history. I was pretty shocked learning things about that war (and period of time, in general) that were incredibly important but somehow eluded being taught to me in school.
Not ready to jump onboard the conspiracy train but it's interesting nonetheless.
NABDad@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 1y
If you want to avoid appearing to be a Nazi apologist, you should at a minimum drop some examples of the shocking things you learned.
BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 1y
They're just "aSkiNg QUeStiONs"
Plavatos@sh.itjust.works · 11 pts · 1y
I don't normally reply with something so blunt but this is a pretty shitty comment. This kind of half speak rhetoric is a major issue causing misinformation and its usage is far too pervasive.
And I'm not even saying you're wrong but if you want to prove the point the burden is on you.