Hey, i hate the british too, but the article doesn’t directly blame the british for the famines and it also includes famines that took place in non-british held or administrated territories.
Nevertheless, it does point out that in many cases, british administration worsened the situation.
It also just one territory, I’m sure the Irish also have a few bones to pick.
Though speaking of time advantage, the best answer might be “mosquitos”, and while “blood sucking insects” could be a name for british colonists, they didn’t spread malaria since the dawn of humanity
Can definitely blame them… Several of the famines in their ‘empire’ were either engineered, caused through incompetence or arrogance, or ignored when preventable.
Ref: Any of bengal’s several famines under British rule, frankly even after once you take Churchill into account.
It is like miles away from the intentional economical engineering we are talking about. Still not sure why you are so bent on trying to wiggle them into a comparsion between regimes and personnel more direct, intentional and immediate like Mao or Stalin.
If you dont distinguish from those, then why even have a debate on them?
The joke implied that the question intended to ask one or very few directly involved personnel and you disregarded that. Thats it.
A famine is a widespread scarcity of food,[1][2] caused by several factors including war, natural disasters, crop failure, widespread poverty, an economic catastrophe or government policies.
Pretty sure the answer is “the brits”.
Cats cant pronounce that tough, so it has to count all of those in a socialist’s name.
In other news have you seen the latest royal wedding? So beautiful and glamorous, makes me feel blessed to have monarchs ruling over us!
I like when the prince ripped off the princess’s arm and shoved it into her ass.
A beautiful day for Canada and therefore the world.
Hey, i hate the british too, but the article doesn’t directly blame the british for the famines and it also includes famines that took place in non-british held or administrated territories.
Nevertheless, it does point out that in many cases, british administration worsened the situation.
To be fair… They were only practising for how they’d treat modern Britain.
It also just one territory, I’m sure the Irish also have a few bones to pick.
Though speaking of time advantage, the best answer might be “mosquitos”, and while “blood sucking insects” could be a name for british colonists, they didn’t spread malaria since the dawn of humanity
In fairness we’ve been around a lot longer, but it is impressive how one little island nation has managed to fuck so much shit up from afar.
I think that Queen Victoria would rank pretty in the body count scoreboard
Yep, anyone saying otherwise is doing mental gymnastics.
Or simply keeping with the theme of answers being a single individual and not an entire nation of hundreds of millions of people spanning centuries.
Fair enough to be honest. I hate Mao, Genghis Khan, Hitler and Stalin too for being genocidal fucks.
Is it Mr the brits or Mrs the brits?
Ohhhh, you’re conflating a single leader with an entire country.
You must be a lib, tankies say libs never argue in good faith, and your false equivalence is certainly in bad faith.
Until recently it was Mrs. Now it’s Mr or alternatively his majesty king Charles the 3rd.
Is there enough reliable data to give a kill count for the different monarchs? It would be kind of interesting who scores highest in that regard.
Exactly! Mao was one leader, England killed millions, sure, but that was spread over many many rulers.
Mao stands at the top afaik, I’d love to see some stats though!
Jesse what tf are you talking about
Mocking a tankie with tankie logic.
We were all pretty cool with it all at the time tbh.
Plenty of us will still defend it, which is crazy.
deleted by creator
Can hardly blame them, pestilence and diseases are a genuine concern for any empire where armed forces have to move far distances over land or sea
Can definitely blame them… Several of the famines in their ‘empire’ were either engineered, caused through incompetence or arrogance, or ignored when preventable.
Ref: Any of bengal’s several famines under British rule, frankly even after once you take Churchill into account.
Nice shoehorn of anglo-saxon history, but those famines are all plagues and crop faliures for the most part.
Why is it the rich never starve if it’s just a totally unaccountable natural disaster?
Rich usually have more resources and ability to purchase them at elevated prices. Hope that helps
Because they have money duuh.
So it’s less of a natural disaster and more of an economic disaster? I wonder why people would blame governments for that…
It is like miles away from the intentional economical engineering we are talking about. Still not sure why you are so bent on trying to wiggle them into a comparsion between regimes and personnel more direct, intentional and immediate like Mao or Stalin.
If you dont distinguish from those, then why even have a debate on them?
The joke implied that the question intended to ask one or very few directly involved personnel and you disregarded that. Thats it.
Right sure, when the British intentionally abuse Ireland and India it’s really just a whoopsie-daisy.
Should I really do the same kind of jumping to conclusions?
Are you saying that the largest completely man made famine ever does not really deserve that much of a recognition?
Nope. I’m just saying they’re all “man-made”.
The rich and the party cadres
They forced farmers to grow indigo crops instead of natural cotton/wheat/rice.
Im pretty sure that was not during the drought itself, nor really caused it. It economically made sense and then probably exacerbated the famine.
It wasn’t just the drought. Indigo cropping destroyed the soil first, drought exacerbated the problems.
All famines are crop failures. That’s kinda how famines happen.
No
I suppose you can consider getting your crops blown up a crop failure