41–44 of 44 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup thats a good point. Forget about the submerged dwarka, there is so much old architecture all around in india and no one cares for it or take care of it. We just simply don’t care. Go look at the forts in rajasthan ans how they are treated vs forts jn all around Europe.
> Forget about the submerged dwarka Why, submerged dwarka is more important to Hindus than all those forts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>the British were the guys advocating and initiating ethnic cleansing of "inferior races" via engineered famines // Specific details, citations? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India hints that British inaction exacerbated famine but I don't see details to indicate famine was engineered for ethnic cleansing. I'm not disagreeing, it's the first I've heard of it really. There's plenty there to suggest capital…
> Specific details, citations? Winston Churchill. Even as recent as 1943. Churchill: Personally, I am not greatly concerned about Russian development in China. I would rather have them develop in that way down south into India. I believe in the ultimate partition of China—I mean ultimate. I hope we shall not have to do it in our day. The Aryan stock is bound to triumph. Churchill: I do not admit for instance, that a…
So neither "it was maybe subconscious", nor Churchill fits in there.
FWIW those quotes to me sound more like "I'm not going to apologise for what I consider natural selection". Perhaps it's the lack of context, could you cite the works those quotes are from?
There's a World of difference between being unapologetic that your "race" has won-out genetically and "we're going to systematically wipe out humans who lack what we consider to be ideal characteristics".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
India has always had conflicts between communities with 100s of individual kingdoms and warlords - some were vassals to bigger kingdoms. The modern day revisionist history tries to paint India as some sort of a united, utopia before the coming of the colonial powers but there is no evidence whatsoever to support that claim while there is plenty of evidence to counter it.
I don't think you are saying that India was never a united entity in it's history. It has been united multiple times throughout. In fact that's how it got the name "Bharat" after one if the kings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your example, while certainly a good one, is from 1943, rather late considering the empire would start shrinking and decolonizing in 45.
> Your example, while certainly a good one, is from 1943, rather late considering the empire would start shrinking and decolonizing in 45. Again, as mentioned, I gave the 1943 example to point out how recent such colonial actions and attempts at ethnic cleansing were. There are people alive today who suffered through that. There's ample examples of other genocides via famine performed by the English against ethnic gr…
I'm not well versed in the Potato Famine but I understood it was primarily about rich landlords and wealthy Britons caring naught for any poor people. Confounded with "Catholic vs Protestant" tribalism.
Though Trevelyan appeared to believe strictly in hands-off pure Capitalism and didn't seemingly worry about religious affiliation ("Protestant and Catholic will freely fall and the land will be for the survivors.") which was a proxy for being "English" vs Irish.
We've switched to a different sort of evil perpetrated for different reasons on different people in a different time; the natural conclusion is that you erred in your initial claim and so are trying to bolster your conclusion with other information?
If you want to say British controlling powers have been involved in genocides, motivated at least in part by racial or xenophobic hate, then you'll get no opposition from me. But 'multiple generations coordinating to create conditions in which a famine can kill' as a mode of ethnic cleansing? I'm not seeing it in the argument you're making.