The relevance of European and American conceptions of history

[Quid est Veritas?]

Agreed and I think there are a lot of misinformed people on both sides. However if we are trying to remain objective, there is no denying that Churchill played a part in the famine. It's not really an assumption. He did openly show disdain for Indians, calling them "beastly people with a beastly religion" and he even tried to absolve himself from any guilt by saying they caused the famine by "breeding like rabbits". He forced the colonial bureaucracy to continue exporting food and intervened when ships tried offering food, claiming those supplies would be needed as reserve rations. Of course his goal was never to kill the Bengals, but we could say their deaths didn't trouble him that much. Their lives were expendable in favor of achieving something else, which is a common story line. I think that's why there's controversy with exalting him as a hero. Besides as Christians we shouldn't even be so caught up with statues, they're a little "false idol-y" to me.

This is some of that misinformation right here in your post. Churchill allocated 100000 tonnes of Iraqi barley and 50000 tonnes of Australian wheat to famine relief in August 1943, in opposition to his cabinet. Amery argued for famine relief, while Lord Cherwell opposed it. Amery wrote the viceroy that Churchill was sympathetic, but saw winning the war as the quickest way to end the famine, as normal economic activity could resume. This idea of Churchill as a callous Indian-hater that just let Bengal starve is patently false. Churchill saw India as the power base of the Empire, a major source of its manpower, so was highly interested in maintaining its prosperity. He disliked Hinduism as a system, seeing it as forcing people unfairly into Castes, but he respected the 'Martial Races' of India that he had served with on the North West frontier.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I'm not sure how that is a fallacy if the two are actually correlated? And I say "positive achievements of white people" because Winston Churchill was a white man, whose achievements overshadowed the destructive hardships he helped orchestrate that nonwhite people had to endure. It's an imperial narrative.

There is no connection between the war in Europe and Manifest Destiny in the 19th century, or the transatlantic slave trade. Those things are different historic events.

 

[Radagast]

Like it or not, Greco-Roman Civilisation in its specific form of European Civilisation, played an outsized part in creating our modern world and technology and concepts that sustain it. This had lots of imput from others, from Babylonian and Egyptian civilisation, to the influence of Arab philosophers, etc. You can decry that it did so by force and Imperialism, and you'd be right - but it did so none the less. To ignore their history is thus not to understand history at all. We cannot pretend that the history of Ethiopia, though interesting in its own right, has as much relevance to the world at large as Italy say.

Indeed. And for English-speaking countries, Western Europe is particularly relevant.

Equally, if you were teaching history in Mexico, you should put greater weight on the Aztecs and Mayans, the Umayyads and Almoravids, the Roman Catholic church, and the financial impact of the Eighty Years' War.

 

[Tom 1]

Agreed and I think there are a lot of misinformed people on both sides. However if we are trying to remain objective, there is no denying that Churchill played a part in the famine. It's not really an assumption. He did openly show disdain for Indians, calling them "beastly people with a beastly religion" and he even tried to absolve himself from any guilt by saying they caused the famine by "breeding like rabbits". He forced the colonial bureaucracy to continue exporting food and intervened when ships tried offering food, claiming those supplies would be needed as reserve rations. Of course his goal was never to kill the Bengals, but we could say their deaths didn't trouble him that much. Their lives were expendable in favor of achieving something else, which is a common story line. I think that's why there's controversy with exalting him as a hero. Besides as Christians we shouldn't even be so caught up with statues, they're a little "false idol-y" to me.

History is full of people - billions of us - acting according to circumstances and their own inclinations and systems of thinking and belief, which are made up of a hold raft of different influences. It's far too easy for any of us to judge from a position of comfort and ease - an ease that was bought for us by other people being willing to kill and die for it - what someone else did based on a a series of experiences and associations. People only really learn who they are under extreme pressure and stress, once a situation is over it can only really be judged by people who went through it. Occasionally someone like Hitler comes up whose actual intention is to commit atrocity, such people simply have to be put down like rabid dogs, but that scenario can't be compared with people in a position of leadership dealing with a situation pushed upon them according to the priorities of their position - my country first, everyone else later, which is what is expected of the leader of a country. Following the logic of what you are saying we should all condemn ourselves - half of what I eat today would be enough to prevent a family somewhere from going hungry, I have enough space here to house several homeless people, and so on. Am I to blame then if someone dies of hunger today? In the example you have given you appear to be saying that because the English tried to take a balanced approach, calling on Indian governors to take some action also rather than somehow resolving the whole thing themselves - a virtually impossible task, then that is the only relevant question. It's what is done today - there are plenty of studies that indicate how simply pouring aid into a region rarely results in whatever the issue is being solved. Churchill didn't like Indian people perhaps - maybe? Who really knows? He had some pretty unenlightened views, but he certainly saved more lives than the more PC and sensitive Chamberlain. Black and white views of history are almost always incorrect.

 

[agapelove]

This is some of that misinformation right here in your post. Churchill allocated 100000 tonnes of Iraqi barley and 50000 tonnes of Australian wheat to famine relief in August 1943, in opposition to his cabinet. Amery argued for famine relief, while Lord Cherwell opposed it. Amery wrote the viceroy that Churchill was sympathetic, but saw winning the war as the quickest way to end the famine, as normal economic activity could resume. This idea of Churchill as a callous Indian-hater that just let Bengal starve is patently false. Churchill saw India as the power base of the Empire, a major source of its manpower, so was highly interested in maintaining its prosperity. He disliked Hinduism as a system, seeing it as forcing people unfairly into Castes, but he respected the 'Martial Races' of India that he had served with on the North West frontier.

Actually Churchill's disdain for Indian people is well documented. And I think you may have it the other way around? The Government of India had asked the War Cabinet to send half a million tons of wheat in order to feed both their soldiers (2 million men) and civilians. It is documented that Cherwell, one of the cabinet members and Churchill's technical advisor, opposed this idea, and likely Churchill did too. As a result to such opposition the War Cabinet compromised by sending a mere 50,000 tons of wheat and 100,000 tons of barley, which of course was of little help. Cherwell was also a racist who believed some people only existed to serve their racial class superiors, and Churchill believed similarly-- as noted by Field Marshal Wavell that Churchill only conceded to sending food so that the Indians "actually fighting or making munitions or working some particular railway" could eat. According to Amery, the prime minister felt that sending succor to Bengalis, whom he regarded as inadequate soldiers, was less important than sending it to Greeks, who were resisting the Nazis.

 

[agapelove]

There is no connection between the war in Europe and Manifest Destiny in the 19th century, or the transatlantic slave trade. Those things are different historic events.

Yes but the Bengal Famine was related to the war in Europe, Native American genocide was related to Manifest Destiny, and the transatlantic slave trade is related to the Southern economy. I was drawing parallels not cause-and-effects.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Actually Churchill's disdain for Indian people is well documented. And I think you may have it the other way around? The Government of India had asked the War Cabinet to send half a million tons of wheat in order to feed both their soldiers (2 million men) and civilians. It is documented that Cherwell, one of the cabinet members and Churchill's technical advisor, opposed this idea, and likely Churchill did too. As a result to such opposition the War Cabinet compromised by sending a mere 50,000 tons of wheat and 100,000 tons of barley, which of course was of little help. Cherwell was also a racist who believed some people only existed to serve their racial class superiors, and Churchill believed similarly-- as noted by Field Marshal Wavell that Churchill only conceded to sending food so that the Indians "actually fighting or making munitions or working some particular railway" could eat. According to Amery, the prime minister felt that sending succor to Bengalis, whom he regarded as inadequate soldiers, was less important than sending it to Greeks, who were resisting the Nazis.

No, you are confusing different events. They allocated the wheat and barley in August, but then argued against sending more in September, when he made the point of rather feeding fighting Greeks than the Bengalis. This was about the war effort, and then anyway allocated 50000 tonnes of aid in addition to the 200000 already allocated over the next four months as a compromise. Churchill also asked for American aid for famine relief, while stressing over the resultant loss of British prestige, only to have Rooseveld refuse.

Certainly Churchill had disdain for the majority of Indians, but he didn't have for all of them. He is on record praising Rajputs, Sikhs, Gurkhas, etc. as excellent fighting men and the backbone of the Empire. You are misrepresenting and cherry-picking. They made a decision to send aid whenever able, when it did not cause negative effects to the war effort, but the idea that Churchill just let India starve is utter hogwash and is completely at odds with the rest of his career and his describing of India as what made Britain a great Power. Read Lawrence James' excellent Churchill and Empire, he has a well-researched chapter on the Bengal Famine.

 

[Radagast]

Actually Churchill's disdain for Indian people is well documented.

I'd like to see more than just claims.

As to the Bengal Famine, it was ultimately due to the war. Shipping across the Indian Ocean was complicated by the massive number of ships sunk by the Japanese. And people were starving in other parts of the world as well. Some of Churchill's decisions may have been less than perfect in hindsight, but that was true of many people.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Yes but the Bengal Famine was related to the war in Europe, Native American genocide was related to Manifest Destiny, and the transatlantic slave trade is related to the Southern economy. I was drawing parallels not cause-and-effects.

So you are juxtaposing things with no relation in order to try and make a point, to see a parallel where none exists. That is very much the fallacy in a nutshell. You are trying to intimate that all three are ultimately related, that they parallel each other by pointing to a deeper truth, which I assume would be some sort of racial narrative in your case. You want me to see a cause and effect one step back, in broader historic process, but that argument can simply not be made. History is a human process, not describing geology or astrophysics.

 

[agapelove]

No, you are confusing different events. They allocated the wheat and barley in August, but then argued against sending more in September, when he made the point of rather feeding fighting Greeks than the Bengalis. This was about the war effort, and then anyway allocated 50000 tonnes of aid in addition to the 200000 already allocated over the next four months as a compromise. Churchill also asked for American aid for famine relief, while stressing over the resultant loss of British prestige, only to have Rooseveld refuse.

Certainly Churchill had disdain for the majority of Indians, but he didn't have for all of them. He is on record praising Rajputs, Sikhs, Gurkhas, etc. as excellent fighting men and the backbone of the Empire. You are misrepresenting and cherry-picking. They made a decision to send aid whenever able, when it did not cause negative effects to the war effort, but the idea that Churchill just let India starve is utter hogwash and is completely at odds with the rest of his career and his describing of India as what made Britain a great Power. Read Lawrence James' excellent Churchill and Empire, he has a well-researched chapter on the Bengal Famine.

He praised them as excellent soldiers not actually excellent people. The narrative that Churchill did all that he could is also not completely true, there were almost 200,000 tons of reserve grains coming from Australia that could have gone to Bengal, but instead he ordered them to be stored in the Mediterranean for future consumption. The best you could say is that Churchill knew famine would break out and chose the lowest class to bear the worst of it. If some of his decisions led to the death of 3 million people then I really don't think removing his statue is that outrageous of a request.

 

[Radagast]

there were almost 200,000 tons of reserve grains coming from Australia that could have gone to Bengal, but instead he ordered them to be stored in the Mediterranean for future consumption

If you're saying that he prioritised the war effort, that's not unreasonable. After all, prolongation of the war just made the famine worse.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

He praised them as excellent soldiers not actually excellent people. The narrative that Churchill did all that he could is also not completely true, there were almost 200,000 tons of reserve grains coming from Australia that could have gone to Bengal, but instead he ordered them to be stored in the Mediterranean for future consumption. The best you could say is that Churchill knew famine would break out and chose the lowest class to bear the worst of it. If some of his decisions led to the death of 3 million people then I really don't think removing his statue is that outrageous of a request.

Hindsight is 20/20, but they had no way of knowing they might not need additional grain to feed fighting forces. The Japanese were in Indonesia and had occupied the Andaman Islands, and had contested British shipping in the Indian ocean in 1942. The British government sent as much aid as they thought safe to, which of course more could have been sent, but at the time the danger of Japanese raids on shipping were still very much considered live. No one disputes they prioritised the war effort, which resulted in famine; it is not as if they could call an armistice with Japan and Germany while they fed Bengal. There were global shortages back then, Britain itself still rationed into the 50s.

My point was not about removing the statue, but using the Bengal famine as an example of a new narrative you asked for, a new myth.

 

[agapelove]

So you are juxtaposing things with no relation in order to try and make a point, to see a parallel where none exists. That is very much the fallacy in a nutshell. You are trying to intimate that all three are ultimately related, that they parallel each other by pointing to a deeper truth, which I assume would be some sort of racial narrative in your case. You want me to see a cause and effect one step back, in broader historic process, but that argument can simply not be made. History is a human process, not describing geology or astrophysics.

How do you not see the parallel? All of those events were about achieving things for one group at the expense of another, and I could name about a million other historical events that share this story line, it does not even have to be racial. Most of the time it is, where racial hierarchies are created in the minds of one group who then thinks it's justified to oppress another. What this shows is that history is the human process of killing and plundering in the name of progress. In practically every era of time there is a victim and a victor.

 

[agapelove]

My point was not about removing the statue, but using the Bengal famine as an example of a new narrative you asked for, a new myth.

To be fair, the Churchill controversy has been around for ages so it is not really a "new narrative". It is just being brought up again in an effort to get the statue finally removed.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

How do you not see the parallel? All of those events were about achieving things for one group at the expense of another, and I could name about a million other historical events that share this story line, it does not even have to be racial. Most of the time it is, where racial hierarchies are created in the minds of one group who then thinks it's justified to oppress another. What this shows is that history is the human process of killing and plundering in the name of progress. In practically every era of time there is a victim and a victor.

Man is not just about Social Darwinism. History is not just about Power and who was or was not a Victim. I weep for the silly, dark and miserable hole that modern man falls into - where everything is bleak, where altruism is false, where genes are selfish, where man and nature is nothing but cruel.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

To be fair, the Churchill controversy has been around for ages so it is not really a "new narrative". It is just being brought up again in an effort to get the statue finally removed.

They put up statues of him everywhere. In 2002 he was voted the Greatest Briton. I am sorry, it is a new narrative, as the emphasis shifted to attacking him on a personal level, rather than focussing on whether his policies were or were not justified.

 

[agapelove]

Man is not just about Social Darwinism. History is not just about Power and who was or was not a Victim. I weep for the silly, dark and miserable hole that modern man falls into - where everything is bleak, where altruism is false, where genes are selfish, where man and nature is nothing but cruel.

Yes but the Bible tells us that the world lies in the power of the evil one. To be sinful is to be inherently addicted to power so yes our genes are literally selfish. This does not mean that altruism doesn't exist, but in the grand scheme of history societies have proven again and again that humans hold a highly Darwinist view of the world.

 

[Tom 1]

He praised them as excellent soldiers not actually excellent people. The narrative that Churchill did all that he could is also not completely true, there were almost 200,000 tons of reserve grains coming from Australia that could have gone to Bengal, but instead he ordered them to be stored in the Mediterranean for future consumption. The best you could say is that Churchill knew famine would break out and chose the lowest class to bear the worst of it. If some of his decisions led to the death of 3 million people then I really don't think removing his statue is that outrageous of a request.

I think you need to think this through a bit. You and I are only able to freely discuss these things in free countries because other people made wartime decisions that led to enormous death and suffering. We only have a shared religion because the Hebrew nation was willing to engage in mass killing to ensure its own survival. Dissecting these historical events as if they were all perfectly clear at the time and this or that thing could easily have be done instead is ok as a thought exercise, it may inform what we do now but if another major conflict were to arise the thinking of whoever would in one charge would be to win the conflict, to reduce civilians deaths where possible but if you think that would entail some simple and objective process of moving a few things around at will then maybe you need to develop a deeper understanding of the processes of human behaviour.

 

[agapelove]

They put up statues of him everywhere. In 2002 he was voted the Greatest Briton. I am sorry, it is a new narrative, as the emphasis shifted to attacking him on a personal level, rather than focussing on whether his policies were or were not justified.

There were people in Winston’s lifetime that found his racial views alarming. People knew he was racist in 2002, but it’s only now that more people are becoming aware, which goes to show just how much of his accomplishments have been whitewashed.

 

[Tom 1]

To be fair, the Churchill controversy has been around for ages so it is not really a "new narrative". It is just being brought up again in an effort to get the statue finally removed.

Like it or not, without someone like Churchill you would be living in a very different world. Chamberlain would have been a more acceptable choice in terms of today’s liberal politics, but then the probability that Europe would be nothing more than Hitler’s lebensraum today would have been much higher. Think about what that might have entailed, for Jewish people, the Roma - the list goes on. The idea of removing Churchill’s statue is a wilful act of stupidity, a refusal to face the realities of a world not ensconced in the boundaries of the safety and security people like Churchill won for the rest of us.