I actually kinda agree with them that mismanagement of agricultural policy and intentional starving of colonial subjects for profit are two different things.
One is (or was) an inevitability of the transition from subsistence/feudal society to industrial society as the agricultural output failed to keep up with the outflow of agricultural labor to industrial labor. Usually bolstered by collapses in grain trade between more established markets in developing nations.
The genocide was to prevent famine within the imperial core. The grain shortages were more pronounced in England so their solution was to starve their subjects to protect the profitable labor within England itself.
Even worse was that there was shortage, but at any given point there was enough grain to prevent famin. But distributing that grain would destabilize the grain price and throw the imperial financial markets into chaos as grain was meant to be a stable investment.
So millions die to protect the line. Nothing ever changes.
Yeah, because the was a shortage, but they need to keep grain price stable. If they didn't stockpile and allowed India to keep all the grain they needed to avert famine there would have been starvation in England.
I'm no big historian in this topic, but I know that British policy was based on Smith's idea that grain prices need to remain stable. Which is why they stockpiled during famine in the periphery.
deleted by creator
Oops forgot that time the British starved, as this user would call them, "their own people".
The British would NEVER consider those their own people. So they get a pass!
Not a horrific intentional genocide, nope!
deleted by creator
I actually kinda agree with them that mismanagement of agricultural policy and intentional starving of colonial subjects for profit are two different things.
One is (or was) an inevitability of the transition from subsistence/feudal society to industrial society as the agricultural output failed to keep up with the outflow of agricultural labor to industrial labor. Usually bolstered by collapses in grain trade between more established markets in developing nations.
The other is genocide.
deleted by creator
The genocide was to prevent famine within the imperial core. The grain shortages were more pronounced in England so their solution was to starve their subjects to protect the profitable labor within England itself.
Even worse was that there was shortage, but at any given point there was enough grain to prevent famin. But distributing that grain would destabilize the grain price and throw the imperial financial markets into chaos as grain was meant to be a stable investment.
So millions die to protect the line. Nothing ever changes.
deleted by creator
Yeah, because the was a shortage, but they need to keep grain price stable. If they didn't stockpile and allowed India to keep all the grain they needed to avert famine there would have been starvation in England.
deleted by creator
I'm no big historian in this topic, but I know that British policy was based on Smith's idea that grain prices need to remain stable. Which is why they stockpiled during famine in the periphery.
deleted by creator
Yeah, consistent English colonial policy.