UK BBC Holocaust Denial

[GracchusBabeuf]

.

[Jazzratt]

Indipendent and unbiased my arse.

[und]

Indipendent and unbiased my arse.
Just like the "impartialness" we saw with the Gaza appeal not being aired... That was a joke.

[rednordman]

I have to ask...Is the BBC taken seriously anymore?

If you take into account the fact that SKYnews is probably miles more popular (yes, i felt dirty saying that), the bbc are having a very pro-capitalism agenda.

Heck, im actually starting to think that the head producers are getting prepared for the tories getting power so they can kiss their arses. I mean i swear blind that the BBC has gone so reactionary recently, that even skynews has mellowed out compared to them.

To the point though, how can they deny a famine ever happened in India during colonialism?:confused:

[und]

I have to ask...Is the BBC taken seriously anymore?

If you take into account the fact that SKYnews is probably miles more popular (yes, i felt dirty saying that), the bbc are having a very pro-capitalism agenda.

Heck, im actually starting to think that the head producers are getting prepared for the tories getting power so they can kiss their arses. I mean i swear blind that the BBC has gone so reactionary recently, that even skynews has mellowed out compared to them.

To the point though, how can they deny a famine ever happened in India during colonialism?:confused:
Considering the BBC is basically the "government's channel", it's not too surprising.

[Rusty Shackleford]

is there any hard evidence on the 1.8 billion deaths during Brutish imperialism? id love to use this.

[TheSquid]

is there any hard evidence on the 1.8 billion deaths during Brutish imperialism? id love to use this.

h t t p : / / t i n y u r l . c o m / E c o n o f I n d i a u n d e r B r i t i s h R u l e

^ Is a book source on india under british rule. You can also look up the wikipedia article on the Bengali famine. :)

[Invariance]

1.8 billion deaths over 190 years equals, on average, around 9 and a half million deaths per year. The Holocaust (and yes, there is only one Holocaust) managed six million Jewish deaths over a period of four years. Considering that India had a population of about 180 million in 1700, and around 250 million in 1900, if such an amount of people were exterminated on a yearly basis one wonders how India would have reached its population it has now, of about 1.15 billion. So allow me to be highly sceptical of these figures. I would be interested in how they were calculated.

[Invariance]

Thanks for pointing that out. So, the writer maintains that one can determine the number of deaths by finding the ‘avoidable mortality’. The ‘avoidable mortality’ equals the actual number of deaths minus the expected number of deaths of a ‘peaceful country governed by a decent government’ with a ‘similar birth rate.’ The author compares that to America in the 1930s which had a spike in the birth date and at the time had a death rate of 11, and states:

Accordingly, a very conservative estimate of what annual pre-war death rates in British India SHOULD have been (i.e. if India had been decently, competently and humanely ruled) is about 10 deaths per 1,000 - as compared to the horrendous reality of 48 (before 1920), 46 (1925), 41 (1935) and 35 (1947).
And then states:

Plotting graphs of “avoidable death rate” versus time and of “Indian population” versus time enable one to interpolate to estimate the values of these parameters for each year and hence enable one to estimate British Indian “avoidable deaths” for every year since 1757.
So is this writer telling me that he has held constant the death rate of 10 from 1757 to 1947?! That is a very poor way to estimate. I mean, even comparing to England in 1750, the death rate would have been in the low thirties to high twenties; i.e. over twice the death rate which the author supposed in India at the time. Looking at the comparable figures in France, it averaged around 45 and peaked over 50! So, I could just as well state that the death rate should have been 10, and then calculated the ‘avoidable mortality’ and reached a wholly inflated figure; but that is a totally simplistic way of looking at things; death rates have changed dramatically over the past two hundred years, and one simply cannot simply maintain that the death rate in India in 1757 should have been 10; today's world death rate around 8.2 and the Indian death rate is 6.4 (incidentally, the Australian death rate is 7.6 - higher than the Indian death rate - which shows the limitations of the death rate: declining fertility results in older populations which results in a higher death rate) . Changes in living standards, advances medicine, working conditions matter. So does living under a brutal occupation, but it is not the sole factor.

Now, this isn’t to say that the British Empire wasn’t responsible for numerous barbarous crimes. I am merely questioning the methodology used to reach these claims; the methodology used seems more inclined to exaggerate rather than to provide an accurate account of the role of the British Empire. It posits a 'perfect scenario' and then compares that with reality. The difference is the 'excess number of deaths.' This is, to say the least, a very nebulous way of estimating deaths.

[Sasha]

just a small point; they denial an genocide not an holocaust, lets keep the discussion a bit factual.

[Killfacer]

someone change the title, it's massively misleading.

[TheSquid]

someone change the title, it's massively misleading.

I agree. This is not a 'holocaust denial,' by any means. First, this wasn't a holocaust. Second, failure to actively point out isn't the same as outright denying that it ever happened. The media really aren't that bad.

:marx:

[PRC-UTE]

I agree. This is not a 'holocaust denial,' by any means. First, this wasn't a holocaust. Second, failure to actively point out isn't the same as outright denying that it ever happened. The media really aren't that bad.

:marx:

em, it's a pretty big white washing. unless I'm missing something, millions starved while the Brit ruling class lived in luxury. imagine the outrage if someone described Poland in the 1940's without mentioning the holocaust there? There would (quite appropriately) be outrage.

[Andropov]

I agree. This is not a 'holocaust denial,' by any means. First, this wasn't a holocaust. Second, failure to actively point out isn't the same as outright denying that it ever happened. The media really aren't that bad.
:marx:
It is clearly genocide.
And neglecting to mention the deaths of millions due to British Imperial policys does amount to denial.
But that fits in nicely with the white washing of the British Empires past.