It took Adolf Hitler and his Nazi cohorts 12 years to round up and murder 6 million Jews, but their Teutonic cousins, the British, managed to kill almost 4 million Indians in just over a year, with Prime Minister Winston Churchill cheering from the sidelines. Australian biochemist Dr Gideon Polya has called the Bengal Famine a “manmade holocaust” because Churchill’s policies were directly responsible for the disaster. Bengal had a bountiful harvest in 1942, but the British started diverting vast quantities of food grain from India to Britain, contributing to a massive food shortage in the areas comprising present-day West Bengal, Odisha, Bihar and Bangladesh. Author Madhusree Mukerjee tracked down some of the survivors and paints a chilling picture of the effects of hunger and deprivation. In Churchill’s Secret War, she writes: “Parents dumped their starving children into rivers and wells. Many took their lives by throwing themselves in front of trains. Starving people begged for the starchy water in which rice had been boiled. Children ate leaves and vines, yam stems and grass. People were too weak even to cremate their loved ones.”
Sarah Waheed notes: “One of the students in my modern South Asia history class a few years ago, was extremely upset that the book we were reading referred to the Bengal famine as a holocaust, calling the author ‘biased’. When I asked him to clarify and elaborate upon what he meant by ‘biased’, he exclaimed, inflamed, “There was only one holocaust!” The rest of the students were, however, more open to the idea of the 20th century being a century of multiple holocausts. The terms ‘holocaust’ and ‘genocide’, however, continue to elicit trauma envy.”
I first heard of British crimes like this in Mike Davis’ Late Victorian Holocausts which talks about how imperialism affected the Indian subcontinent’s food supply. The system which could feed everyone, even during hard times, was “centralized” to be “more efficient” by the British administration, leading to skyrocketing poverty and famine and a destroyed local ecology.
"the idea of the 20th century being a century of multiple holocausts"
Mao gets blamed for starving his people (when recent research suggests that his reforms may have stemmed a much more drastic famine) whereas Churchill (and those like him from the West) only get remembered as staunch and wise heroes despite the rampant murder of their colonial violence. Fuck to Churchill.
"Women are the niggers of gender," the email said. "If you killed yourself, I wouldn’t even fuck the corpse."
I blinked at my phone, fighting simultaneous urges to hurl my phone across the room in anger and cry. Later that day, someone texted me my address — telling me they’d “See me when I least expected it.”
I haven’t been out to my car at night by myself since January 2nd.
My name is Brianna Wu. I lead a development studio that makes games. Sometimes, I write about issues in the games industry that relate to the equality of women. My reward is that I regularly have men threatening to rape and commit acts of violence against me.
Destroy all “gamers”
idk why police officers being monitored to make sure they’re performing their duties ethically and within legal parameters is such a controversial topic because if I recall they’re a fan of using the whole “if you’ve got nothing to hide you’ve got nothing to fear” shtick to justify harassing civilians it’s almost like they’re full of bullshit
I’ve seen a lot of people call for cameras worn by cops (as a regulation or law) and while it sounds like a good idea at first and seems to come from a good motive, I don’t really like the idea. If/when the cameras are controlled by the police I find it hard to believe that this “evidence” won’t be controlled or distorted as well. We have plenty of evidence in the shooting of Mike Brown, but you can see the police PR distortion machine in action, you can see how American racism prevails even in the most obvious of circumstances of outright oppression. As long as a system of racial and class inequality is in place, as long as the police are meant to be the violent aspect of enforcement of said inequality, as long as the police are mythologized as “protectors” first and foremost, I fully expect police forces to abuse and manipulate footage to not hold them culpable as much as possible.
Also, We forget so soon how during Occupy Wall Street there were many protesting who objected to being on Livestreams of what was going on. Sometimes illegal action may be necessary in protest. In that case the footage becomes a weapon against the oppressed. There is no Big Other to save you when it is The Law (as interpreted and wielded by Power, as The Law only is) prevails. Furthermore, when you recognize yourself as holding political opinions that especially in a current atmosphere of heightened Nationalism can be considered as anti-National and thus “terrorism”, when you seek to demonstrate or act in favor of these opinions the cameras wielded by police become yet another weapon wielded against you.
Cameras, perhaps, should be turned ON the police. We do that now, we may want to continue to do it in the future, but cameras wielded BY the police is a very short-sighted and dangerous idea in my opinion.