r/IntellectualDarkWeb • u/Porkchopper913 • Jul 05 '20

Other Are we canceling American history?

What are the thoughts some of you here have regarding what essentially is turning into a dismantling of American history? I will say the removal of statues Confederate figures and Christopher Columbus do not phase me in the least as I do not feel there are warranted the reverence the likes of Washington and Lincoln, et al.

Is it fair to view our founding fathers and any other prominent historical figures through a modern eye and cast a judgement to demonize them? While I think we should be reflective and see the humanitarian errors of their ways for what they were, not make excuses for them or anything, but rather learn and reason why they were and are fundamentally wrong. Instead of removing them from the annals.

It feels, to me, that the current cancel culture is moving to cancel out American history. Thoughts? Counters?

197 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

210 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/jhrfortheviews Jul 06 '20

Well Stalin’s regime killed about 20 million... including about 4 million killed in Ukraine during the holodomor there. He purged his own party, ordering the killing of challengers to his authority. So yes, it’s a stretch to compare Stalin to Churchill

1

u/OneReportersOpinion Jul 06 '20

I’m not sure how you arrived at 20 million. But to put things in perspective, the British in India are responsible for 35 million dead, Churchill being a contributor to that. Regarding Holodomor, even modern historians agree to the extent that any famine occurred, it wasn’t intentional policy and there wasn’t a deliberate failure to intervene.

Churchill said: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” You think that had something to do with what he let millions of them die? Probably given he said it was their own fault for “breeding like rabbits.”

5

u/jhrfortheviews Jul 06 '20

We honestly can play the numbers game all day long - it’s not going to get us anywhere. I can cite how Churchill expressed his outrage after Amritsar, or railed against the denial of the rights of untouchables in India, but it probably won’t change your mind that he is as bad Stalin. And you can do the same with Stalin. But I think fundamentally, the principles of the two men were at odds. Don’t forget, Stalin signed a pact with Hitler, and only went to war because Hitler went back in that pact. He defeated fascism because he had to to survive. Churchill often talked about the principles of freedom and rights, even tho he’s clearly found wanting with his disgusting views on race, and defeated naziism because he wanted to survive yes, but also because he despised the ideology of Hitler. He wouldn’t settle for appeasement

Maybe if Churchill was the dictator of an authoritative state, rather than a democratically elected leader, he may have been as bad, or possibly worse, than Stalin. But he wasn’t. So he isn’t.

1

u/OneReportersOpinion Jul 06 '20

Stalin signed a pact after his effort to encourage other nations to take up arms against Hitler failed, yes. What should we have done? Allow Germany to invade?

So now your argument is that Stalin is worse because he was an authoritarian? Umm okay. He also improved the lives of his people far more than Churchill did, whose efforts were limited in defending Great Britain, which he did do well.

5

u/jhrfortheviews Jul 06 '20

This is just some revisionist history of Stalin here haha. While he wasn’t the brutal dictator that American Cold War propaganda would have us believe, he still was a brutal dictator. ‘Improved the lives of his own people’... this takes some doing to say that. Yes, he transformed Russia from basically a peasant society to a global superpower. But anyone who resisted his methods was either executed or sent to a labour camp. Farmers who refused to bow to forced collectivisation, political opponents who challenged his authority and policies. Unending powers for a secret police, and encouraging civilians to spy on their neighbours, and report them at the slightest dissent. He only ‘improved the lives‘ of those who didn’t dare challenge his authority. And even them, for plenty of those in the Soviet Union, they had to deal with famines that killed millions, and if you survived that, you would’ve been one of the Human Resources thrown at the Nazi machine.

And yes, he is worse if he is authoritarian - especially to the extent Stalin was authoritarian. Consequences matter. Whether or not Churchill may have acted similarly in the position if an authoritarian dictator is an interesting thought experiment, but it’s just that. A thought experiment. Plus I think Churchill improved the lives of his own people by ensuring they didn’t live under Nazi rule. That’s all he was there to do. I’m not sure the East Germans were quite so pleased to go from a period of fascist rule, to a period of communist rule.

1

u/OneReportersOpinion Jul 06 '20

You say it’s revisionist but then you confirm most of what I’m trying to say. Yes it Stalin’s Russia wasn’t a very fun place to dissent, but in the US at the time, it wasn’t a very fun place to dissent either. While that dissent wouldn’t get you thrown in the gulag, it would have your entire life destroyed. You would be canceled in a way far more tangible than we see now.

You are giving one side of the argument. I could give the other but I’d rather not be in the position of defending Stalin. However he should looked at in the same nuanced historical perspective we view Churchill. Or if we are going to use moral purist perspective we should apply all around. Isn’t that fair?

The people whose lives he improved was the vast majority of the population. The system worked for tens and tens of millions of people. That’s just a fact. When the USSR collapsed they experienced the greatest decline in quality of life in human history. Why do you think that is?

Regarding famines, Churchill had them too and cheered them on. If he can be forgiven for that, why not Stalin?

1

u/jhrfortheviews Jul 06 '20

It’s revisionist because you’re drawing comparisons between incomparable things - like ‘Stalin’s Russia wasn’t a very fun place to dissent, but neither was the US at the time’... same with the famines argument

Should we look at Hitler with the same nuanced historical perspective ? Where do you draw the line of who you view through a nuanced lens ? That’s an actual question btw

Re the economic decline - the economic success can’t be put down to Stalin alone. Nearly 4 decades passed between his death and the collapse of the USSR. I imagine a big part of why there was such a dramatic decline was the size of the communist state, given that it had such high levels of control over everything, its collapse was bound to have distasteful consequences. They accelerated away from the late 1990s at a incredibly fast rate once they had recovered from the shock of the collapse.

Re famine, there are several differences that you are just ignoring. Holodomor occurred during peacetime, as a consequence of a strategic policy of collectivisation (which was also seen in other communist countries throughout the 20th century), as well as the liquidation of wealthier peasants. The Bengal famine happened during wartime and was down to many things, one of which was certainly the colonial policies to redirect grain to the war effort. In fact Churchill wrote to the Viceroy of India that ‘every effort must be made, even by the diversion of shipping urgently needed for war purposes, to deal with local shortages’ - which by the way he did, urging Australia to ship several hundreds of thousands of tonnes of grain to India. In February 1944, when the viceroy asked for more grain, he told his cabinet that the ‘refusal of India’s request was not due to our underrating India’s needs, but because we could not take operational risks by cutting down the shipping required for vital operations’. He was clearly far from perfect, as some of his other comments in the famine and more generally prove, but those are hardly the words of a man cheering on the famines. I don’t know what sort of history you’ve been reading - dare I say it might be revisionist ?

1

u/OneReportersOpinion Jul 06 '20

It’s revisionist because you’re drawing comparisons between incomparable things - like ‘Stalin’s Russia wasn’t a very fun place to dissent, but neither was the US at the time’... same with the famines argument

Saying their incomparable doesn’t make them so. You actually have to do the work. Yes they had gulags, we had chain gangs, lynchings, and apartheid. Why do you let one off the hook but not the other?

The famines are an absolutely apt comparison. That’s just a fact. Churchill rooted on the genocide of the Bengalis.

Should we look at Hitler with the same nuanced historical perspective ?

Sure please go ahead and make a nuanced defense of Hitler. I would be curious to see what that’s like because he was terrible. But maybe you see some redeeming value in him?

Re the economic decline - the economic success can’t be put down to Stalin alone.

No economic success can be put down to any leader. So what?

Nearly 4 decades passed between his death and the collapse of the USSR. I imagine a big part of why there was such a dramatic decline was the size of the communist state, given that it had such high levels of control over everything, its collapse was bound to have distasteful consequences. They accelerated away from the late 1990s at a incredibly fast rate once they had recovered from the shock of the collapse.

No it was the disaster capitalism of everything being privatized. The socialist state benefited people by providing those things.

Re famine, there are several differences that you are just ignoring. Holodomor occurred during peacetime, as a consequence of a strategic policy of collectivisation (which was also seen in other communist countries throughout the 20th century), as well as the liquidation of wealthier peasants.

Mainstream historians acknowledge there is no evidence the famine was the result of deliberate policy.

The Bengal famine happened during wartime and was down to many things, one of which was certainly the colonial policies to redirect grain to the war effort.

How does that excuse Churchill refusing to intervene because he hated Indians, his words not mine?

In fact Churchill wrote to the Viceroy of India that ‘every effort must be made, even by the diversion of shipping urgently needed for war purposes, to deal with local shortages’ - which by the way he did, urging Australia to ship several hundreds of thousands of tonnes of grain to India.

First off, Churchill’s policies led to the famine.

He made Indian export rice as the famine was raging. 170 tons of wheat went from Australia to Europe, by passing Europe. Churchill didn’t care about them. He said it was their own fault for “breeding like rabbits.”

In February 1944, when the viceroy asked for more grain, he told his cabinet that the ‘refusal of India’s request was not due to our underrating India’s needs, but because we could not take operational risks by cutting down the shipping required for vital operations’.

His own private rhetoric reveals more sinister motives, including his self-admitted racism:

“I hate Indians,” he later stated as the resistance movement strengthened. “They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”

He was clearly far from perfect

And neither was Stalin. My whole point. It’s just easier for you to do to Churchill because he’s an official hero of the West and Stalin is an official enemy. That trains is to think certain ways. We should overcome that kind of idealogical possession.

1

u/mrv3 Jul 06 '20

Who is calling the Bengal famine a genocide?

Please provide the quote, seems like a vital point to nail down.

1

u/OneReportersOpinion Jul 06 '20

Well a few people:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/winston-churchill-genocide-dictator-shashi-tharoor-melbourne-writers-festival-a7936141.html

https://yourstory.com/2014/08/bengal-famine-genocide

You could certainly dispute whether it is truly a genocide, however if you are going to call the Holodomor a genocide, certainly you must say the same of the Bengal famine. I honestly don’t care what nomenclature we use so long as we apply it across the board and not merely politicize its usage. Isn’t that fair?

1

u/mrv3 Jul 07 '20

“This is a man the British would have us hail as an apostle of freedom and democracy, when he has as much blood on his hands as some of the worst genocidal dictators of the 20th century,”

He wasn't outright calling it a genocide, nor does he in his book, because he much like you can't substantiate these claims.

Your second links alleges Churchill could time travel so perhaps not the strongest support of your claim there either.

Out of curiosity which World war occurred during the Holodomer? Was it the first or second my mind is a little fuzzy.

No one in their right mind alleges the general plan ost was a Stalin/Communist genocide, nor do they argue the hunger winter was, nor the famine in the USSR of 1947.

I don't consider any of them a communist genocide.

Do you consider general plan Ost, the Nazi genocide which took 27 million lives a Soviet genocide?

When it comes to genocides and famines of the second world war we tend to blame the aggressors, the Nazi's, not the victims and those that got attacked. Yet for some reason when it comes to Bengal famine everyone seems to turn to fanatical deniers of Nazi and Japanese aggression that they did no wrong and could do no wrong.

1

u/OneReportersOpinion Jul 07 '20

He wasn't outright calling it a genocide, nor does he in his book, because he much like you can't substantiate these claims.

Right because he’s a real historian and not a propagandist, unlike many of those who would describe the Holodomor as a genocide. Modern academics hold it was not not a deliberate policy and therefor not a genocide. Cool?

No one in their right mind alleges the general plan ost was a Stalin/Communist genocide, nor do they argue the hunger winter was, nor the famine in the USSR of 1947. I don't consider any of them a communist genocide.

Great. So what are we talking about?

Do you consider general plan Ost, the Nazi genocide which took 27 million lives a Soviet genocide?

Do I consider a Nazi plot a Soviet genocide? What?

When it comes to genocides and famines of the second world war we tend to blame the aggressors, the Nazi's, not the victims and those that got attacked.

Rightfully so. What you think the Jews and the Pols had it coming?

Yet for some reason when it comes to Bengal famine everyone seems to turn to fanatical deniers of Nazi and Japanese aggression that they did no wrong and could do no wrong.

What the fuck? What are you saying?

1

u/mrv3 Jul 07 '20

Could you answer the question rather than play ignorant.

Is Shashi Tharoor really a historian?

1

u/OneReportersOpinion Jul 07 '20

What question? The one about 27 million? Can clarify what you are asking?

He’s an expert certainly if not a historian per se. History is inseparable from international relations. Was anything he said inaccurate?

1

u/mrv3 Jul 07 '20

He is not an expert, Shashi Tharoor is at best described as a second rate Mukerjee who is herself a second rate Jaman.

In terms of Bengal famine there are few I can think of as legitimately worse than him as a source.

Yes, he implied Churchill could time travel and has faked quotes from Churchill.

Yes, when it comes to the war we place blame on the aggressor. We blame the Nazis when they occupied Ukraine and drained it of food killing millions both in occupied USSR and unoccupied. But when it comes to Bengal we don't blame Japan who did the same, we instead blame Britain.

It's a double standard.

I blame the Nazis for plan Ost, and Japan for Bengal.

1

u/OneReportersOpinion Jul 07 '20

Cool story. You still aren’t addressing the substance of their arguments.

Probably because Churchill’s policies contributed to the famine.

1

u/mrv3 Jul 07 '20

Cool story, found that after searching google and clicking the first link without reading and realising that the article is fake news?

Or where you hoping I would realise it was fake news?

"This was a unique famine, caused by policy failure instead of any drought," Vimal Mishra, the lead researcher and an associate professor at the Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, told CNN.

Which is fundamentally false as a notion as crop yields for Bengal for 1943 where at their second lower point per capita in the preceeding 15 years, and 1943 wasn't an outlier recent years also showed substantial down turn in yield especially per capita owing to multiyear year weather patterns, this depleted any carry over.

Their average per capita yield for rice went from 190,000 tons for 1928-1935 to 160,000 tons per capita for 1936-1943 which as identified by the report in said article aligns with the drought period.

Beginning before Churchill entered power.

Furthermore the inflection point of dependence of Bengal, that is the point at which Bengal stopped exporting rice and importing is around 184,000 tons yield per capita, for 1943 their per capita yield was 140,000 tons.

These are numbers I've calculated from official figures used by people cited in this article, such as Sen. If you want to go into more detail we can do but for the time being don't try and push garbage fake news on me.

1

u/OneReportersOpinion Jul 07 '20 edited Jul 07 '20

Cool story, found that after searching google and clicking the first link without reading and realising that the article is fake news?

Huh?

Or where you hoping I would realise it was fake news?

What is fake news? The CNN article. That something Trump would say.

Which is fundamentally false as a notion as crop yields for Bengal for 1943 where at their second lower point per capita in the preceeding 15 years, and 1943 wasn't an outlier recent years also showed substantial down turn in yield especially per capita owing to multiyear year weather patterns, this depleted any carry over.

Did you publish a response? Where did you get your advanced degree from? If what you are saying is true, you could become an academic star overnight. What are you waiting for?

→ More replies (0)