ITT: People who are considered the most moral people in history but were actually the complete opposite.
posting a literal terrorist
>>569363
Fuck this guy.
>>569219
Was he a very violent person? A hateful person? A reckless person?
Ghandi is considered a saint of non-violence doctrines. He is also said to have self control and self reliance.
What did he do?
>>569219
Do you think policymakers should address crime as a matter of individual responsibility, or is crime truly a symptom of a dysfunctional society?
>>569400
How do I address this? From a Kantian ethic standpoint? Moral absolutism?
he may have starved millions of people to death even when offered aid by other countries, which is a shame because in other regards he was a pretty nice guy
>>569412
He hated the Indians with passion though.
Given that the number of Indian outnumber the number of white british, his hatefulness > his niceness. Thats assuming he's a nice guy to begin with, which is a very shoddy assumption.
>>569421
What did Churchill have to do with India?
>>569412
I don't think anyone considers Churchill a moral person, though.
>>569397
>A hateful person?
Gandhi fucking hated whites
>>569440
>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html
Remember, most whites of the Era were Nazi-like in ideology. Racial purity and racial supremacy were the norm, not an exception. Don't let history white wash away the darker past.
>>569447
And blacks. He was just all around hateful.
>>569363
Mandela is more about redemption than anything else. He had everything to turn South Africa into a bigger Zimbabwe, instead he actually build a decent country for African standards because he realised you can't simply repress the richest class, it makes capital flight.
I'm surprised nobody said a thing about mother Teresa yet.
>>569440
>>569460
>"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."
>Up to 3 million people starved to death while British officials begged Churchill to direct food supplies to the region. He bluntly refused. He raged that it was their own fault for "breeding like rabbits". At other times, he said the plague was "merrily" culling the population.
>>569471
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/10/how_churchill_starved_india.html
You have to have a very deeply rooted hatred for this to happen. Remember, India provided a large force of military to help the british war against the germans(as well as the japanese in asia and gremans in africa). I can understand a passive hate with India not contributing anything, but this was an active hate.
>>569397
He saw black people as subhuman, he saw whites as vile. He did peaceful rebellion because he could not succeed violently, not because he wanted to (this isn't some conspiracy theory bullshit, all these things are just fact, look it up).
Also, this is some contemporary moral bullshit, but he totally fucked little girls.
>>569363
He was a good guy. If you really want a literal horrible terrorist that is beloved, look to Che Guevara or Macolm X.
>>569466
Is Theresa really considered moral by most anymore? Unlike Gandhi or Dalai Lama, her horribleness is so blatant and readily available in popular blogs and magazines that surely most people know she's not all that by now.
>>569517
He was a good guy if you accept what he was fighting for. Otherwise he just fought with the same means as every other terrorist.
If you're a communist, or a black nationalist Che or Malcolm X are good guys.
>>569526
Every interesting info is readily available in popular blogs and magazines anon. Most people don't like to read at all, and even if they do they have to be lucky to find the right website talking about the right thing.
>>569460
>Racial purity and racial supremacy
Specifically the problem is racial hatred. If someone wants to live in a trailerpark cut off from the outside world and fuck their cousins then technically there is nothing wrong with that until they start to bother other people (inbreeding might become a problem but being a liberal you are probably too scared to admit that genetic disease is a real thing).
>>569443
He did what he thought was right for the Empire. I respect him for that. But it sucked to be British ally during his time in office. He'd betray you in a second.
>>569554
>wants to live in a trailerpark cut off from the outside world and fuck their cousins
>they start to bother other people
Thats a very specific scenario.
>inbreeding might become a problem
Its a very real problem that european monarchs faced. Bunch of retarded nobles/kings got in power.
>but being a liberal you are probably too scared to admit that genetic disease is a real thing
wut
>>569566
>He did what he thought was right for the Empire
I don't want to bring Hitler, but thats literally Hitler's motivation.
>I respect him for that
Why person A but not B?
>>569466
>Dedicated her whole life to helping the forsaken.
Yeah Teresa sure seems like a terrible person.
>>569578
One did start aggressive wars and the other didn't.
>>569471
>>569500
The article doesn't mention the fact that Churchill would have rather sent food to Greece, and that the famine came from administrative mistakes which Churchill had nothing to do with. Plus, UK was still at war, and even Amartya Sen thought that there was actually no food shortage, which means that sending food wasn't considered as a solution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
>>569580
>helping
Read more
>>569593
I have, how about you please explain how she hasn't?
>>569586
So you respect people that don't start wars, not people that "did it for the empire".
>>569591
British extracted resources from India. Churchill used that resource for Greece. The Field Marshall wanted the food for India, Churchill denied it and opposed it on the grounds that its a natural culling.
The war was happening. The majority Indians supported the British empire, but with the country wide famine, Churchill fucked over India.
>>569603
Her help came from gathering all the poor/weak/sick into a house and then not giving them aid/medicine. Mother Teresa believed that god would fix it. She was the Saint of the fundies.
>>569627
Hitler was ineffective in every way before and during the war so it doesn't matter anyway. No one should praise any statesman just because they wished their country to be strong. Especially not those who used his tactics.
Compared to that, Churchill was untrustworthy but his position was different than Hitler's. He was defending his country. These two don't even compare.
>>569412
>>569460
>>569471
>>569500
>taking leftist propaganda at face value
Firstly, notice how none of those sources mention that the only reason there was a food shortage in Bengal in the first place was because the Japanese invasion of Burma cut off rice supplies from there(unfortunately right at the time when bad weather destroy much of Bengal's harvest). But they aren't white so who cares, right?
Secondly, they also don't mention that India had had democracy at a provincial level introduced during the 1930s. Since the Bengal famine was only a local problem the natural solution would have been to bring in food from other provinces of India rather than ship it in from half way around the world. Unfortunately, Indian officials 1) kept themselves popular with their electorate by keeping food prices in their province as low as possible and 2) were hugely corrupt and made money by setting up internal customs barriers and then taking bribes to let goods through. The other Indian provinces fought tooth and nail against shipping their surpluses to Bengal. In fact, the Indian national congress declared quite emphatically that there was no food shortage in Bengal, and that if any people were going hungry it was only the result of hoarding by Bengali merchants.
Churchill, meanwhile, was thousands of miles away and was being pushed to his limit trying to the Nazis at bay. It's important to note that the official statistics gathered by the government as to the crop yields in Bengal were so inaccurate that they might as well have been made up. With no firm information to the contrary, it's probable that Churchill simply accepted the more convenient explanation offered by the Indians which didn't force him to divert desperately needed war materiel. Then he went back to what, for him, were more important matters, i.e. WW2.
>>569632
>British extracted resources from India.
actually the British paid for everything they imported from India during WW2, so India actually ended the war with pretty healthy finances while Britain went bankrupt.
>Churchill used that resource for Greece.
Also, the article actually says that Churchill preferred to use food shipped from Australia to feed the Greeks rather than the Indians, not that Britain was taking food from India.
>>569640
>Fr. Peter Gumpel, an official at the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, told me that far from overlooking criticism of Mother Teresa, the allegations were taken quite seriously, and answered:
>There are mistakes made in even the most modern medical facilities, but whenever a correction was needed, Mother and the Missionaries showed themselves alert and open to constructive change and improvement.
>What many do not understand is the desperate conditions Mother Teresa constantly faced, and that her special charism was not to found or run hospitals”the Church has many who do that”but to rescue those who were given no chance of surviving, and otherwise would have died on the street.
>But it is “absolutely false,” he stressed, to claim that she rejected or neglected available medical care for those still treatable, or good palliative care for the terminally ill. “Beware of anecdotal stories circulating from disgruntled people or those with an anti-Catholic agenda,” he warned.
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/04/mother-teresa-and-her-critics
Even if what you said is true, Teresa just being around the dying as you mentioned would of been 10000x more than anything than others would have done.
The truth is, as stated in the article above, Hitchens not ONCE interviewed a patient of Mother Teresa. Don't get me wrong, Hitchens is my favorite Orator, but Hell's Angels and Missionary Position are shit.
>>569667
Resource extraction is resource extraction be it paid or not.
The issue was British empire under Churchill failed to protect its own.
>>569694
Sure, so Churchill's role in it was minimal compared to some intended famines like Holodomor
>>569511
>gandhi tried doing a violent revolution
American education.
>>569667
yes and said ships regularly went by india.
The americans and canadians both offered to send food for fucking free because of the humanitarian crisis but churchill specifically said know.
>>569667
no, traders and private entrepreneurs ended up making bank, not the indian state.
>>569654
>democracy at a provincial level
>completely shut down because the governments largely resigned in protest due to britain's conduct during the war.
fuck off with this revisionist bullshit.
churchill was a bloodthirsty maniac who wound up on the right side of history.
>>569703
Churchil's role was critical as he was the leader and one that actively denied request for aid. This was not a one time (oh its a shitty indian request) but rather a repeated request from british officials in india asking for aid.
>>569447
>whites come to your country, starve your people and ruin the country side.
>respond with, " lol we are whit3r than u shitskin deal with it."
>>569718
>indians hate white
>racists
>>569722
>"lol indians burn wives so we stopped them"
>"we also codified the law that explicitly allowed them to burn them in 1815"
funny how righteous boners don't mention that fact.
>>569511
It all seems like cultural-temporal disonance. And realizing he could not win through violence makes him smarter than a lot of people.
Had muslims/ISIS played things half as well, you would be looking at an Eurabian Caliphate by 2030-2040.
>>569714
>critical
He had absolutely no influence on the causes of the famine, and there were various other ways to fix the famine, plus many good reasons for Churchill not to send it
>>569712
The aid wouldn't have saved 3 millions, and wasn't actually needed. Proper management of the available ressources was needed.
>>569736
Smart never means moral
>>569743
>the aid wouldn't have
yeah, poor people don't need food, what they need is a proper logistics trail right when they are starving to death. you had south american countries burning grain as fuel halfway around the world.
>other states in india.
They weren't frontline states that had the then largest port in the bay of bengal.
if the japs had a more solid logistical trail, they would have been welcomed as liberators in bengal around that time.
>>569743
There is no debate about the cause of famine. There is debate about the prevention of 3 million death. Churchill was a leader that could save 3 million or let them die. He choose to let them die. One of the many "good reasons" Churchill said was natural culling of population. You had many british officials asking for AID from Churchill and he actively and manually as both personally and officially denied them any AID.
The man was responsible for the death of those people. He could have saved those people but choose not to because of the "good reasons" like racial superiority and population culling.
>>569466
You do know South Africa is failing right now, right?
White flight from their capital is crippling urban development.
>>569760
>He could have saved those people but choose not to because of the "good reasons" like racial superiority and population culling.
or it was the fact he desperately needed every ship he could get to fight the war, and the Indians themselves said that there was no real problem.
>completely shut down because the governments largely resigned in protest due to britain's conduct during the war.
this is a lie. The national congress went on strike because Britain wouldn't grant independence, but the provincial governments (where most of the actual power lay) continued to function more or less as normal.
>>569798
>the indians themselves
>the INC which had this time had resigned from provinical governments at this time
>indian provincial governments
>having any power
the primary power lay with the bureaucracy and british viceroy appointed officials that repeatedly asked for aid.
the BIA implementing a scorched earth policy in chittagong didn't help either
>>569760
>because of the "good reasons" like racial superiority and population culling.
Do mention the others anon, not the two quirky ones from that article. Like "Favoring the only country in Europe that didn't fall to Nazis over a country which could have fixed its situation by other ways".
Of course Churchill caused the deaths of people, but saying that he let 3 millions people die just because he hated Indians is preposterous. Are you suggesting he had the available workforce to bring the food necessary to feed 3 million people for several months? In WW2?
>>569757
I don't know which parts of this post are sarcastic and which aren't, but bringing food somewhere isn't going to fix anything if the same incompetents who wasted the previous reserves are going to handle it too
>>569798
The british promised independence after WWI because the Indians helped them. They failed to honor that agreement.
They made the same promise for WWII. They failed to honor the agreement.
India supplied 2.5 million troops for the British Empire during WWI. 1.7 million during WWI.
>>569807
There were other countries willing to help, he denied them too. So workforce argument wouldn't stand. The largest labor force was from India. There is plenty of workforce.
>>569807
wavell did a pretty good job with the limited foodstocks he had.
he specifically asked for more food that was denied.
>>569809
well in ww2 the british made a deal with the muslim league that they would give them an independent pakistan.
hence the later recruits were largely ML drummed up blokes.
Also the british promised home rule to indians, and they were happy about it.
>>569820
Other countries were allied also busy with the war. Churchill wouldn't have given a shit if Australia was somehow connected by land to send aid to India, but they had to use ships, and 1943 was also the worst year of this conflict : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Atlantic
When I said "workforce", it also included ships. Plus the amount of food for 3 millions people over several months. It was all a matter of prioritizing rather than stubbornly refusing like the article implied
>>569806
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Government_inaction
>The Government of India Act 1935 had removed most of the Government of India's authority over the Provinces, so they had to rely on negotiation.
Even the provincial government of bengal itself was slow to organise famine relief, and the rest of India flat out refused to help.
As has been mentioned, Churchill had his own problems with ensuring the allies won WW2. Maybe if Churchill had been more interested in pushing for a solution there wouldn't have been so many deaths, but then again given how pressed British resources were maybe it wouldn't have made much of a difference. Either way, it's grossly unfair to pin the blame on Churchill when it was the Japanese who cut off food supplies in the first place, and the Indian politicians who were actually in India and in a position to see what was going on chose to turn a blind eye.
Let's face it, all this is just one more round of the left's favourite game: find a way to blame the white man. I understand that the Indians are still butthurt over the colonial period and will seize any excuse to paint the British as monsters, but it really makes my skin crawl seeing just how willing liberals in the west are to demonize historical figures just because they might inspire some sliver of patriotic feeling in a white person.
>>569863
>historical figures
>refuses to send ships from australia to india
>same ships go around delivering food to the mediterranean along india's southern coast.
The article doesn't mention that the civilian government in india elected by indians was largely relegated to secondary tasks while administration and ministering of aid was done by the ICS and officials appointed by the viceroy.
Read the rest.
Wavell who commanded the BIA effort to provide famine relief asked for more food from the government under churchill and was refused.
>>569885
why divert food from the Greeks - who were also starving - when the other Indian provinces could easily have helped bengal out?
>The article doesn't mention that the civilian government in india elected by indians was largely relegated to secondary tasks while administration and ministering of aid was done by the ICS and officials appointed by the viceroy.
yeah, because it isn't true. The provincial indian governments had real power
>>569526
Yeah it was real horrible of her to give dying homeless who no one gave a shit about a place to die in relative comfort and with human dignity.
Their fellow curryfags seemed content to let them die in the street and I don't recall atheists ever building hospitals that they whine Mother Teresa needed to build.
Glad Hitchens died of throat cancer, it's poetic of all the shit he spewed from his mouth.
>>569535
>If you're a nazi hitler was a good guy
No shit sherlock
>>569904
>why divert food from starving greeks
because the food was being sent from australia and around India into an active war theater.
>they had real power
they were a joke, the primary power resided with the bureaucracy.
>other states could have helped them out.
they did during the famine, but it wasn't enough. which is specifically why they asked for more food.
>>569920
no, their fellow curryfags like the ramkrishna mission also built hospitals and treated the dying with human dignity, but you would rather spam POO IN LOO 50000 times and then whine about shitskins being useless and yet destroying europe.
>>569933
Then they should have taken those in the Christian hospices to a hospital, but most didn't because no one cared enough for untouchables dying without family or friends.
>>569941
>those untouchables are literally dying on the street
>omg yindoos do nothing while brave catholic faces down the horror of calcutta.
>except when the ramkrishna mission actually does stuff like sending said untouchables to different parts on india where they can get specialized treatment and creates hospices for them to live in while they undergo treatment.
>>569922
>other states could have helped them out.
>they did during the famine
no they didn't
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Motives
> ‘And at the Third Food Conference in Delhi on the 5 to 8 July, … the suggestion that "the only reason why people are starving in Bengal is that there is hoarding" was greeted at the Conference by the other Provinces with applause.’
>>569956
And exactly why is this a contest cowfucker? Obviously your mission couldn't help all your shitskin people or else no one would accept Christian hospices that only provides a more comfortable death when compared to the streets.
That doesn't change that plenty who couldn't receive the help from Ramkrishna appreciated what this Catholic group provided.
>>569975
>people clap
>it means they stop sending food.
they did send food, but it was primarily traders who were operating for profit. The local governments didn't send food because they were making sure their own populace wasn't starving
>>569977
>what this catholic group provided
yeah, die comfortably in a bed is much better than going through treatment for the disease itself.
The catholic church latched onto Mother theresa because it was taking a beating in public perception because they diddled little boys.
If you want to jack off to someone jack off to the earlier mission run hospitals in india that actually saved lives.
>>570037
It is when no one cares about your disease or the fact that you're dying on the street.
>>570079
>no one cares
but they did, which is why MT faced a lot of hostility when she first started her entire hospice thingy.
She could have used all that money to create a newer and better hospital to serve those people, or set up a logistics trail so that they could go other hospitals and get treatment
>>570093
Ok then what stopped Indian groups from gathering the people who went to MT?
>>569511
His wife was older than him when they married. She was 13, he was 12.
>>570147
a lot of calcutta's poor did go via the routes I mentioned for specialized treatment or went to the sometimes often underfunded government hospitals in calcutta where they could be treated for free.
MT largely set up hospices for the stragglers in a fuckhuge city in a country with a rapidly expanding population, and even then preferred sending them to get treated like the church article mentioned.
She was a good woman but completely overrated
>>569404
How about your own fucking opinion
Also kekking @ your 2 examples of epistemic frameworks
>>570167
Ah, for a moment I expected /ss/.
>>569412
>Winston "slaughter all civilians and laugh" Churchill
>nice
>>570292
kek
>>570285
I'll kick your nerdy fucking ass
>>569440
>"He [Churchill] attempted to construct the first public bathroom but... the Indian populace flung shit at him until he was forced to abandon the project and return to England, defeated."
Didnt he cheat on his wife with a bunch of hookers or beat women or something like that?
>>570382
unlikely assclown
>>570501
He cheated on his wife, really liked da wyte wimmin (REALLY liked the wyte wimmin), took either money or training from Commies, and beat some hookers up.
Certainly not Nelson Mandela levels of white washing, but he wasn't some saint. Just a human being, with flaws like any other human being.
>>569219
>claims to be god emperor
>golfed a perfect game
>saved the world from Americans
Really he was just a jumpsuit fetishist that a drunken soviet installed into power after losing a bet
The greatest story never told
