DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
any reliable figures for how many native americans died during the colonising?
The megadeaths of Liberalism
- Thread starter Random
- Start date
TruXta
tired
That's Megadeth, thank you.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
Let's keep this 20th century. But figures for pre-Columbian North America are often about 10 million. Nowadays native Americans are about 250,000.
TruXta
tired
Isn't that stretching the concept of liberalism a tad?
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
Put your Lordi tapes back on and leave this to the grown ups, metal head.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
well, monarchistic then. I was also thinking about the spanish in south america- monarchy again.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
Start your own thread, montesquieu.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Started thinking about how to estimate this.
Given their role in promoting food insecurity and occasionally famine, all the avoidable deaths, child mortality increases etc due to cuts in public services, I think this number could turn out to be massive.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
What would you base it on? Projected population versus actual population?
TruXta
tired
Lordi? Lordy. If you'd said Entombed I'd be all with you.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Well, I think you'd have to do before and after projections on countries that had been structurally adjusted and work from there. Infant mortality is probably a decent place to start.
A quick search suggests that this has been done for a variety of individual cases, say on infant mortality in one place, rise of TB in another. I've also seen an un-sourced claim that someone authoritative (context makes me think they mean Stiglitz) has suggested 5m avoidable child deaths per year due to IMF policies. May or may not be legit claim, but other numbers I'm seeing make me think the IMF is easily in the Hitler/Stalin league when it comes to causing death.
A quick search suggests that this has been done for a variety of individual cases, say on infant mortality in one place, rise of TB in another. I've also seen an un-sourced claim that someone authoritative (context makes me think they mean Stiglitz) has suggested 5m avoidable child deaths per year due to IMF policies. May or may not be legit claim, but other numbers I'm seeing make me think the IMF is easily in the Hitler/Stalin league when it comes to causing death.
TruXta
tired
Hmmmmmm. There's a bit of an assumption going on here that hadn't it been for liberalism none of these bad things would've happened, ergo it's the fault, solely or mainly, of liberalist-capitalist policies. True, one can look at countries where the IMF and others went in and then compare with those where things were handled differently, but those numbers are gonna be fiercely contested for all sorts of good and bad reasons, and besides there are many other factors (such as climate, geography, culture) that don't have much to do with economic policies as such.
Famines, for example, aren't exactly phenomena that are particular to modernity or liberal polities. That one coincides with the other isn't proof that one was caused by the other.
Famines, for example, aren't exactly phenomena that are particular to modernity or liberal polities. That one coincides with the other isn't proof that one was caused by the other.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Sure but you can look at e.g. WHO projections for infant mortality before and after structural adjustment was imposed and point to specific mechanisms (cuts in health services, food subsidies) behind any change.
At least in principle.
Might be a PhD thesis in doing that kinda stuff properly if someone is looking for a topic.
At least in principle.
Might be a PhD thesis in doing that kinda stuff properly if someone is looking for a topic.
Spion
I hear ya
Indeed, co-incidence is insufficient. There needs to be evidence of, for eg, policy-driven moves towards particular cash crops, failure of colonial etc infrastructures to provide relief that could have been given etc
Have we had the Bengal famine of WW2 yet?
TruXta
tired
Yeah, totally agree. The problem being that many don't do this at all, instead categorically stating that such and such policy was a disaster because obviously it was (neo-)liberal-capitalist-colonialist etc hence bound to kill, maim and disrupt. Which is often true, but often not.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
The Nazis and the Soviets all had good healhcare etc.
In the case of the soviets great advances in technology etc were made.
In the case of the soviets great advances in technology etc were made.
TruXta
tired
Yeah, but that's neither here nor there. Technological advances aren't inherent to a political system. The industrial revolution (the first one at least) happened before liberal capitalism, and of course the great advances made before that.
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
Not really fair to blame all the death on liberals there.Unless you feel the Kaisers mob and the Nazis were liberal democracies.(Though some tea party loon probably would argue Hitler was a socialist so any things possible).
Russian life expectancy has dropped by about 20 years since 1992. Millions of early deaths.
Yep, I was also thinking about that.
Specifically Cuba - which is held up to have a great healthcare system, but is it using 'western' developed drugs and techniques. Getting the benefits of liberal investment etc and applying them properly, if you like
Fair point as well, they built good roads etc
TruXta
tired
Maybe that was the intent of the OP, but it quickly came to look like people were ready to blame every single of the deaths not already blamed on commies and nazis on liberals. Which is kinda missing the point as well no?
Similar threads
