United States Politics Thread 46

[Linguoboy]

That said, I am not interested in finding excuses for colonialism. What I am saying is that the criminal mishandling of a crisis is not the same thing is totalitarian genocidal policy.

Ah yes, the "Turkish excuse"!

"It wasn't genocide; we just did such a fucking awful job of protecting people we had the duty to protect (and who--coincidentally--we didn't much care for, to tell the truth) that they all died."

My point is that, since cis straight white men, aka "bros", are the most likely people to become fascists, one should target them if one doesn't want another generation of fascists; writing them off basically guarantees that they will become subject to the influence of fascists and become fascists themselves. It is not about "coddling" them - it is about engaging them and giving them ideas and an identity such that the need they have for such will not be filled by the fascists. They could be antifascist/antiracist if you want them to be that and are willing to put in the effort rather than just dismissing them as "bros".

As I've said repeatedly: If you want to take this on, do it. Go hog wild. But I don't view it as my responsibility or the responsibility of most people on the left, who have suffered immeasurably (since quantification of evil counts for so much with you) due to their actions. Ever heard the AAVE expression, "Get your people"? It means that when one of the folks you came with is acting the fool at a gathering, the onus isn't on the host of that gathering to correct their behaviour. They're your people; you collect their messy asses and get 'em out the door. Well, I've told you who my people are and it's not straight bros who think feminism has Gone Too Far.

The only way in which I care about "targeting" them is in the way the FBI targeted leftist groups in the 50s: By infiltrating their organisations and breaking them up. (You'd hope the current administration is finally taking all the years of warnings about right-wing extremism seriously at last and launching an initiative along these lines, but so far most of what I read indicates that--true to past form--they're still more focused on the grave threat to our democracy posed by groups like BLM and Antifa.)

[Travis B.]

That said, I am not interested in finding excuses for colonialism. What I am saying is that the criminal mishandling of a crisis is not the same thing is totalitarian genocidal policy.

Ah yes, the "Turkish excuse"!

"It wasn't genocide; we just did such a fucking awful job of protecting people we had the duty to protect (and who--coincidentally--we didn't much care for, to tell the truth) that they all died."

The key part is the mens rea for genocide. The Turkish deliberately marched people into the desert to die, ostensibly to prison camps which did not exist, of thirst en masse, so can be said to have had a mens rea for genocide. If the British can be shown to have deliberately caused the deaths of 3+ million people, as opposed to simply allowing those deaths to occur (just in the way that they allowed the Great Irish Famine and many previous Indian famines to occur) through their misrule, then they can be said to have committed genocide themselves.

My point is that, since cis straight white men, aka "bros", are the most likely people to become fascists, one should target them if one doesn't want another generation of fascists; writing them off basically guarantees that they will become subject to the influence of fascists and become fascists themselves. It is not about "coddling" them - it is about engaging them and giving them ideas and an identity such that the need they have for such will not be filled by the fascists. They could be antifascist/antiracist if you want them to be that and are willing to put in the effort rather than just dismissing them as "bros".

As I've said repeatedly: If you want to take this on, do it. Go hog wild. But I don't view it as my responsibility or the responsibility of most people on the left, who have suffered immeasurably (since quantification of evil counts for so much with you) due to their actions. Ever heard the AAVE expression, "Get your people"? It means that when one of the folks you came with is acting the fool at a gathering, the onus isn't on the host of that gathering to correct their behaviour. They're your people; you collect their messy asses and get 'em out the door. Well, I've told you who my people are and it's not straight bros who think feminism has Gone Too Far.

The only way in which I care about "targeting" them is in the way the FBI targeted leftist groups in the 50s: By infiltrating their organisations and breaking them up. (You'd hope the current administration is finally taking all the years of warnings about right-wing extremism seriously at last and launching an initiative along these lines, but so far most of what I read indicates that--true to past form--they're still more focused on the grave threat to our democracy posed by groups like BLM and Antifa.)

Don't get me wrong, I have no confidence that we can convert dedicated white supremacists/neo-fascists/etc., and probably the best that can be done with them is to infiltrate and disrupt their organizations. Rather, what I speak of is targeting people who might be attracted to such ideas before they actually become white supremacists/neo-fascists and exposing them to left-wing ideas instead, so that at least some of them might be converted. I am not suggesting you do this myself, and even I would not know where to start TBH.

[Ares Land]

Ah yes, the "Turkish excuse"!

"It wasn't genocide; we just did such a fucking awful job of protecting people we had the duty to protect (and who--coincidentally--we didn't much care for, to tell the truth) that they all died."

I'm not looking to defend or excuse British colonialism or Churchill. What I'm saying is that Hitler was, by far, the greater evil.

Do you think the state of the world would be exactly as it is had Hitler won instead? And if not, why?

(I personally think we'd be complaining that Americans aren't serious enough about racism or in a labor camp somewhere or dead.)

The only way in which I care about "targeting" them is in the way the FBI targeted leftist groups in the 50s: By infiltrating their organisations and breaking them up. (You'd hope the current administration is finally taking all the years of warnings about right-wing extremism seriously at last and launching an initiative along these lines, but so far most of what I read indicates that--true to past form--they're still more focused on the grave threat to our democracy posed by groups like BLM and Antifa.)

This is more about talking to ignorant people. You can't reach or honestly, do much with people once they actually form groups.

(And again, you're right in that the job of educating the ignorant shouldn't be left to the most vulnerable people.)

[Linguoboy]

If the British can be shown to have deliberately caused the deaths of 3+ million people, as opposed to simply allowing those deaths to occur (just in the way that they allowed the Great Irish Famine and many previous Indian famines to occur) through their misrule, then they can be said to have committed genocide themselves.

"We didn't think the people would die if we took all their food and shipped it out of the country" is really an airtight defence in this respect. Much better than "we didn't think people would die without water" because we all know that Indian yogis can survive without eating so it wasn't too much to expect the entire population of Bengal to do the same.

Don't get me wrong, I have no confidence that we can convert dedicated white supremacists/neo-fascists/etc., and probably the best that can be done with them is to infiltrate and disrupt their organizations. Rather, what I speak of is targeting people who might be attracted to such ideas before they actually become white supremacists/neo-fascists and exposing them to left-wing ideas instead, so that at least some of them might be converted. I am not suggesting you do this myself, and even I would not know where to start TBH.

So maybe don't be so quick to jump in and post about how I and others are going about it all wrong then.

[zompist]

If the British can be shown to have deliberately caused the deaths of 3+ million people, as opposed to simply allowing those deaths to occur (just in the way that they allowed the Great Irish Famine and many previous Indian famines to occur) through their misrule, then they can be said to have committed genocide themselves.

I'm not looking to defend or excuse British colonialism or Churchill. What I'm saying is that Hitler was, by far, the greater evil.

I sympathize with both sides here, because a) Hitler was really evil, and b) colonialism was really evil. I don't think anyone here is saying that one of them is not evil, but I get the impression that people feel that insisting on (a) diminishes (b) or vice versa. ¿Por qué no los dos?

Comparing evils is fraught with problems, but I'd start here: dead is dead. If you're a Jew who lost entire sides of their family in the Holocaust, Hitler seems especially evil. But if you're a Bengali who lost entire sides of their family in the WWII famine, colonialism seems especially evil. It is not respectful to either of these people, or helpful, to insist that they acknowledge that the other evil was worse.

For decades it's been a commonplace in Western society that fascism was the worst. This is not a bad attitude to have, especially if it keeps us from fascism. But the attitude has two problems.

1) It's not a good guide to evaluating everyone else's disasters and evils. How do you think a Cambodian would feel about being informed that Hitler was worse than Pol Pot? You can only maintain Hitler as uniquely evil by dismissing other people's victimhood, and that's a bad path to go down. It's OK, and in fact quite reasonable, to sat that there's some extreme tier of evil that many people managed to reach.
2) There's at least something ethically problematic about making the unique evil to be someone else's problem. There's something wrong with a moralist who weighs the sins other people commit far more heavily than his own. (To put it another way: Germans have to deal with fascism as a failure on their own side, and that's hard but salutary. Using a more neutral example: it's not exactly brave for a Russian to decry German fascism, especially if it leads him to downplay Soviet atrocities.)

I think it's a bit shocking to hear Churchill described as in that far-below tier of evil. We're used to cheerleading his standing up to Hitler. But, well, welcome to the 21st century, where we re-evaluate a lot of our old heroes.

As I've already pointed out, famines happened under British rule, and not under modern Indian rule. When people administer a system which results in millions of people dying every few decades— and this is entirely preventable— then it's splitting extremely fine hairs to argue that this is not extremely evil. Did they not know any better? They ruled their own island entirely differently, no famines needed. Both British and Indian activists had been telling them for years that colonialism (and its inherent racism) was evil. And the Bengal famine wasn't some kind of weird exception; it was quite typical of the brutal callousness of colonialism, British or otherwise.

A psychopath who murders for fun is horrible, all right. But politicians and bureaucrats who let oppression and killing go on for centuries are, in their own way, just as horrible. And in a way scarier, because that hits way closer to home.

[Travis B.]

As mentioned before, I think the key difference is mens rea. Hitler and the Nazis deliberately set out to systematically slaughter millions of people. Churchill and the British set up conditions that would result in the deaths of millions of people through their callousness and indifference.

[Vijay]

The British did a lot more than just the Bengal famine, you know. They murdered almost the entire indigenous population of the Andaman Islands (why do you think the Sentinelese are reputed to be so aggressive towards any hint of outside contact?).

[Vardelm]

Many good points...

All those points are really good. However, are we comparing Hitler to Churchill or to colonialism? Colonialism is probably the greater evil due to its scope, but does that mean Churchill was worse than Hitler? That still makes little difference to those affected, of course. Colonialism had a far longer time to wreak havoc on its victims. What would things look like if Hitler had another 20-30 years of success, let alone if his successors had a full 100 like the British Raj? I'd say a person can be more evil than another, but not have as much time to perpetrate as much evil.

[Travis B.]

Many good points...

All those points are really good. However, are we comparing Hitler to Churchill or to colonialism? Colonialism is probably the greater evil due to its scope, but does that mean Churchill was worse than Hitler? That still makes little difference to those affected, of course. Colonialism had a far longer time to wreak havoc on its victims. What would things look like if Hitler had another 20-30 years of success, let alone if his successors had a full 100 like the British Raj? I'd say a person can be more evil than another, but not have as much time to perpetrate as much evil.

I somehow suspect another 20-30 years of Nazi Germany would have been worse than the 100 years of the British Raj. At least in Europe the Jewish population would have been fully exterminated and the Slavic population would have either been exterminated or enslaved. And that is if the power of Nazi Germany were still just limited to Europe...

[Travis B.]

The British did a lot more than just the Bengal famine, you know. They murdered almost the entire indigenous population of the Andaman Islands (why do you think the Sentinelese are reputed to be so aggressive towards any hint of outside contact?).

If we are going to cover a whole list of atrocities committed by the British, in addition to all their crimes committed as part of colonialism overall, more specifically they were also responsible for the Tasmanian genocide, the ethnic cleansing of Australia, the first portions of the ethnic cleansing of North America, slavery, blackbirding after chattel slavery was banned, allowing the Great Irish Famine to take place, the concentration camps during the Second Boer War, and so on. But the thing is that we were originally comparing and contrasting the crimes of two different people, Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler, not the full list of British atrocities and the full list of German atrocities (which go beyond the crimes of the Nazis).

[Vijay]

The British did a lot more than just the Bengal famine, you know. They murdered almost the entire indigenous population of the Andaman Islands (why do you think the Sentinelese are reputed to be so aggressive towards any hint of outside contact?).

If we are going to cover a whole list of atrocities committed by the British, in addition to all their crimes committed as part of colonialism overall, more specifically they were also responsible for the Tasmanian genocide, the ethnic cleansing of Australia, the first portions of the ethnic cleansing of North America, slavery, blackbirding after chattel slavery was banned, allowing the Great Irish Famine to take place, the concentration camps during the Second Boer War, and so on. But the thing is that we were originally comparing and contrasting the crimes of two different people, Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler, not the full list of British atrocities and the full list of German atrocities (which go beyond the crimes of the Nazis).

It was you who said Churchill and the British.

[Travis B.]

It was you who said Churchill and the British.

I thought by context it was clear that I meant Churchill and the British while he was Prime Minister, not Churchill and, independent of him, the full sum of British atrocities.

[zompist]

Many good points...

All those points are really good. However, are we comparing Hitler to Churchill or to colonialism? Colonialism is probably the greater evil due to its scope, but does that mean Churchill was worse than Hitler? That still makes little difference to those affected, of course. Colonialism had a far longer time to wreak havoc on its victims. What would things look like if Hitler had another 20-30 years of success, let alone if his successors had a full 100 like the British Raj? I'd say a person can be more evil than another, but not have as much time to perpetrate as much evil.

I think "who was worse" is just the grimdark counterpart of "what's the absolute best rock band". And when you bring alternate worlds into it, even more so! What would the British Raj have done if it lasted 70 more years? One reason it didn't, after all, was that Britain lacked the will and/or the money to keep a quarter of the world subjugated. The alternative is not the relatively costless [*] 19th century British Empire; it's the equivalent of 1970s Vietnam or 1960s Algeria or 1980s-onward Afghanistan in every single colony.

In law, it's held that neglectful manslaughter is not as bad as premeditated murder. But that's why I brought up psychopaths vs. bureaucrats. That seems to be Travis's main defense of Churchill-- that he wasn't a psychopath. And, I dunno, yay for not being a psycho? But doesn't that, in some sense, make Churchill look worse? A supposedly rational, moral, and even charming man who somehow found it normal to dislike and misrule brown people and hoped to do it forever.

[*] But not costless; I think the costs of colonialism are not often remembered. France mostly gave up on India because it was more trouble than it was worth. Britain constantly had to bail out the EIC.

[Vijay]

It was you who said Churchill and the British.

I thought by context it was clear that I meant Churchill and the British while he was Prime Minister, not Churchill and, independent of him, the full sum of British atrocities.

The context was a post talking about crimes committed under British colonial rule, not just under Churchill.

[Travis B.]

It was you who said Churchill and the British.

I thought by context it was clear that I meant Churchill and the British while he was Prime Minister, not Churchill and, independent of him, the full sum of British atrocities.

The context was a post talking about crimes committed under British colonial rule, not just under Churchill.

Well, yes, in that we were discussing how the Bengal famine was a natural result of British colonial policies, that it was specifically the British's fault it happened and that it was not just some natural occurrence due to poor weather conditions or whatnot (hence why it has not happened since the end of the British Raj).

[Travis B.]

Many good points...

All those points are really good. However, are we comparing Hitler to Churchill or to colonialism? Colonialism is probably the greater evil due to its scope, but does that mean Churchill was worse than Hitler? That still makes little difference to those affected, of course. Colonialism had a far longer time to wreak havoc on its victims. What would things look like if Hitler had another 20-30 years of success, let alone if his successors had a full 100 like the British Raj? I'd say a person can be more evil than another, but not have as much time to perpetrate as much evil.

I think "who was worse" is just the grimdark counterpart of "what's the absolute best rock band". And when you bring alternate worlds into it, even more so! What would the British Raj have done if it lasted 70 more years? One reason it didn't, after all, was that Britain lacked the will and/or the money to keep a quarter of the world subjugated. The alternative is not the relatively costless [*] 19th century British Empire; it's the equivalent of 1970s Vietnam or 1960s Algeria or 1980s-onward Afghanistan in every single colony.

France has managed to keep Françafrique alive even after giving nominal independence to its African colonies, it should be remembered, and Portugal managed to keep its colonial empire alive until the 1970's despite being a poor, isolated country in a time when most other countries had at least nominally abandoned their colonial empires (aside from the American and Soviet spheres of influence).

In law, it's held that neglectful manslaughter is not as bad as premeditated murder. But that's why I brought up psychopaths vs. bureaucrats. That seems to be Travis's main defense of Churchill-- that he wasn't a psychopath. And, I dunno, yay for not being a psycho? But doesn't that, in some sense, make Churchill look worse? A supposedly rational, moral, and even charming man who somehow found it normal to dislike and misrule brown people and hoped to do it forever.

Well Churchill was definitely a racist, like many in Britain alongside him, and his policies were motivated by said racism, hence why he preferred that grain from Australia would go to British troops than to feed Indians.

[Ares Land]

I sympathize with both sides here, because a) Hitler was really evil, and b) colonialism was really evil. I don't think anyone here is saying that one of them is not evil, but I get the impression that people feel that insisting on (a) diminishes (b) or vice versa. ¿Por qué no los dos?

Let's begin with what we agree on, and what is, I feel, the most important point. Colonialism is as thoroughly evil a doctrine as Nazism. They are, in fact, basically the same thing. Nazism is just what we European call colonialism when it happens to us.

That said, I am decidedly uncomfortable with the assertion that Churchill equals Hitler.

First off, Churchill was an assholish old imperialist reactionary, yes. The problem, even in our enlightened days of 2021, most of our political leaders feel, you know, more evil. A few reminders: Churchill left the conservatives over immigration policy, being in favor of unrestricted immigration. I'm sorry, but in that respect, we have taken a major step backwards. Even hard core leftist politicians are weaselly on the subject.
Over here in post-colonial land, politicians of different ilks still very much bear the white man's burden. The only reason we don't cause any famines in Bengal is that we can't afford to do so anymore. We're very happy to cater to dictators, or be complicit in genocide as the case may be.
TLDR: yesterday's bad guys sometimes feel preferable to today's good guys.

Second, there's no staying neutral in the fight between Churchill and Hitler. We can't comfortably banish them both to the lowest circle of Hell!. Sometimes the only choice you get is between a moldy old reactionary and a Nazi, and you have to choose.

[Moose-tache]

Sometimes the only choice you get is between a moldy old reactionary and a Nazi, and you have to choose.

In an election maybe. But in the study of history, we don't have to choose which one is "better" in any straight-forward way. All the Churchill apologia in this thread is just playing into the other side. When the teenagers with upside-down As scribbled on their schoolbooks come around and say "All whites are inherently bad," you can't let them catch you trying to rehabilitate the reputation of someone like Churchill. That's not going to help you rebut their ludicrous ideas, and will play into their belief that everyone is oppressing them even when they're not. Jettison Churchill to the pit where we keep Stalin and Nancy Grace, and focus on ideas that are worth defending, like "No, Whites are not inherently bad; that's fucking racist."

Here, I'll go first.

Churchill was terrible and I'm glad he isn't running anything anymore. Also I don't hate myself. Now what, Antifa?

[Ares Land]

I'm a simple man. I'm afraid the irony here is a bit too arcane for me to understand.

[zompist]

Second, there's no staying neutral in the fight between Churchill and Hitler. We can't comfortably banish them both to the lowest circle of Hell!. Sometimes the only choice you get is between a moldy old reactionary and a Nazi, and you have to choose.

I'm not sure what you mean here. We have to choose between colonialism and fascism? No, we don't.

People at the time had to make choices, sure. But as has already been pointed out, even before the war was over, the UK in effect rejected both. It had already (and quite rightly!) rejected Hitler. It also threw out Churchill, created a welfare state, freed India, and not long after got rid of the rest of its empire.

Roosevelt had firmly anti-colonialist views... e.g. after visiting Gambia, he said, “it’s the most horrible thing I have ever seen in my life... With a little study, I got the point of view that for every dollar that the British, who have been there for two hundred years, have put into Gambia, they have taken out ten." The US view was that the Atlantic Charter meant self-determination by all colonial peoples, working toward independence. Roosevelt pointed to the example of the Phillipines,which had been granted commonwealth status in 1934 which was supposed to lead in 10 years to independence (the war delayed this by two years). Churchill, not surprisingly, fought hard against these ideas, especially as applied to India. Once the US entered the war, it was hardly possible to do anything but postpone discussion till it was won.

Indians had a more difficult choice during the war. I find it shocking that some Indians collaborated with the Axis and that they're remembered fondly in India today. (Many many times that number helped the Allies.) But, things looked different to Indians. Besides the Bengal famine, there's things like the 3-year detention of the entire Congress leadership.