Taking the rights is the first step towards committing the genocides. You want to stop the genocides, start for fighting against the taking of rights.
Republican Bidens and the Failure of the Democratic Party
- Thread starter NinjaCow64
- Start date
Taking the rights is the first step towards committing the genocides. You want to stop the genocides, start for fighting against the taking of rights.
Actually the first step to committing the genocides is getting a large middle class population to rubber stamp the activities of your government, in sickness and in health, for better or for worse.
No. The first step is electing a leader who has thoughts about eliminating segments of the population. With out a leader's endorsement, the genocide we have seen in the past 100 or so years would not happen.
Running from reality?
I mean if youre telling me that just one leader starved all those people in India to death, then skool lied to me about how the British government worked, and there’s a zombie monarch perhaps roaming around still that our books are being notoriously scant about…
Poor education about a nation's history is not genocide. It is a different issue. Forty years of exploitation of India that brought about many millions of deaths was imperialism at its worst. The degree that millions of deaths were "planned" is debatable. Such things happen when leaders are in power who don't care beyond power and wealth. Britain was looting India for a along time before they were thrown out. The other brutal genocides of the 20th Century were shorter lived because the leaders in charge ruled for much shorter time. i would say that almost all genocides are implemented by leaders who have "their" particular reasons. 19th C Britain was no different.
I think they’re actually “implemented” by millions of civil servants and armed soldiers and the leaders are just the guys holding history’s bag and giving it a little jiggle. It was also much longer than 40 years (wtf?) and had many extended duration famines exacerbated by British policy which all blamed the Indians for their own deaths as a matter of course by explaining that Indians overbreed and are bad at planning. Hence do not give them food and keep exporting it while exploiting them for their slave labor pitilessly. And you want to tell me that isn’t “intentional?” You see, a fairly serious disconnect in an ideal that prizes personal freedom yet also justifies slavery - well, actually, I guess it’s pretty foundational to this country.
Hitler did not pull the levers that released the gas.
Stalin did not collect the food from Russian farmers.
Pol Pot did not work Cambodians to death in the countryside.
Genghis Khan did not personally murder the many thousands of those who died in his conquests.
Mao was well fed and did not drive the trucks that took intellectuals to the hinterlands to work.
Queen Victoria did not go through Indian houses looking for valuables to steal.
In every case there were layers of civilian and military bureaucracy to do the dirty work. British imperialism was a long running system of exploitation that was built in India over many years. The others nonetheless had their own followers who followed the lead of those in charge and did as they were told or expected (and perhaps enjoyed or personally benefited from).
The worst of the Indian famines happened from about 1880 to 1920. 40 years.
Stalin did not collect the food from Russian farmers.
Pol Pot did not work Cambodians to death in the countryside.
Genghis Khan did not personally murder the many thousands of those who died in his conquests.
Mao was well fed and did not drive the trucks that took intellectuals to the hinterlands to work.
Queen Victoria did not go through Indian houses looking for valuables to steal.
In every case there were layers of civilian and military bureaucracy to do the dirty work. British imperialism was a long running system of exploitation that was built in India over many years. The others nonetheless had their own followers who followed the lead of those in charge and did as they were told or expected (and perhaps enjoyed or personally benefited from).
The worst of the Indian famines happened from about 1880 to 1920. 40 years.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,852
Yes, and that is the exact point that Crezth is making. Without an army of followers, the greatest murders of history would never have been able to kill a single person.
If genocide really does start with a leader being elected by the populace who desires genocide, then isn't the first step the emergence of a populace who would elect a genocidal leader in the first place? Which is just a rephrasing of what Crezth said in the first place, lol.
Yes and during that time period the UK was ruled by 6 different Prime Ministers from two different parties and two different Kings. Something to think about.
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
first step….? The genocides are already happening bruv.
It’s like saying “ensuring all guns are securely stored in a gun locker is the first step to preventing a mass shooting,” to a room full of people locked down in an active shooter situation.
The viceroys were making policy in India along with the EIC. Viceroys were quire happy to continue on the path of the predecessors.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,852
So it was institutional, as opposed to just one guy
Cruel leadership is applied through the the government or the military institutions. One guy cannot do it alone except on a very small scale. Such leaders sit atop layers of bureaucracy that do their bidding and the longer the regime is in power the more institutionalized the cruelty can become. Very often a dramatic change in leadership can cause the collapse of the institutions. In NK that has not happened. It did happen in Cambodia and Germany. The colonial government of India starting from the EIC through the Viceroy system (began ~1875?) was organized to extract wealth from India and had ~300 years to do so. The leaders of the EIC pursued their ambition at full throttle without regard for native Indians. Very few other genocidal governments had such a long window of opportunity but I do not doubt that had Hitler won or even survived leading a "greater Germany" his policies would have continued.
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,700
He was a pretty epic rapist.
Lexicus
Deity
It was “long running” but in a dynamic and constantly evolving form and Victoria despite bearing ultimate responsibility in your analogy had very little to do with the finer elements that transformed India ever increasingly into a mass slavery factory - nor frankly any of the ultimate elements, to be honest. That money wanted to be made with or without her. The point is the entire enterprise was sordid and corrupt and as bad if not worse as any of the exceptional crimes performed by those you term “dictators,” and it happened to the epitome of liberal democracy. The very same power that praised itself for ending slavery was seeing millions of Indians curl up and die just to keep quotas up. It’s insane to attempt to justify this as the exhortation or the indulgence of just one bad egg.
Yeah, look, that’s your goalpost, not mine. Why not 1850 to 1890 when 15 million people died?
Remorseless1
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2022
- Messages
- 1,156
The Leader dies not create the hate -- the Leader mines the ugly undercurrents of humans to find the buttons to push. Currently in the US, the fascist right has become more outspoken, more willing to speak openly about their plans because of Trump, who does not dismiss White Nationalists as lunatics or traitors. But White Nationalists predated Trump by centuries: the KKK was started in the decade after the Civil War. A White Nationalist admirer blew up a federal office building in 1995, killing 167 people.
People who hate look for a leader that they can follow. Without that leadership, they are mostly silent. With Trump, white nationalists have come out into the open. Prejudice against those that are different is part of being human. Leaders can inflame that or push it into the corners.
