Rick Scott issues travel advisory for ‘socialists,’ warning Florida is ‘openly hostile’ to them

[Tigerace117]

Thirty-five million. Jesus that's a lot.

And again, that’s the conservative estimate. I’ve seen sources claiming even more.

 

[Variant]

Funny how India went from having massive famines which killed millions upon millions of people nearly once a decade under the British to not having anything close since independence.

The semi dwarf wheat was invented in 1961, so the Indians would have had to accomplish one in the intervening 14 years.

 

[Tigerace117]

The semi dwarf wheat was invented in 1961.

British colonial rule in India was viciously brutal at best.

 

[Variant]

British colonial rule in India was viciously brutal at best.

I'm no fan of colonial rule, I just asked the question of whether you thought the British caused all the famines in India during their rule, because it seems that is the claim of the person you are reposting.

That they haven't had regular famines since is at least in part to multiple agricultural revolutions.

 

[Tigerace117]

Fair enough.

That said, the idea the Raj killed more than Stalin is a lie.

From previous source.

“The mortality in the Great Bengal famine of 1770 was between one and 10 million;[6] the Chalisa famine of 1783–1784, 11 million; Doji bara famine of 1791–1792, 11 million; and Agra famine of 1837–1838, 800,000.[7] In the second half of the 19th-century large-scale excess mortality was caused by: Upper Doab famine of 1860–1861, 2 million; Great Famine of 1876–1878, 5.5 million; Indian famine of 1896–1897, 5 million; and Indian famine of 1899–1900, 1 million.[8]”

That’s between thirty and forty million dead, solely from famine.

 

[BitterPill]

And again, that’s the conservative estimate. I’ve seen sources claiming even more.

I know one was caused by the war, but there were others, all of which can be ascribed to an act of God as what happened in Ireland.

Sure, Britain could have done better, but to blame Britain for the deaths is unfair.

 

[Tigerace117]

I'm no fan of colonial rule, I just asked the question of whether you thought the British caused all the famines in India during their rule, because it seems that is the claim of the person you are reposting.

Yes, the British bear the responsibility for the famines that took part under their rule. Their responses were often inadequate at best, outright malicious and neglectful at worst, and their policies directly led to the deaths of millions of people.

 

[BitterPill]

From previous source.

“The mortality in the Great Bengal famine of 1770 was between one and 10 million;[6] the Chalisa famine of 1783–1784, 11 million; Doji bara famine of 1791–1792, 11 million; and Agra famine of 1837–1838, 800,000.[7] In the second half of the 19th-century large-scale excess mortality was caused by: Upper Doab famine of 1860–1861, 2 million; Great Famine of 1876–1878, 5.5 million; Indian famine of 1896–1897, 5 million; and Indian famine of 1899–1900, 1 million.[8]”

That’s between thirty and forty million dead, solely from famine.

I fail to see how these were solely the fault of Britain.

The Holodomor is a different matter. That is wholly Stalin's fault.

 

[Tigerace117]

I know one was caused by the war, but there were others, all of which can be ascribed to an act of God as what happened in Ireland.

Sure, Britain could have done better, but to blame Britain for the deaths is unfair.

The Russell administration refused to interfere with the export of food from Ireland during a famine, and then ended relief efforts and work aid while the famine was still ongoing in Ireland, so no, there’s nothing “unfair” about it.

And the same happened in India.

“The regular export of grain by the colonial government continued; during the famine, the viceroy, Lord Robert Bulwer-Lytton, oversaw the export to England of a record 6.4 million hundredweight (320,000 tons) of wheat, which made the region more vulnerable. The cultivation of alternate cash crops, in addition to the commodification of grain, played a significant role in the events.[6][7]

The famine occurred at a time when the colonial government was attempting to reduce expenses on welfare. Earlier, in the Bihar famine of 1873–74, severe mortality had been avoided by importing rice from Burma. The Government of Bengal and its Lieutenant-Governor, Sir Richard Temple, were criticised for excessive expenditure on charitable relief.[8] Sensitive to any renewed accusations of excess in 1876, Temple, who was now Famine Commissioner for the Government of India,[2] insisted not only on a policy of laissez faire with respect to the trade in grain,[9] but also on stricter standards of qualification for relief and on more meagre relief rations.[2]”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876–1878

“Unfair”?

If anything, I’m not being harsh enough.

 

[Gatsby]

Well what do they mean by that? Control of the means of production or a good social safety net including things like socialized medicine?

The fact that some leftists insist on associating mainstream policies with weirdo extremists with the "Socialism is when public schools exist" routine is their own fault.

Which do you think Rick Scott is talking about?

I assume that like most politicians, he is merely taking advantage of his political opponents making stupid decisions. Whether it's extremists trying to blur the lines between themselves and the normies...or the normies tying themselves to the crazies for some strange reason.

 

[Tigerace117]

I fail to see how these were solely the fault of Britain.

The Holodomor is a different matter. That is wholly Stalin's fault.

You claimed that it was a “lie” to say the Raj killed more than Stalin.

As I throughly proved, they killed substantially more than he did.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I assume that like most politicians, he is merely taking advantage of his political opponents making stupid decisions. Whether it's extremists trying to blur the lines between themselves and the normies...or the normies tying themselves to the crazies for some strange reason.

He is being an attention whore.

 

[BitterPill]

The Russell administration refused to interfere with the export of food from Ireland during a famine, and then ended relief efforts and work aid while the famine was still ongoing in Ireland, so no, there’s nothing “unfair” about it.

“The regular export of grain by the colonial government continued; during the famine, the viceroy, Lord Robert Bulwer-Lytton, oversaw the export to England of a record 6.4 million hundredweight (320,000 tons) of wheat, which made the region more vulnerable. The cultivation of alternate cash crops, in addition to the commodification of grain, played a significant role in the events.[6][7]

The famine occurred at a time when the colonial government was attempting to reduce expenses on welfare. Earlier, in the Bihar famine of 1873–74, severe mortality had been avoided by importing rice from Burma. The Government of Bengal and its Lieutenant-Governor, Sir Richard Temple, were criticised for excessive expenditure on charitable relief.[8] Sensitive to any renewed accusations of excess in 1876, Temple, who was now Famine Commissioner for the Government of India,[2] insisted not only on a policy of laissez faire with respect to the trade in grain,[9] but also on stricter standards of qualification for relief and on more meagre relief rations.[2]”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876–1878

“Unfair”?

If anything, I’m not being harsh enough.

While the British were undoubtedly callous, the fact remains that were it not for the potato famine, there would not have been widespread starving in Ireland, and Britain had no control over the potato famine. It just happened, an act of God.

 

[Tigerace117]

You brought up Stalin unprompted, not me.


Nope. Don't care.


I think we should not reinstate the British Raj.

As I have throughly demonstrated, capitalist regimes like the Raj utterly dwarfed Stalin—one of the worst “socialists” ever—by a substantial margin.

Funny how you aren’t calling for people to stop trying to rehabilitate capitalism given it’s blood soaked history.

 

[Variant]

The fact that some leftists insist on associating mainstream policies with weirdo extremists with the "Socialism is when public schools exist" routine is their own fault.

Is it? I get called a socialist when I advocate for anything left of the Kaiser routinely.

I assume that like most politicians, he is merely taking advantage of his political opponents making stupid decisions. Whether it's extremists trying to blur the lines between themselves and the normies...or the normies tying themselves to the crazies for some strange reason.

Again, it's routine for those on the right to decry "socialism" no matter what is actually being presented.

 

[Tigerace117]

While the British were undoubtedly callous, the fact remains that were it not for the potato famine, there would not have been widespread starving in Ireland, and Britain had no control over the potato famine. It just happened, an act of God.

The British were exporting large amounts of food in the middle of the famine. They knew what was happening; the previous government had implemented relief programs. They simply decided they were okay with vast numbers of people starving.

 

[BitterPill]

You claimed that it was a “lie” to say the Raj killed more than Stalin.

As I throughly proved, they killed substantially more than he did.

Needless to say, and I say this respectfully, I do not agree since I know better.

 

[Tigerace117]

Thirty-five million. Jesus that's a lot.

Oh, and there’s only the fact that that was only the deaths from famine. That isn’t even counting those who died during brutal crackdowns, such as the ones carried out during and after the Sepoy Rebellion.

 

[BitterPill]

The British were exporting large amounts of food in the middle of the famine. They knew what was happening; the previous government had implemented relief programs. They simply decided they were okay with vast numbers of people starving.

Even if Britain had stopped exporting large amounts of grain from Ireland, which it did not, millions of Irish would still have starved on account of the potato famine.

 

[Tigerace117]

‘

Needless to say, and I say this respectfully, I do not agree since I know better.

…..I provided the numbers dude. Thirty five million plus is a lot more than nine million.

 

[Tigerace117]

Even if Britain had stopped exporting large amounts of grain, which it did not, millions if Irish would still have starved on account of the potato famine.

The initial British response had been relatively effective. But once Russell took over, that completely changed and the famine truly ramped up.

 

[BitterPill]

The initial British response had been relatively effective. But once Russell took over, that completely changed and the famine truly ramped up.

Suit yourself.

Britain ramped up a potato famine!

Probably had that bastard doctor responsible for Mr. Hyde cook-it-up in his free time.

 

[Gatsby]

He is being an attention whore.

Yup.

 

[Gatsby]

Is it? I get called a socialist when I advocate for anything left of the Kaiser routinely.

Indeed. But for every right-winger who claims that any safety net is socialism, there's a weirdo leftist to say "Damn right it is." And some of them are in this thread.

I am simply proposing that people who want a safety net say they want a safety net, instead of tying themselves to the crazies.

Again, it's routine for those on the right to decry "socialism" no matter what is actually being presented.

Yup. And maybe that would be less effective if so many leftists didn't agree with them.

 

[Tigerace117]

Suit yourself.

Britain ramped up a potato famine!

Probably had the bastard doctor responsible for Mr. Hyde cook-it-up in his free time.

…..

“They refused to interfere with the movement of food to England, and then halted the previous government's food and relief works, leaving many hundreds of thousands of people without access to work, money, or food.[99]”

Great Famine (Ireland) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org