538
Tucker Carlson accused of airing ‘pro-Nazi propaganda’ on show
(www.independent.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024
538 points (98.0% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4549 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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
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.
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.
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.
Well, they're Republicans. Those Pollacks were just dressing too slutty. Hitler had to invade. And France? Come on now.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rofl. That's rich coming from someone making wild claims, whose only citation was one sentence from a Churchill hit piece that contained zero justification for their assertion that Churchill was somehow responsible for India's famines. You then deflect with "read this persons work you ignorant simpleton" without any relevant citations.
Sure buddy. You can keep raging against this machine of yours, I've wasted enough of my Friday trying to reason with a dramatic husky.
I haven't made any wild claims at all and the claims I have made I've backed up with scholarly works, but go off I guess.
This article provides some quotes that certainly seem to indicate that malice played a role, or at best callous indifference.
Expanding colonialism is always malice
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.
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.
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.