On the topic of Indian famines: what is often forgotten is the famine
of 1945, in which 6 million Bengalis died in a year ... because of
British strategic decisions.
Robert
Alison Croggon wrote:
>Just a PS: I mentioned Arnold too because he's not usually associated
with
>the kinds of repulsion that, say, results from Pound's anti-Semitism or
>support for Fascism. Yet how is he, in advocating violent state
repression
>of colonial subjects or, for that matter, trade unions in industrial
>Britain, less morally culpable than Pound? In terms of human suffering,
it
>doesn't seem much different to me. Except in the case of Great Britain,
the
>numbers are staggering. How many millions of people died in famines in
India
>as a direct result of British rule? From a wiki: Rev. J. T. Sunderland,
in
>his work, "The Causes of Famine in India," like all impartial writers,
has
>conclusively proved that neither "failure of rains" nor
"overpopulation" is
>the cause of famines in India. He has stated that the real cause of
famine
>is the extreme, the abject, the awful poverty of the Indian people
caused by
>"ENORMOUS FOREIGN TRIBUTE," "British Indian Imperialism," and the
>destruction of Indian industries.
>
>I guess it's the difference between different kinds of violence:
systemic
>economic violence is just part of the scene, and is not counted as
violence.
>Also, it usually involves brown people. The odd outbreak of dramatic
>military violence, in British India, say, or the murder of union
officials
>in Coca Cola's Columbian factories over the past decade, is the
symptom, but
>the real violence lies underneath.
>
>&c. I know it's an old argument. But a double standard does seem to
exist in
>terms of moral disopprobrium.
>
>xA
>
>
>
>--
>Editor, Masthead: http://www.masthead.net.au
>Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
>Home page: http://www.alisoncroggon.com
>
|