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.
The genocide was too 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.
We talking about the indian or irish one? Because as far as I know the UK was stockpiling food while people in India were starving
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.
Ah okay yeah. I’d always thought they stockpiled it for fear of running out (even though I think they had 3x the calculated needed amount) if the germans could blockade them again or something. It’s been a while since I learnt about it, so the facts are quite hazy. Thanks for sharing some history with me!
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.
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.
Genocide of course being better than having one famine one time
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.
We talking about the indian or irish one? Because as far as I know the UK was stockpiling food while people in India were starving
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.
Ah okay yeah. I’d always thought they stockpiled it for fear of running out (even though I think they had 3x the calculated needed amount) if the germans could blockade them again or something. It’s been a while since I learnt about it, so the facts are quite hazy. Thanks for sharing some history with me!
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.
I appreciate your input! I have nothing else to add but thank you for your time