Yes, the Holomodor was more complex and not official policy for exterminating Ukrainians in the way that Israel has always had a policy of exterminating non-Jews, particularly the Palestinians.
The Holomodor was more like famines which happened in Ireland and India during British rule. Incompetence, indifference, ignorance rather than active policies to kill a group.
Exactly right, with one caveat. The "Irish Potato Famine" WAS an engineered attempt at genocide, or at the very least an intentional "let's let it happen so we can suppress the Irish and profit" situation.
I am not sure the Malthusian connection holds up. The famine happened because the Irish were dependent on one crop, potatoes. And yes, there were reasons for that but little evidence it was a plan.
And yes the British considered the Irish to be primitive, no doubt as the Irish considered the Scots to be primitive when they colonised their land.
There have been major famines in Malawi, where I lived for more than five years for the same reason - reliance on one crop, maize, which, when it failed meant the people starved.
The situation in Malawi arise from ignorance, arrogance, greed on the part of Government and chiefs and no doubt the same in Ireland. Was it an active plan on the part of those in control to starve the Malawians to death? No. And neither was it a plan to starve the Irish. The Malawi famines were caused by Malawians and not an occupier.
Same with the Bengal famine blamed by some on the British as an intentional extermination plan. Which if studied in the times and the history again makes no sense. Having lived in India for nearly five years I have read a lot of its history in situ.
Any study of history shows that most disasters are the result of arrogance, ignorance, stupidity, greed and self-serving actions rather than an actual plan or conspiracy.
The Irish famine was a tragedy for many and a new life in the Americas, Australia and New Zealand for many more. And Ireland today is doing well. It is probably time for them to put down their mantle of victimhood for such robes are always destructive as we see in Israel.
I dunno. But check out the Gravel Institute YouTube vid I posted. Makes a compelling case in ~12min. Apparently plenty of food was being IMPORTED into Ireland, but used mainly or solely to feed cattle that were slaughtered to be exported back to England. It was not just a "potato" thing.
Yes I did check it out. I have read a lot of history and studied psychology and anthropology as an amateur and lived in a dozen different countries which influences my application of common sense. I could be wrong of course.
Well, while we're talking about the British, "perfidious albion" didn't become a "thing" for no reason. They have been among the most brutal in their near-field colonization and conquest.
I'm of British (and French Saxon) stock myself, my forebears having been in what's now the US since the 1500s and I have nothing but contempt for the British Empire, or any empire, really. But the Americans and Brits are notorious for subterfuge, greed and evil. Not excusing the Belgians there, either. LOL
Wikipedia is a poor source for information on any controversial topic.
I believe colonisation was a necessary part of human evolution and a necessity which ended by the 20th century. Otherwise Africa would be very crowded.
And I do not understand why only anglo-european colonisations are deplored when Asian, African, Polynesian, Indian were often far more savage. Again to be assessed in the context of the times.
For example, the British colonial rule of India, although they did not really colonise the place as the Americas were colonised, saved the Taj Mahal and many wonderful Arab/Muslim buildings which the Hindus hated and wanted to see destroyed.
The British also banned Suttee, the practice of a wife being burned alive on her husband's funeral pyre.
The British also transcribed the ancient Vedic scripts into Hindi so ordinary Indians could read them and not just Brahmins the top caste.
The British built schools for the untouchables, created a rail system which keeps India functional today, along with a road network.
And the British created modern India by cobbling together the many warring kingdoms. Assam should never have been included because it was Burma, but anyway, India would not exist as a united North and South if the British had not created it.
To talk about the brutality of the British you need to do so in context. It is not fair or honest to retrofit modern values to the past.
The British were colonising for centuries and times were different in different centuries. Also worth remembering the British had been violently colonised a dozen times and got over it and made something of themselves. Perhaps it also made them more pragmatic about the effects of colonisation, again to be assessed within the context of the times.
If you look at the colonisation of North America from the 16th century, you also need to look at what life was like for most British people, the working and poorer classes of course, in those times. Same for the colonisations of New Zealand and Australia in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. In some instances native peoples were treated far better than poor British and certainly far better than convicts.
I have lived in four African countries, South Africa, (British and Dutch colonists); Angola (Portugese colonists); Zambia (British colonists); Malawi (British colonists) and Namibia (German colonists) and been exposed to countries in West Africa colonised by the French. If you had to be colonised the British were the best of them.
And even when I lived in India in the late Eighties and early Nineties, older Bombayites would often bemoan the loss of British rule because the roads were clean, the water came out of taps all of the time, electricity and phones worked all of the time and attention was paid to education and medical care for the lower castes, including the untouchables.
Yes, the Holomodor was more complex and not official policy for exterminating Ukrainians in the way that Israel has always had a policy of exterminating non-Jews, particularly the Palestinians.
The Holomodor was more like famines which happened in Ireland and India during British rule. Incompetence, indifference, ignorance rather than active policies to kill a group.
Exactly right, with one caveat. The "Irish Potato Famine" WAS an engineered attempt at genocide, or at the very least an intentional "let's let it happen so we can suppress the Irish and profit" situation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nL_RsAjxhg
Absolutely correct, Tom.
There were ships laden with food for the Irish people on the coast which the Bastard Brits refused to allow in.
Much of the financing for the goods
Intended for the Irish came from Native American tribes.
I am not sure the Malthusian connection holds up. The famine happened because the Irish were dependent on one crop, potatoes. And yes, there were reasons for that but little evidence it was a plan.
And yes the British considered the Irish to be primitive, no doubt as the Irish considered the Scots to be primitive when they colonised their land.
There have been major famines in Malawi, where I lived for more than five years for the same reason - reliance on one crop, maize, which, when it failed meant the people starved.
The situation in Malawi arise from ignorance, arrogance, greed on the part of Government and chiefs and no doubt the same in Ireland. Was it an active plan on the part of those in control to starve the Malawians to death? No. And neither was it a plan to starve the Irish. The Malawi famines were caused by Malawians and not an occupier.
Same with the Bengal famine blamed by some on the British as an intentional extermination plan. Which if studied in the times and the history again makes no sense. Having lived in India for nearly five years I have read a lot of its history in situ.
Any study of history shows that most disasters are the result of arrogance, ignorance, stupidity, greed and self-serving actions rather than an actual plan or conspiracy.
The Irish famine was a tragedy for many and a new life in the Americas, Australia and New Zealand for many more. And Ireland today is doing well. It is probably time for them to put down their mantle of victimhood for such robes are always destructive as we see in Israel.
I dunno. But check out the Gravel Institute YouTube vid I posted. Makes a compelling case in ~12min. Apparently plenty of food was being IMPORTED into Ireland, but used mainly or solely to feed cattle that were slaughtered to be exported back to England. It was not just a "potato" thing.
Yes I did check it out. I have read a lot of history and studied psychology and anthropology as an amateur and lived in a dozen different countries which influences my application of common sense. I could be wrong of course.
Well, while we're talking about the British, "perfidious albion" didn't become a "thing" for no reason. They have been among the most brutal in their near-field colonization and conquest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidious_Albion
I'm of British (and French Saxon) stock myself, my forebears having been in what's now the US since the 1500s and I have nothing but contempt for the British Empire, or any empire, really. But the Americans and Brits are notorious for subterfuge, greed and evil. Not excusing the Belgians there, either. LOL
Wikipedia is a poor source for information on any controversial topic.
I believe colonisation was a necessary part of human evolution and a necessity which ended by the 20th century. Otherwise Africa would be very crowded.
And I do not understand why only anglo-european colonisations are deplored when Asian, African, Polynesian, Indian were often far more savage. Again to be assessed in the context of the times.
For example, the British colonial rule of India, although they did not really colonise the place as the Americas were colonised, saved the Taj Mahal and many wonderful Arab/Muslim buildings which the Hindus hated and wanted to see destroyed.
The British also banned Suttee, the practice of a wife being burned alive on her husband's funeral pyre.
The British also transcribed the ancient Vedic scripts into Hindi so ordinary Indians could read them and not just Brahmins the top caste.
The British built schools for the untouchables, created a rail system which keeps India functional today, along with a road network.
And the British created modern India by cobbling together the many warring kingdoms. Assam should never have been included because it was Burma, but anyway, India would not exist as a united North and South if the British had not created it.
To talk about the brutality of the British you need to do so in context. It is not fair or honest to retrofit modern values to the past.
The British were colonising for centuries and times were different in different centuries. Also worth remembering the British had been violently colonised a dozen times and got over it and made something of themselves. Perhaps it also made them more pragmatic about the effects of colonisation, again to be assessed within the context of the times.
If you look at the colonisation of North America from the 16th century, you also need to look at what life was like for most British people, the working and poorer classes of course, in those times. Same for the colonisations of New Zealand and Australia in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. In some instances native peoples were treated far better than poor British and certainly far better than convicts.
I have lived in four African countries, South Africa, (British and Dutch colonists); Angola (Portugese colonists); Zambia (British colonists); Malawi (British colonists) and Namibia (German colonists) and been exposed to countries in West Africa colonised by the French. If you had to be colonised the British were the best of them.
And even when I lived in India in the late Eighties and early Nineties, older Bombayites would often bemoan the loss of British rule because the roads were clean, the water came out of taps all of the time, electricity and phones worked all of the time and attention was paid to education and medical care for the lower castes, including the untouchables.