Welcome to the Genocide Club

[Lemur]

It seems that the genocide club is a little bigger than we thought. We all know about the United States and the Native Americans, the Turks and the Armenians, the Belgians and the Congo, and of course the Germans and the Jews (and the gays and the gypsies and the retarded and anybody who looked Slavic). But were you aware of the British and the Indians? I was not. (And yes, I know there are people with forceful arguments that some or all of the above genocides weren't "really" genocides. Please allow it for the sake of rhetoric, okay?)

A recent book documents the events:

In his book Late Victorian Holocausts, published in 2001, Mike Davis tells the story of famines that killed between 12 and 29 million Indians. These people were, he demonstrates, murdered by British state policy. When an El Niño drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan plateau in 1876 there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the viceroy, Lord Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent its export to England. In 1877 and 1878, at the height of the famine, grain merchants exported a record 6.4m hundredweight of wheat. As the peasants began to starve, officials were ordered "to discourage relief works in every possible way". The Anti-Charitable Contributions Act of 1877 prohibited "at the pain of imprisonment private relief donations that potentially interfered with the market fixing of grain prices". The only relief permitted in most districts was hard labour, from which anyone in an advanced state of starvation was turned away. In the labour camps, the workers were given less food than inmates of Buchenwald. In 1877, monthly mortality in the camps equated to an annual death rate of 94%.

As millions died, the imperial government launched "a militarised campaign to collect the tax arrears accumulated during the drought". The money, which ruined those who might otherwise have survived the famine, was used by Lytton to fund his war in Afghanistan. Even in places that had produced a crop surplus, the government's export policies, like Stalin's in Ukraine, manufactured hunger. In the north-western provinces, Oud and the Punjab, which had brought in record harvests in the preceeding three years, at least 1.25m died.

Apparently the Brits were equally naughty in Kenya:

Three recent books - Britain's Gulag by Caroline Elkins, Histories of the Hanged by David Anderson, and Web of Deceit by Mark Curtis - show how white settlers and British troops suppressed the Mau Mau revolt in Kenya in the 1950s. Thrown off their best land and deprived of political rights, the Kikuyu started to organise - some of them violently - against colonial rule. The British responded by driving up to 320,000 of them into concentration camps. Most of the remainder - more than a million - were held in "enclosed villages". Prisoners were questioned with the help of "slicing off ears, boring holes in eardrums, flogging until death, pouring paraffin over suspects who were then set alight, and burning eardrums with lit cigarettes". British soldiers used a "metal castrating instrument" to cut off testicles and fingers. "By the time I cut his balls off," one settler boasted, "he had no ears, and his eyeball, the right one, I think, was hanging out of its socket." The soldiers were told they could shoot anyone they liked "provided they were black". Elkins's evidence suggests that more than 100,000 Kikuyu were either killed or died of disease and starvation in the camps. David Anderson documents the hanging of 1,090 suspected rebels: far more than the French executed in Algeria. Thousands more were summarily executed by soldiers, who claimed they had "failed to halt" when challenged.

One and a quarter million dead in just two provinces of India. A hundred thousand dead (at minimum) and many thousands mutilated in Kenya. Who knew the Brits were up to such naughtiness? Were any of our British Orgahs aware of these events?

-edit-

Oh, and apparently the Brits invented the concentration camp during the Boer War. Rule Britannia!

[Meneldil]

AFAIK, this is old news.
That's why I always laught at french history teachers who keep saying that the brits were, unlike us, nice and polite settlers.

[Lemur]

AFAIK, this is old news.

One might be tempted to call it "history," eh?

[CrossLOPER]

Uh... everyone already knew this. Rule is, if you can do awful things and get away with it, you do it. (in this case if you have bangsticks)

EDIT: Personally, I can't really think of why one would wake up in the morning and decide to rip off some guy's balls, but whatever.

[Fragony]

Everybody did it, and a concentration camp is a prison with barbed wire instead of walls, I'd invent it does exactly he same thing keep them in. And no.

[RabidGibbon]

It's strange how many people like to think of the British Empire as being some sort of vast charity concern with its subjects best interests at heart.

At the end of the day it was a vast money making machine, which perhaps is one (pedantic) point that can be made against the opinions expressed in the opening post. Normally when the British Empire was doing something awful to its subjects it's in the name of making money (ie: Exporting food from India whilst Indians starve) or putting down challenges to British rule. Attempting to out and out exterminate certain ethnicites rarely figured. A good argument could be made for guilty as charged in the case of Tasmania however.

[Vladimir]

Everybody did it, and a concentration camp is a prison with barbed wire instead of walls, I'd invent it does exactly he same thing keep them in. And no.

Quite true. "Genocide" as it is currently defined is how nations form.

Send me to Mars to found my own nation please.

[doc_bean]

Meh, iI thought this was ging to be about the 150 000 civilian casualties in Iraq, I'm dissapointed.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Lemur, can I in turn express my surprise at your surprise? Surely at least the Irish Potato Famine should be well known to American audiences? And how do you think Australia became white?

But you touch on an important issue. There is a tendency in British historiography to paint an all too rosy picture of the British Empire, of British decolonialism. All those nice pink-coloured territories on the face of the earth weren't exactly dying to become part of splendid Albion. Some studies go as far as calling the British Empire 'defensive in nature'. An accidental empire, instated to protect British trading interests.
Part of a general tendency to believe in British exceptionalism maybe.

Also, you left out France on your list of genocidal maniac nations.

That's why I always laught at french history teachers who keep saying that the brits were, unlike us, nice and polite settlers.

Aye, they need a better example for this eternal self-flagellation that passes for history class nowadays.

Me, I am happy that there has been some sort of re-assesment of France's colonial past in recent years. Colonialism was not entirely negative. Some of the more positive and constructive elements are nowadays part of the school curricula as well.

[Fragony]

Also, you left out France on your list of genocidal maniac nations.

And the Spanish, the Portugese, the Dutch or just about everything that is alive. We killed hundrerds of thousands after WW2 and millions before. Americans really need to get over their cherokeearepwned-complex. We wouldn't do such a thing nowadays now would we.

[Devastatin Dave]

Wow, people doing bad things to other people. I'm shocked.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Uh... everyone already knew this. Rule is, if you can do awful things and get away with it, you do it. (in this case if you have bangsticks)

EDIT: Personally, I can't really think of why one would wake up in the morning and decide to rip off some guy's balls, but whatever.

It turns out a lot of people do awful things even if they can't get away with it... which is even worse. The British empire wouldn't have crumbled so easily if it hadn't putting itself in a situation where they sent out men who were interested in drinking their tea against an increasingly big horde of people who wanted revenge against brutal genocide of their families, relatives and friends. Similar to most empires who use a temporary advantage granted to them during a short period of history to ruthlessly and mercilessly attack people they had no quarrel with. Which is why one would think that after all failed Imperialism attempt all new instances of similar ideas would have learnt the lesson from their history books...

As for thread, yeah, old news to most I guess... By the way, you could just as well claim the romans invented concentration camps, IIRC there have been some claims of a few castrum-looking buildings where POWs and civilians were kept and many starved to death. The idea to attack and systematically attempt to exterminate civilians has been employed in many historical periods, sometimes (unfortunately) looking beneficial in the short term, but almost always harmful in the long run, the notable exception being native Americans.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Quite true. "Genocide" as it is currently defined is how nations form.

There are plenty of nations which were formed without genocide. A few examples off the top of my head:
- France (was united and got its national image etc etc during their defense against the English in the 100 years war)
- England (formed by an invasion - major resistance pretty much ended after Battle of Hastings due to lacking support for Harold and the prior dynasty, the locals at that time didn't think it mattered much to become ruled by the Norman dynasty)

And a few examples of entirely peacefully formed countries off the top of my head:
- Norway (became independent by a referendum)
- Iceland (gradually became free through treaties of increasing autonomy)

[Fragony]

You Romanian guys did invent biological warfare in a way, the first record of using diseased agents and throwing diseased plague victims into enemy towns are from uncle Vlad.

[drone]

I hadn't heard about the India thing, but it doesn't surprise me that much. It's essentially the same thing that happened in the Irish potato famine. Lots of food, but worth more as export than sold locally. Many say bio-fuels will cause another one of these.

[Odin]

I hadn't heard about the India thing, but it doesn't surprise me that much. It's essentially the same thing that happened in the Irish potato famine. Lots of food, but worth more as export than sold locally. Many say bio-fuels will cause another one of these.

Quite, I have been making a killing on wheat its up nearly 3 fold since everyone got ethenol/corn happy.

[Vladimir]

There are plenty of nations which were formed without genocide. A few examples off the top of my head:
- France (was united and got its national image etc etc during their defense against the English in the 100 years war)
- England (formed by an invasion - major resistance pretty much ended after Battle of Hastings due to lacking support for Harold and the prior dynasty, the locals at that time didn't think it mattered much to become ruled by the Norman dynasty)

And a few examples of entirely peacefully formed countries off the top of my head:
- Norway (became independent by a referendum)
- Iceland (gradually became free through treaties of increasing autonomy)

If you cause the eradication of a particular culture by force, you are guilty of genocide. You can't tell me that there was only one migration into Norway. I largely ignorant about Iceland but think there must have been one there as well. The "French" nation is far older than the 100 years war. The creation of England is a good example of genocide.

People tend to "get around."

I'm basing this off the definition posted some time ago in the Monestary. It's pretty general.

I'm no advocate of it and if I understand the author's intention correctly I support him.

[LittleGrizzly]

Im not sure about genocide though maybe im using the word incorrectly, I knew of the Indian one didn't realise the scale of it. I think the problem is Brits did a few nice things, abolition of slavery and giving the colonys thier independance (i don't think they had much choice with the majority of them) and people seem to forget that we weren't nice, we were the big bad and we abused it, like every superpower.

[Geoffrey S]

I think genocide is a stretch, and overused in many cases. But that the British certainly weren't innocent of their share of vicious crimes against humanity is beyond doubt. Hyperbole however doesn't really help much. Where I think the opening post goes to far is the case of India; while it's clear the British could have, and should have done a lot more to relieve the Indians from hunger and the accompanying dangers, India certainly was not the only part of that world greatly suffering under the climate circumstances and massive failure of crops. China, for one, is a clear example of an area which wasn't under any colonial rule and suffered much the same problems, on a similar scale, one of the causes of the frequent civil strife of the late Qing dynasty.

Also, I'd like to note that as it was at the time, 'concentration camp' has no bearing whatsoever on the later crimes of the Nazis. Around the Boer war, it had the meaning of a fenced in camp for those arrested by the British where the inmates were put to work on forced labour. Harsh conditions, certainly, but the link the opening post implies isn't there.

What I'm surprised at is that anyone is surprised about these crimes. Surely while the rest of the world often stands accused on colonialist evils, there's no way the British could somehow have escaped notice, particularly in the politically correct age?

[Innocentius]

There are plenty of nations which were formed without genocide. A few examples off the top of my head:
- France (was united and got its national image etc etc during their defense against the English in the 100 years war)
- England (formed by an invasion - major resistance pretty much ended after Battle of Hastings due to lacking support for Harold and the prior dynasty, the locals at that time didn't think it mattered much to become ruled by the Norman dynasty)

And a few examples of entirely peacefully formed countries off the top of my head:
- Norway (became independent by a referendum)
- Iceland (gradually became free through treaties of increasing autonomy)

Although I agree that many, if not most, nations were formed without actions that fit in with the definition of genocide, I do however think that few countries in the world today who became what they are entirely peacefully. Norway for example, spent most of the medieval period and the early modern era fighting with or against either Denmark or Sweden, untill eventually ending up in a more or less forced personal union with Sweden after a brief war in 1814. The modern state of Norway didn't exist until 1905, but Norway and the Norwegians sure did.

Iceland on the other hand, took shape after centuries of more or less constant civil war, in the shape of small but endless vendettas between powerful and wealthy families.

Also, while we're discussin genocide anyway, isn't it rather amusing that the official definition of genocide (as declared by the UN in 1948) still doesn't include the determined extermination of, for example, homosexuals? Goes to show what the UN is capable of.

[Meneldil]

The "French" nation is far older than the 100 years war. The creation of England is a good example of genocide.

Well, here in France, the scholar term nation refers to modern (post-1789) nation-states.

Given that, France was merely a feudal state during the hundred years war, and only became a nation (and furthermore, the first one, according to our teachers) during the revolutionnary era, which - sort of - had his own genocide : the revolt in Vendée.

[KrooK]

Don't forget about France and Madagaskar during WW 2 :)

[Reverend Joe]

There are plenty of nations which were formed without genocide. A few examples off the top of my head:
- France (was united and got its national image etc etc during their defense against the English in the 100 years war)
- England (formed by an invasion - major resistance pretty much ended after Battle of Hastings due to lacking support for Harold and the prior dynasty, the locals at that time didn't think it mattered much to become ruled by the Norman dynasty)

I hate to nitpick, but:

-France was actually formed, not necessarily via genocide, but after decades of warfare against, and forced conversion of, the Saxon tribes to the East, during the reign of Charlemagne. Germany could trace her basis to this conquest, as well.

(Edit: if we follow Meneldil's official definition, then I guess the Saxon conquest doesn't count.)

-England was really formed during the Anglo-Saxon period, which could probably fall into the category of "genocide" if we are drawing a line in the sand; William the Bastard really just inherited an intact structure via conquest, and made a few cosmetic changes after he had to suppress several Saxon rebellions. Speaking of which, surely the "Harrying of the North" could count as genocide?

[Guildenstern]

Hello Everyone,

I’d like to join the conversation because I think this topic involves interesting aspects.
Unfortunately Italy was not immune to genocidal tendencies either, and this refers to relatively recent times.

Before entering World War II on the side of Nazi Germany in 1940, fascist dictator Benito Mussolini had planned an extremely aggressive form of nationalism in foreign policy. The invasion of Ethiopia involved several atrocities such as the use of chemical weapons (especially mustard gas), and the indiscriminate slaughter of much of the local population. The armed forces used a vast arsenal of bombs loaded with mustard gas, which were dropped from airplanes. This substance was also sprayed directly from above on to enemy combatants and villages. Mussolini and his generals tried to keep secret their use of chemical weapons, but the International Red Cross found out the truth and revealed the information to the world. The Italian reaction consisted in the falsely "erroneous" bombardment (at least 19 times) of Red Cross tents placed in the areas controlled by the Ethiopian resistance. Besides the bombs with mustard gas, the Italians instituted forced labor camps, installed public gallows, killed hostages, and mutilated the corpses of their enemies. Captured guerrillas were often eliminated by throwing them out of airplanes in mid-flight. Many Italian troops had themselves photographed next to cadavers hanging from gallows, or standing beside chests full of cut-off heads.

Although the Italian constitution obviously prohibits the reformation of the fascist party, sadly here in Italy we still have some parties clearly inspired by those principles of nationalism, racism, corporatism, strict censorship and state propaganda that were at the basis of the fascist regime. Some politicians on the far right have even defined Mussolini as “the greatest Italian statesman in the 20th century”. But the saddest thing is definitely that these right parties usually get most of their votes from the young, and not from old people who are nostalgic about the fascist period. This happens because Italian school teaches nearly nothing about Italy during World War II. Anyway Italian students are well instructed about ancient history: they have a good knowledge of daily life and culture of the ancient Romans and a deep insight into the techniques used by Caesar to conquer Gaul. It’s clear that all this can be very useful if one plans to become, say, a good RTW player… Joking aside, this is not an argument against the study of ancient history and my presence here is obviously evidence of my deep interest in the subject. I’m just saying that I can’t see the need of such a thorough analysis. I firmly believe that a good understanding of the main events that globally occurred in the last 70 years (at least) is essential in order to develop a strong civil consciousness (and the fundamental democratic values), despite the difference of ideological orientations. Well, I realize I’m a bit off topic now so I’ll just stop here for the moment.

Regards

[Samurai Waki]

Genocide is such an ugly word. I prefer the Spirit of Competition.

[Boyar Son]

Americans really need to get over their cherokeearepwned-complex.

No, they are pwned. Most live in poverty, only a few are extremely rich.

[master of the puppets]

he he, yeah we got those suckers good, oops! uh... i mean those poor proud people... i uh, wish i could apologize but i didn't do anything.

[Papewaio]

Australian Aboriginals were not taken off the wildlife census and added to the human one until a successful referendum in....

























1967.

[Tribesman]

Hey the Free State hasn't manage to get a claim in to join the club yet , can we have a go at genocide on the Victonians , apparently their cattle are quite nice and house trained and the women can cook and clean so they can be spared from the slaughter.....only sheep shaggers think small , lets go genocidal on the Victonians , but don't forget to bring your step ladder .

[KukriKhan]

Let's keep the Victonia posts in the sub-forum provided, please.