Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3462
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby arshyam » 23 Jul 2015 20:08

Chakra-ji, could you please post it in full? TIA.

member_28638
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby member_28638 » 24 Jul 2015 20:18

arshyam wrote:Chakra-ji, could you please post it in full? TIA.


Remembering India’s forgotten holocaust


British policies killed nearly 4 million Indians in the 1943-44 Bengal Famine
Rakesh Krishnan Simha

June 13, 2014, Issue 25 Volume 11

Scorched earth By 1943, hordes of starving people were flooding into Calcutta and a huge number of them died on the city streets

Scorched earth By 1943, hordes of starving people were flooding into Calcutta and a huge number of them died on the city streets. Photo Courtesy: Wikimedia Commons

The Bengal Famine of 1943-44 must rank as the greatest disaster in the subcontinent in the 20th century. Nearly 4 million Indians died because of an artificial famine created by the British government, and yet it gets little more than a passing mention in Indian history books.

What is remarkable about the scale of the disaster is its time span. World War II was at its peak and the Germans were rampaging across Europe, targeting Jews, Slavs and the Roma for extermination. It took Adolf Hitler and his Nazi cohorts 12 years to round up and murder 6 million Jews, but their Teutonic cousins, the British, managed to kill almost 4 million Indians in just over a year, with Prime Minister Winston Churchill cheering from the sidelines.

Australian biochemist Dr Gideon Polya has called the Bengal Famine a “manmade holocaust” because Churchill’s policies were directly responsible for the disaster. Bengal had a bountiful harvest in 1942, but the British started diverting vast quantities of food grain from India to Britain, contributing to a massive food shortage in the areas comprising present-day West Bengal, Odisha, Bihar and Bangladesh.

Author Madhusree Mukerjee tracked down some of the survivors and paints a chilling picture of the effects of hunger and deprivation. In Churchill’s Secret War, she writes: “Parents dumped their starving children into rivers and wells. Many took their lives by throwing themselves in front of trains. Starving people begged for the starchy water in which rice had been boiled. Children ate leaves and vines, yam stems and grass. People were too weak even to cremate their loved ones.”

“No one had the strength to perform rites,” a survivor tells Mukerjee. “Dogs and jackals feasted on piles of dead bodies in Bengal’s villages.” The ones who got away were men who migrated to Calcutta for jobs and women who turned to prostitution to feed their families. “Mothers had turned into murderers, village belles into whores, fathers into traffickers of daughters,” writes Mukerjee.

Mani Bhaumik, the first to get a PhD from the IITs and whose invention of excimer surgery enabled Lasik eye surgery, has the famine etched in his memory. His grandmother starved to death because she used to give him a portion of her food.

By 1943 hordes of starving people were flooding into Calcutta, most dying on the streets. The sight of well-fed white British soldiers amidst this apocalyptic landscape was “the final judgement on British rule in India”, said the Anglophile Jawaharlal Nehru.

Churchill could easily have prevented the famine. Even a few shipments of food grain would have helped, but the British prime minister adamantly turned down appeals from two successive Viceroys, his own Secretary of State for India and even the President of the US .

Subhas Chandra Bose, who was then fighting on the side of the Axis forces, offered to send rice from Myanmar, but the British censors did not even allow his offer to be reported.

Churchill was totally remorseless in diverting food to the British troops and Greek civilians. To him, “the starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis (was) less serious than sturdy Greeks”, a sentiment with which Secretary of State for India and Burma, Leopold Amery, concurred.

Amery was an arch-colonialist and yet he denounced Churchill’s “Hitler-like attitude”. Urgently beseeched by Amery and the then Viceroy Archibald Wavell to release food stocks for India, Churchill responded with a telegram asking why Gandhi hadn’t died yet.

Wavell informed London that the famine “was one of the greatest disasters that has befallen any people under British rule”. He said when Holland needs food, “ships will of course be available, quite a different answer to the one we get whenever we ask for ships to bring food to India”.

Churchill’s excuse — currently being peddled by his family and supporters — was Britain could not spare the ships to transport emergency supplies, but Mukerjee has unearthed documents that challenge his claim. She cites official records that reveal ships carrying grain from Australia bypassed India on their way to the Mediterranean.

Churchill’s hostility toward Indians has long been documented. At a War Cabinet meeting, he blamed the Indians themselves for the famine, saying they “breed like rabbits”. His attitude toward Indians may be summed up in his words to Amery: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” On another occasion, he insisted they were “the beastliest people in the world next to the Germans”.

According to Mukerjee, “Churchill’s attitude toward India was quite extreme, and he hated Indians, mainly because he knew India couldn’t be held for very long.” She writes in The Huffington Post, “Churchill regarded wheat as too precious a food to expend on non-whites, let alone on recalcitrant subjects who were demanding independence from the British Empire. He preferred to stockpile the grain to feed Europeans after the war was over.”

In October 1943, at the peak of the famine, Churchill said at a lavish banquet to mark Wavell’s appointment: “When we look back over the course of years, we see one part of the world’s surface where there has been no war for three generations. Famines have passed away — until the horrors of war and the dislocations of war have given us a taste of them again — and pestilence has gone… This episode in Indian history will surely become the Golden Age as time passes, when the British gave them peace and order, and there was justice for the poor, and all men were shielded from outside dangers.”

Churchill was not only a racist but also a liar.

India-hater Winston Churchill blamed Indians for the famine
Photo Courtesy: Wikimedia Commons

A history of holocausts
To be sure, Churchill’s policy towards famine-stricken Bengal wasn’t any different from earlier British conduct in India. In Late Victorian Holocausts, Mike Davis points out that here were 31 serious famines in 120 years of British rule compared with 17 in the 2,000 years before British rule.

In his book, Davis tells the story of the famines that killed up to 29 million Indians. These people were, he says, murdered by British State policy. In 1876, when drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan plateau, there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the Viceroy, Robert Bulwer-Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent their export to England.

In 1877 and 1878, at the height of the famine, grain merchants exported record quantities of grain. As the peasants began to starve, government officials were ordered “to discourage relief works in every possible way”. The only relief permitted in most districts was hard labour, from which anyone in an advanced state of starvation was turned away. Within these labour camps, the workers were given less food than the Jewish inmates of Buchenwald, the Nazi concentration camp of World War II.

Even as millions died, Lytton ignored all efforts to alleviate the suffering of millions of peasants in the Madras region and concentrated on preparing for Queen Victoria’s investiture as Empress of India. The highlight of the celebrations was a week-long feast at which 68,000 dignitaries heard her promise the nation “happiness, prosperity and welfare”.

In 1901, The Lancet estimated that at least 19 million Indians had died in western India during the famine of the 1890s. The death toll was so high because the British refused to implement famine relief. Davis says life expectancy in India fell by 20 percent between 1872 and 1921.

So it’s hardly surprising that Hitler’s favourite film was The Lives of a Bengal Lancer, which showed a handful of Britons holding a continent in thrall. The Nazi leader told the then British Foreign Secretary Edward Wood (Earl of Halifax) that it was one of his favorite films because “that was how a superior race must behave and the film was compulsory viewing for the SS (Schutz-Staffel, the Nazi ‘protection squadron’)”.

Crime and consequences
While Britain has offered apologies to other nations, such as Kenya for the Mau Mau massacre, India continues to have such genocides swept under the carpet. Other nationalities have set a good example for us. Israel, for instance, cannot forget the Holocaust; neither will it let others, least of all the Germans. Germany continues to dole out hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and arms aid to Israel.

Armenia cannot forget the Great Crime — the systematic massacre of 1.8 million Armenians by the Turks during World War I. The Poles cannot forget Joseph Stalin’s Katyn massacre.

The Chinese want a clear apology and reparations from the Japanese for at least 40,000 killed and raped in Nanking during World War II. And then there is the bizarre case of the Ukrainians, who like to call a famine caused by Stalin’s economic policies as genocide, which it clearly was not. They even have a word for it: Holodomor.

And yet India alone refuses to ask for reparations, let alone an apology. Could it be because the British were the last in a long list of invaders, so why bother with an England suffering from post-imperial depression? Or is it because India’s English-speaking elites feel beholden to the British? Or are we simply a nation condemned to repeating our historical mistakes? Perhaps we forgive too easily.

But forgiveness is different from forgetting, which is what Indians are guilty of. It is an insult to the memory of millions of Indians whose lives were snuffed out in artificial famines.

British attitudes towards Indians have to seen in the backdrop of India’s contribution to the Allied war campaign. By 1943, more than 2.5 million Indian soldiers were fighting alongside the Allies in Europe, Africa and Southeast Asia. Vast quantities of arms, ammunition and raw materials sourced from across the country were shipped to Europe at no cost to Britain.

Britain’s debt to India is too great to be ignored by either nation. According to Cambridge University historians Tim Harper and Christopher Bayly, “It was Indian soldiers, civilian labourers and businessmen who made possible the victory of 1945. Their price was the rapid independence of India.”

There is not enough wealth in all of Europe to compensate India for 250 years of colonial loot. Forget the money, do the British at least have the grace to offer an apology? Or will they, like Churchill, continue to delude themselves that English rule was India’s “Golden Age”?

letters@tehelka.com

(Published in Tehelka Magazine, Volume 11 Issue 25, Dated June 13, 2014)

http://www.tehelka.com/2014/06/remember ... holocaust/

member_28638
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby member_28638 » 24 Jul 2015 20:24

chakra wrote:Unspoken Story of Indian Holocaust: UK Remains Silent About Its Atrocities

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/2015071 ... z3gJmjQkLA



Unspoken Story of Indian Holocaust: UK Remains Silent About Its Atrocities
© Wikipedia/ http://wellcomeimages.org/

11:22 16.07.2015(updated 10:47 23.07.2015) Get short URL
Ekaterina Blinova

While London has rushed to point the accusing finger at Serbs for the Srebrenica tragedy, the British have apparently forgotten their own shameful history of the genocide of the people of India, Rakesh Krishnan Simha told Sputnik.

While British policy makers are expressing their "righteous" anger over Russia's decision to veto their resolution on the Srebrenica "genocide" of 1995 discussed by the UN Security Council earlier this month, London should obviously look in the mirror and recall its own colonial past, New Zealand-based journalist and foreign affairs analyst Rakesh Krishnan Simha told Sputnik.

There is no need to delve deep into history, the analyst noted, referring to the infamous Bengal Famine of 1943-44 that can be classified as the greatest disaster in the subcontinent in the 20th century.

Citing Australian biochemist Dr. Gideon Polya, Simha underscored that the Bengal Famine was a "manmade holocaust" directly caused by UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill's policies.

"Bengal had a bountiful harvest in 1942, but the British started diverting vast quantities of food grain from India to Britain, contributing to a massive food shortage in the areas comprising present-day West Bengal, Odisha, Bihar and Bangladesh," the foreign affairs analyst narrated in his article "Remembering India's Forgotten Holocaust" in 2014.

Just in a year, the manmade famine had claimed the lives of over 3 million Indians.

The Famine in India: Natives Waiting for Relief at Bangalore
© Wikipedia/ Adam63
The Famine in India: Natives Waiting for Relief at Bangalore

"Winston Churchill was just the last of the many murderous despots who presided over India's fate during the over 200 years of British rule. He said, "I hate Indians. They are beastly people with a beastly religion"," Simha told Sputnik.

Can We Classify the Bengal Famine as Genocide?


Can we classify the Bengal Famine as genocide? Genocide is a systematic killing of a people in great numbers and Churchill intentionally, and with open malice towards Indians, diverted grain from India to Europe, the analyst pointed out. He added that even when desperate pleas came from the administration in Bengal, Churchill refused to dispatch emergency food supplies. The UK prime minister even went so far as to blame Indians for the famine, saying that they "breed like rabbits."

"When the British representatives in India asked Churchill to stop diverting Indian food grains to Europe and to supply India with wheat from Australia, he replied: "If there is famine in India, then why is Gandhi still alive?"" the analyst remarked bitterly.

The Bengal Famine happened despite India being a food-surplus country with a bumper harvest that year, he stressed. And that had not been the first time when the British rulers facilitated food shortages in India.

Photograph of a South India family in 1878 by W.W. Hooper
© Wikipedia/ W.W.Hooper. 1878
Photograph of a South India family in 1878 by W.W. Hooper

Simha stressed that during over 200 years of British rule, India saw at least two dozen major famines, which collectively killed 60 million people. The journalist added that the figure is based on numbers collated by British officials and economists and in reality it is significantly higher.


The analyst pointed out that during the 1877 famine in India, the only acquire to get some food was to work in the British labor camps. Within those camps, starving Indians received only 16 ounces of rice per day — less than the Jewish inmates of Buchenwald, the Nazi concentration camp of the Second World War.

One would say that India had faced famines even before the British colonial rule. However, "in the past 2000 years of Indian history, there were very few famine deaths because the Indian rulers ensured the well-being of the people through emergency food supplies and field kitchens," the journalist underscored.

India's Forgotten Holocaust

The history of manmade famines in India under the British rule can be obviously compared to the Jewish Holocaust of the Second World War, according to Rakesh Krishnan Simha.

"Hitler's hatred for Jews led to the Holocaust and Britain's malice towards Indians caused the deaths of at least 60 million Indians, including three million people during the Bengal Famine. Proportionately, the Bengal Famine was a holocaust on a bigger scale than the Jewish Holocaust. It took Hitler 12 years to murder 6 million Jews, but the British starved at least 3 million Indians to death in a 15 month period from 1943 to 1944. Indian estimates put the toll at 7 million," the journalist told Sputnik.

Simha pointed out that Hitler wanted to destroy the entire Jewish population of Europe because of race and religious reasons; furthermore, Hitler saw Jews as competitors in the German economy.

"Hitler also wanted to create Lebensraum in Europe for pure Germans. If you look at the history of English colonialism, they have created their own versions of Lebensraum in Canada, the US, Australia and New Zealand after the genocide of native populations," the analyst underscored.

"They [the British] may have wanted to do the same in India. But the British couldn't replicate armed genocide in India because Indians put up a ferocious counter attack and defeated the British in several wars. So the British may have decided to systematically eradicate Indians through famines. In fact, Churchill's scorched earth policy was intended to enfeeble the Indian population so the Japanese-armed Indian National Army which was planning to liberate India from the east would not find able bodied men in Bengal," he elaborated.

Why Does the Story of the Indian Genocide Remain Unspoken?

So, why does the story of the Indian genocide still remain unspoken? Why does the West that has recently rushed to blame Serbs for "genocide" of Bosnian Muslims remains suspiciously silent about its own hideous atrocities?

"First up, why would the US, UK, Spain or France admit at all to genocides they have committed? It is precisely because the scale of their own crimes is so staggering that they quickly latch on to other countries' internal problems. For instance, after an alleged 100,000 East Timorese were killed by the Indonesians, the West suddenly adopted the role of savior, conscience keeper and protector. It then invaded East Timor and illegally made it an independent country. It did the same in Kosovo," Rakesh Krishnan Simha elaborated.

"The UK and British immigrants in America wiped out Native Indians by the tens of millions. In Africa, the British massacred Kenyans," he added.

According to the journalist, considering the scale of the atrocities, the international community should conduct an official investigation into the Indian genocide.

"If the US Congress can condemn the Turkish genocide of Armenians a 100 years ago, then they can also censure Britain for even bigger holocausts in India. For this to happen, private Indian individuals must come forward to demand apology and reparations. There are a number of Indians who remember the holocaust and were affected by it," the analyst pointed out.

And there is a precedent, he stressed: "Kenya has asked Britain for an apology, and the British have rendered one."

However, there are a number of obstacles in the way of restoring justice. First of all it is not in the British interests to recognize such a hideous crime. Furthermore, the Indian elite have already established close ties with the British nobilities. Many of them have their children studying in American and British colleges, or have business connections, or have family living in Britain, Simha noted. Maybe that is why most Indians have no memory of these holocausts because they are not taught in Indian schools, the foreign affairs analyst emphasized.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/2015071 ... z3gpApFaDf

Mukesh.Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1039
Joined: 06 Dec 2009 14:09

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby Mukesh.Kumar » 25 Jul 2015 22:10

An time lapse interesting map of how the US grew from 13 colonies to take over a substantial portion of N. America and islands in the Pacific.

http://www.mapofus.org/united-states/

In fact, if the US had it's way, then they would have expanded as far as the Philippines which were under US administration from 1898 till the end of WW II.

If there ever was an expansionist power liberating it's way across the Wester Hemisphere, it has been the US.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby shiv » 26 Jul 2015 08:00


dada
BRFite
Posts: 135
Joined: 12 Jan 2006 16:43

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby dada » 27 Jul 2015 20:16

There is no guanrantee that civilisation will triumph over isis !

link : http://www.dawn.com/news/1196605/there- ... -over-isis

It is all about developing power & the will to exercise it. pacifist attitude has cost us 1000 years of slavery under abrahamic rule!

muraliravi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2819
Joined: 07 May 2009 16:49

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby muraliravi » 05 Aug 2015 00:20

Whether we like it or not, Britain could not colonize China like they did with Bharat. We just did not have the will power to ward of Invaders whether it was the moghuls or the brits.

If we want history not to repeat, we need 2 things

1. Teach our people survival instincts and to be brutal with any possible enemy (even if he is living amidst us)
2. Develop a world class military industrial complex within 30 years.

If we dont do these 2 things, we will have a forum very similar to this one 100 years from now which will be hosted from some remote country where we are living in exile.

While the maratha empire had the bravery and the survival instincts, it still was buying weapons from the french and used afghan operators. Such was the dismal state of research in India. Time is better spent on really understanding why we lost the wars right from sindh all the way to the anglo maratha wars.

The popular reason we read in that our kings were not united, I suspect the reason to be different. I believe that the invaders in every case (moghuls/brits) had much superior weapons. This continues to be the case today.

China is an example of a country which warded off colonizations (by islamic forces early on and brits later) even without having advanced weapons.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby Singha » 11 Aug 2015 10:11

seems spanish and portugese colonizers in S.America married into the local women as it was their policy to convert people to catholicism by force if needed and then absorb them into their society.

the north europe protestants in N.America were not so keen on converting people and had no means to absorb native american women into their society, the products of such unions were usually due to rape. instead they imported their own women by ship - when the colonies became self sustaining and stable.

this we see in india also. in the early phase the britishers had native "wives", but once the memsahibs arrived enmasse, contact between the sahibs and the natives became much more controlled and remote.

seen in a web forum:
Note that Portugese intermarriage in Africa (and the resultant influx of disease-resistant genetic material) may have been one of the things that allowed them to colonize tropical Africa. The British mostly tried to stick to sub-tropical areas.

also its been speculated the portugese and spanish had more genetic mix already - celtic, visigoth, phoenician, carthaginian, moorish.....

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3761
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby panduranghari » 12 Aug 2015 16:41

Theodore Roosevelt wrote:The most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with savages, though it is apt to be also the most terrible and inhuman. The rude, fierce settler who drove the savage from the land has all civilized mankind under a debt to him. American and Indian, Boer and Zulu, Cossack and Tartar, New Zealander and Maori-in each case the victor, horrible though many of his deeds are, has laid deep the foundations for the future greatness of a mighty people. . . . it is of incalculable importance that America, Australia and Siberia should pass out of the hands of their red, black and yellow aboriginal owners, and become the heritage of the dominant world races


https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... -game-asia

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby shiv » 13 Aug 2015 09:15

British rule in India started on this day 250 years back

How our wealthy Nabobs helped give India away
The Treaty of Allahabad was signed on August 12, 1765 and it was one of the turning points of Indian history. This event marks the advent of British political presence in the Indian subcontinent. The East India Company that was formed in 1600 AD got a strong footing in India. Before the signing of this treaty the EIC only had a strong trading relation with the Indian emperors.


    The Treaty was a direct result of the Battle of Buxar which was primarily fought against the East India Company and the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II

    The Mughal Emperor had to submit to the East India Company after facing defeat and sign a treaty designed by Robert Clive of the East India Company

    With the signing of the treaty, the Emperor gave Diwani's fiscal rights to the EIC. The area included today's Bihar, Bengal and Orissa

    The Treaty gave the Company access to nearly 40,000 square kilometres of taxable land in one of the most fertile belts in the subcontinent

    The British were entitled to collecting tax directly without the King's consent. In return, they had to annually pay Rs 26 Lakhs to the Mughal as tribute. The districts Kora and Allahabad were also returned to the Mughal Emperor

    The Nawab of Awadh who also fought against the EIC in the Battle of Buxar, had to pay Rs 53 Lakhs in war indemnity. He was sent back to the Oudh and was promised money to operate the court and a subsidiary army

    The Nawab of Bengal retained the judicial functions but the Company had the power to collect revenue .The new setup of administration with the King being a figurative head was called Dual System of Government. By 1793, the Nawab was forced to give up the little power he was left with.


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby Singha » 14 Aug 2015 14:43

china was not a greatly hospital place like india to exploit...the southern part was a swampy region and northern areas deserty and cold, too far from bartania also. same held true for other eu powers.

so they confined themselves to getting hold of the important coastal cities and running exim trade, with punitive military powers "boxer rebellion" to retain control over the local kings. dalian was in german hands i think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concessions_in_China
if you look at the list every important city in china had these foreign enclaves , along with their own troops and militias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_f ... s_in_China

so defacto they ruled china by propping up chieftains , controlling trade.

they did not directly attempt to rule any part unlike in india.

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3761
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby panduranghari » 17 Aug 2015 16:49

britain-worlds-worst-mass-murderer

Lots of references. Where is the national museum to document these atrocities?

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11636
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby A_Gupta » 26 Aug 2015 16:54

Will Durant, the American historian:

Will Durant – The Case for India (1930)

A Note To The Reader

I went to India to help myself visualize a people whose cultural history I had been studying for The Story of Civilization. I did not expect to be attracted by the Hindus, or that I should be swept into a passionate interest in Indian politics. I merely hoped to add a little to my material, to look with my own eyes upon certain works of art, and then to return to my historical studies, forgetting this contemporary world.

But I saw such things in India as made me feel that study and writing were frivolous things in the presence of a people– one-fifth of the human race – suffering poverty and oppression bitterer than any to be found elsewhere on the earth. I was horrified. I had not thought it possible that any government could allow its subjects to sink to such misery.

I came away resolved to study living India as well as the India with the brilliant past; to learn more of this unique Revolution that fought with suffering accepted but never returned; to read the Gandhi of today as well as the Buddha of long ago.

And the more I read the more I was filled with astonishment and indignation at the apparently conscious and deliberate bleeding of India by England throughout a hundred and fifty years. I began to feel that I had come upon the greatest crime in all history.

And so I ask the reader's permission to abandon for a while my researches into the past, so that I may stand up and say my word for India. I know how weak words are in the face of guns and blood; how irrelevant mere truth and decency appear beside the might of empires and gold. But if even one Hindu, fighting for freedom far off there on the other side of the globe, shall hear this call of mine and be a trifle comforted, then these months of work on this little book will seem sweet to me. For I know of nothing in the world that I would rather do today than to be of help to India.

WILL DURANT
October 1, 1930

Note: This book has been written without the knowledge or co-operation, in any form, of any Hindu, or of any person acting for India.

member_28638
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby member_28638 » 28 Aug 2015 19:34

panduranghari wrote:britain-worlds-worst-mass-murderer

Lots of references. Where is the national museum to document these atrocities?


The True Rule Britannia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ7XEoc ... e=youtu.be

A slideshow with just a fraction of the pain and suffering the celebrated and glorified British Empire inflicted on the world and continues to inflict.

The British Empire never died, it was swallowed up by the US regime which Britain is a joint partner in.

member_28638
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby member_28638 » 28 Aug 2015 19:36

panduranghari wrote:britain-worlds-worst-mass-murderer

Lots of references. Where is the national museum to document these atrocities?



Crimes of Britain

https://twitter.com/crimesofbrits/favorites?lang=en

Revisiting and monitoring the crimes of Britain

Multatuli
BRFite
Posts: 612
Joined: 06 Feb 2007 06:29
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby Multatuli » 06 Sep 2015 21:17

The Dutch Queen/King has a Golden Carriage, a gift from the city of Amsterdam to queen Wilhelmina in 1898. They use it every 3rd Tuesday in September to drive the Dutch Queen/King (presently a King) to the 'Ridderzaal' (Knight Hall), were the King/Queen delivers a speech from the throne, the speech is written by the Prime Minister/government and gives a summation of the current social/economic state in the Kingdom and the government social/economic policy for the coming years.

Now look at the painting on the right side of the state 'Golden Carriage': the painting is called 'Hulde der Koloniën'. It depicts brown/black people from the colonies bowing down to the (of course white) queen, carrying riches on their head/back to be offered to the Dutch queen.

In essence, it depicts/reveals the worldview of the Dutch (all European colonial powers): the indigenous/colored people in the colonies are there to serve (praise, affirm the superiority of the whites) and to enrich their white colonial master, they are to serve as fertilizer (dung) for the white man.

'Hulde der Koloniën' (the name of the painting) means:

Hulde means 'praise', pay homage to; der Koloniën means 'from the colonies' (the colonized people).

So the colonized (slaves) pay homage/tribute to the Great White King/Queen of Holland.

http://historiek.net/wp-content/uploads ... 770263.jpg

http://www.deregentegenhouden.nl/Gouden ... rleden.jpg

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11636
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby A_Gupta » 18 Sep 2015 16:01

http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... er/404260/
Hitler is often depicted as the prototypical totalitarian—a man who believed in the superiority of the German state, a German nationalist to the extreme. But according to Snyder, this depiction is deeply flawed. Rather, Hitler was a “racial anarchist”—a man for whom states were transitory, laws meaningless, ethics a facade.


Snyder: … [I]f we think that Hitler was just a nationalist, but more so, or just an authoritarian, but more so, we’re missing the capacity for evil completely. If Hitler had just been a German nationalist who wanted to rule over Germans—if he was just an authoritarian who wanted to have a strong state—the Holocaust could not have happened. The Holocaust could happen because he was neither of those things. He wasn’t really a nationalist. He was a kind of racial anarchist who thought that the only good in the world was for races to compete, and so he thought that the Germans would probably win in a racial competition, but he wasn’t sure. And as far as he was concerned, if the Germans lost, that was also alright. And that’s just not a view that a nationalist can hold.


Delman: Do you think this question of whether a country or leader is rational is relevant or important?

Snyder: I would put it in a slightly different way. I would say, is a leader concerned primarily with transforming the world so that some other logic can take over? That’s what Hitler was like. It’s not that Hitler was rational or irrational. You can say both things. It’s that his primary concern was unleashing some kind of correct world order which was just lurking beneath the surface. The right way to think about Hitler is that he thought there was a natural order, and you just had to do a few things to unleash it. You had to kill the Jews, you had to get the Germans into the war, and then you would return to the struggle, which was nature. And that was the only thing for Hitler which was good.


IMO, there are Islamists in Pakistan who think there is a natural order, in which each Pak Musalman enslaves 10 Kafirs. The kafirs are divided and weak -- but India is not, so India is unnatural; so they just have a few things to return to the natural order -- such as terrorism. Those fantasy maps of India are an indication. Yes, current Pakistani leadership may be rational in the conventional sense. The point of the excerpts above (and please read the whole thing, don't get hung up in the Nazism) is that there is another "rationality" -- "transforming the world so that some other logic takes over". Anyone who wants to do that poses the major threat to India; the rest are garden-variety criminal threats that operate on profit-and-loss.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby abhischekcc » 21 Sep 2015 08:02

Hitler was not anything different from the type of politicians that Europeans produced in those days. A far more evil man was Churchill.

By focusing entirely on Hitler's evil, the other caucasians want the world to ignore their crimes - British, French, Americans were equally evil in the way they treated coloured people.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18824
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby Karan M » 04 Oct 2015 21:40

Benevolent rule of the Empire indeed. Burn 16 men alive...and 2 years in jail. Good old Queen and all that.

http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/ ... tters.html

"The judges were in a horrid state, and so were we. There was a brute of a man, a superintendent of roads. His house was robbed, and he suspected some of the men who worked on the roads of the robbery; so he had a sort of bamboo gibbet erected, to which he tied up sixteen of these men by their hands, their feet not touching the ground, and then flogged them and lit straw under them and burnt them with irons, and kept them hanging fourteen hours, and some eighteen. One man was taken down dead, some insensible. It was proved that this all happened in Mr. —'s compound, and that he had his dinner-table brought out and dined within six yards of these wretched creatures. He made no defence, except that he did not touch them with his own hands, but only gave directions to his overseer. Sir Henry Seton said that, in his charge to the jury, he only alluded to the possibility of calling it manslaughter because, from the horror of capital punishment in this country, he thought it better to ensure the man's being transported for life; but, to his utter surprise, the jury brought in a verdict of 'not guilty.' Sir E. Ryan, who has been here many years, says it is invariably the case that the low Europeans who make up a jury here always agree to acquit any man who is tried for the murder of a native.

Monday, 27th.

We certainly have bearable weather. The church was quite cool last night, and this evening we all went on board the 'Conway' and sailed about in the captain's boat in a nice cool breeze. It is very odd, for this is the hottest time of year by rights, and ought to be the driest, but there is a storm every day; bless its heart!

Tuesday, 28th.

I am happy to say Hughes was convicted of a misdemeanour yesterday, and will have two years' imprisonment. It is better than nothing. Mr. —, the lawyer, launched out against the jury in a way that astonished them."

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby Singha » 09 Oct 2015 15:33

looks like the muslims of arabia who laid waste to half the known world had a nice exemplar to model their wiping out of other religions - the eastern roman empire and its persecution of 'pagans'

read it in full.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecuti ... man_Empire

Under Pope Gregory I, the caverns, grottoes, crags and glens that had once been used for the worship of the pagan gods were now appropriated by Christianity: "Let altars be built and relics be placed there" wrote Pope Gregory I, "so that [the pagans] have to change from the worship of the daemones to that of the true God."[119][120]

"The triumph of Catholic Christianity over Roman paganism, heretical Arianism [and] pagan barbarism," asserts Hillgarth[121] "was certainly due in large part to the support it received, first from the declining Roman state and later from the barbarian monarchies.

...the persecution of those Mediterranean religions that we now label "paganism" was seen as the result of the religious intolerance inherent in the monotheistic Christian faith.

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3761
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby panduranghari » 12 Oct 2015 13:52

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.

Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.


George Orwell and English Language

member_28638
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby member_28638 » 17 Oct 2015 15:06

Crimes of Britain

A catalog of crimes of Britain, past and present, many against Indians:

https://twitter.com/crimesofbrits?lang=en

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby Singha » 09 Nov 2015 12:15

TOI

LONDON: A lobby group made up of Indian businessmen and actors is mounting a legal challenge against Queen Elizabeth II demanding the return of the world famous Koh-i-noor diamond to India.

The 105-carat stone, believed to have been mined in India nearly 800 years ago, was presented to Queen Victoria during the Raj and is now set in a crown belonging to the Queen's mother on public display in the Tower of London.

David de Souza, co-founder of the Indian leisure group Titos, is helping to fund the new legal action and has instructed British lawyers to begin high court proceedings.

"The Koh-i-Noor is one of the many artefacts taken from India under dubious circumstances. Colonisation did not only rob our people of wealth, it destroyed the country's psyche itself. It brutalised society, traces of which linger on today in the form of mass poverty, lack of education and a host of other factors," De Souza told 'Sunday Telegraph'.

The legal action coincides with Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to the UK this week, which includes a lunch hosted by the Queen at Buckingham Palace.

The Koh-i-Noor, which means "mountain of light", was once the largest cut diamond in the world and had been passed down from one ruling dynasty to another in India.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby shiv » 23 Nov 2015 07:31


mohanty
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 02 Jan 2006 23:26

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby mohanty » 02 Dec 2015 18:03

Title of the thread is a bit strange since I doubt there was ever any benevolent empire. All empires used genocide or slavery. Of course some did more than others.

The extreme brutal the empire is, the faster it dies. The longer lasting ones are those that do a milder form of slavery for all citizens to benefit the inner core of elites.

While we blame Britain for much atrocity in India, and rightly so, did any average British people intend this or engineer this? No, if they benefited it was due to side effect of just being in Britain. The real benefit went to the ruling elites, the Lords, the bankers in UK, as it always does.

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3761
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby panduranghari » 05 Dec 2015 14:28

>>>The real benefit went to the ruling elites, the Lords, the bankers in UK, as it always does.

ergo the common man in Britain. Britain became rich, while we got poor. That is enough reason to tar the whole British race. And even today, some of them have delusions of being something significant. I got a couple of patients. One of them is a Lord and he is a righteous prick. Another chap who is in his ripe old age still feels they were in India to civilise the natives. They have not lost their अखड yet.

mohanty
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 02 Jan 2006 23:26

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby mohanty » 05 Dec 2015 17:27

panduranghari wrote:ergo the common man in Britain. Britain became rich, while we got poor. That is enough reason to tar the whole British race. And even today, some of them have delusions of being something significant. I got a couple of patients. One of them is a Lord and he is a righteous prick. Another chap who is in his ripe old age still feels they were in India to civilise the natives. They have not lost their अखड yet.


tarring the whole british race will have only sentimental value, nothing else. This debate with the remnants of that era that they were trying to civilize us, while we can counter by saying that we had a civilization and doing astronomy while they were swinging from trees and eating each other, is again going to be childish.

All empires, foreign or domestic were tyrannical one way or another. We have to fear and control the elite everywhere who try to control, manipulate, force and swindle the average person for the "greater good" or to promote their agenda. These so called "leaders" are to be worried about especially those that employ more than voluntary consent from the masses.

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3761
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby panduranghari » 05 Dec 2015 22:19

Even if we stop thinking about the past and how it had a deleterious effect on the nation and its people, the important thing is today the same mercantile policies of Anglo-saxon world are active in the economic sphere. Its not guns now. Its trade or the policies adopted under the guise of trade which keep certain nations alive. And what they are doing is nothing short of slavery and genocide.

mohanty
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 02 Jan 2006 23:26

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby mohanty » 05 Dec 2015 22:47

panduranghari wrote:Even if we stop thinking about the past and how it had a deleterious effect on the nation and its people, the important thing is today the same mercantile policies of Anglo-saxon world are active in the economic sphere. Its not guns now. Its trade or the policies adopted under the guise of trade which keep certain nations alive. And what they are doing is nothing short of slavery and genocide.


Exactly. Focus on the neo empires of global corporations. Most of these global corporations, you can never tell who owns them from Exxon to Monsanto to IBM. As before it is still the minor hidden elite who are creating all kind of trade deals and then get ambitious but ultimately useful idiot politicians and academics to implement them that benefits the elite over local people. All empires with or without guns enrich a few at the expense of many. While focusing on past empires is good, the present more sophisticated ones that enslave us need more exposing.

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3761
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby panduranghari » 05 Dec 2015 23:01

And sir how should we expose them? We cannot. Its the same blue pill or red pill thing from Matrix. Not many people are keen on taking the red pill. Those who do, find BRF and do their own fact finding.

mohanty
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 02 Jan 2006 23:26

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby mohanty » 05 Dec 2015 23:20

Don't they say that a small group of highly motivated people actually make change happen? The so-called "silent majority" that media talks about don't really matter ever. But I understand the frustration and sometimes it feels that the elites are right that the majority are sheeps who must be ruled and enslaved for their own good.

But things are changing. More people are waking up. 15 years back when someone first told me about the "global elite" I disbelieved him and thought Presidents and Prime Ministers make decisions. We must resist the propaganda in our own little ways and urge people to "Question More" as RT says(even if RT has it's own propaganda). One has to be optimistic.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5638
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby vishvak » 05 Dec 2015 23:53

while we can counter by saying that we had a civilization and doing astronomy while they were swinging from trees and eating each other, is again going to be childish.

Not childish at all. Even now there are people coming to India just to convince themselves, and natives, about original barbarism and who made the natives civilized - which is totally false. Fact is that the original colonists were the Genocidal Portuguese who killed many within India too, the Europeans killed many more worldwide, the British set up worldwide empire, while it is the Indians who fought for independence and created an independent country.

From the links above about Belgians in Congo, 3-4 natives lined up, one behind another, to save bullets.
Image
Belgians being economical with bullets wasted over Congolese. pic.twitter.com/Wf13CKRgT1
link

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 540
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby Avarachan » 02 Mar 2016 07:29

I'm posting this here, because I'm not sure where else to post this.

I recommend that everyone watch this documentary from 2010 ("The Weight of Chains") on how the West broke up Yugoslavia. I learned many things, and I've been reading BRF for more than 10 years. It's a very good primer on how the West wages "hybrid war" using all possible means (political-economic-cultural-military-religious). The documentary is available free of charge on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw49iL6zGyQ

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6420
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby Supratik » 13 Mar 2016 18:41

Excerpts from "Muslim slave system in medieval india" by KS Lal.

http://www.sanskritimagazine.com/india/ ... -invaders/

Lilo
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4069
Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby Lilo » 27 Mar 2016 00:09

X-post
amitkv wrote:Very interesting graphic from NYTimes about mass murderers.

From Indian subcontinent, there are two that stand out.

1. Aurangzeb who butchered 4.6 million people. I wonder who these unfortunate people were?
2. Bengali massacre of 1971. Again wonder what sort of people will do such a thing. Hmmmm...

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/ ... eline.html

Image

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4774
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby Yayavar » 27 Mar 2016 04:58

^^also note that it is 'famines in British India'. It is not famines in India in general since the Indian rulers/administrators had a stake in goodwill of the population. The Angrez did not.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby Singha » 12 Apr 2016 17:27


SK Mody
BRFite
Posts: 251
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby SK Mody » 26 Apr 2016 22:26

Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner

Talks of the unbelievable 1000+ year rampage of Jihadic forces that continues to this day in various altered forms.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby RajeshA » 02 May 2016 14:49

Published on Apr 30, 2016
By Mark Charles
Off the Reservation

WHEN NATIVES ARE “ON THE RESERVATION,” IT IS IMPLIED THAT WE ARE CONTAINED, ISOLATED, AND CONTROLLED. WHEN WE GO “OFF THE RESERVATION,” CHAOS ENSUES. WE HAVE GONE ROGUE, ACT UNPREDICTABLY, AND ARE CAUSING TROUBLE.


In its literal and original sense, as you would expect, the term was used in the 19th century to describe the activities of Native Americans:

  • “The acting commissioner of Indian affairs to-day received a telegram from Agent Roorke of the Klamath (Oregon) agency, dated July 6, in which he says: ‘No Indians are off the reservation without authority. All my Indians are loyal and peaceable, and doing well.” (Baltimore Sun, July 11, 1878)

  • “Secretary Hoke Smith…has requested of the Secretary of War the aid of the United States troops to arrest a band of Navajo Indians living off the reservation near American Valley, New Mexico, who have been killing cattle, etc.” (Washington Post, May 23, 1894)

  • “Apaches off the reservation…killing deer and gathering wild fruits.” (New York Times, Sept. 7, 1897)

  • Many of the news articles that used the term in a literal sense in the past were also expressing undisguised contempt and hatred, or, at best, condescension, for Native Americans — “shiftless, untameable…a rampant and intractable enemy to civilization” (New York Times, Oct. 27, 1886).
(Kee Maleskey – NPR June 29, 2014)

But I would not expect Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump to understand this.

Lilo
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4069
Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08

Re: Nations and Empires that Grew on Genocide and Slavery

Postby Lilo » 18 Jun 2016 23:02

https://mobile.twitter.com/crimesofbrit ... 0958758912

During Great Famine of 1876-88 in India the only relief was hard labour where less food was given than in Buchenwald
Image


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Merril, sum and 40 guests