歷史上,英國對待美國和對待印度的殖民政策相似嗎?(二)
Do British history books treat US and Indian colonialism similarly?譯文簡介
網(wǎng)友:英國人對印度仁慈嗎?焦土政策:1943年,大批饑餓的人涌入加爾各答,他們中的許多人死在了城市的街道上。1943年至1944年的孟加拉饑荒是20世紀印度次大陸最大的災難。近400萬印度人死于英國政府制造的人為饑荒,但在印度的歷史書中卻鮮有提及……
正文翻譯
Do British history books treat US and Indian colonialism similarly?
歷史上,英國對待美國和對待印度的殖民政策相似嗎?
歷史上,英國對待美國和對待印度的殖民政策相似嗎?
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 1 )
收藏
Were the British benevolent with India?
Scorched earth By 1943, hordes of starving people were flooding into Calcutta and a huge number of them died on the city streets.
The Bengal Famine of 1943-44 must rank as the greatest disaster in the subcontinent in the 20th century. Nearly 4 million Indians died because of an artificial famine created by the British government, and yet it gets little more than a passing mention in Indian history books.
What is remarkable about the scale of the disaster is its time span. World War II was at its peak and the Germans were rampaging across Europe, targeting Jews, Slavs and the Roma for extermination. It took Adolf Hitler and his Nazi cohorts 12 years to round up and murder 6 million Jews, but their Teutonic cousins, the British, managed to kill almost 4 million Indians in just over a year, with Prime Minister Winston Churchill cheering from the sidelines.
Australian biochemist Dr Gideon Polya has called the Bengal Famine a “manmade holocaust” because Churchill’s policies were directly responsible for the disaster. Bengal had a bountiful harvest in 1942, but the British started diverting vast quantities of food grain from India to Britain, contributing to a massive food shortage in the areas comprising present-day West Bengal, Odisha, Bihar and Bangladesh.
英國人對印度仁慈嗎?
焦土政策:1943年,大批饑餓的人涌入加爾各答,他們中的許多人死在了城市的街道上。
1943年至1944年的孟加拉饑荒是20世紀印度次大陸最大的災難。近400萬印度人死于英國政府制造的人為饑荒,但在印度的歷史書中卻鮮有提及。
這場災難的規(guī)模之大值得注意的是它的時間跨度。第二次世界大戰(zhàn)正處于高峰期,德國人在歐洲各地橫沖直撞,將猶太人、斯拉夫人和羅姆人作為滅絕目標。阿道夫·希特勒和他的納粹同伙花了12年時間圍捕并殺害了600萬猶太人,但他們的日耳曼兄弟英國人卻在一年多的時間里殺死了近400萬印度人,當時的英國首相溫斯頓·丘吉爾(Winston Churchill)在一旁歡呼。
澳大利亞生物化學家Gideon Polya博士稱孟加拉饑荒是“人為的大屠殺”,因為丘吉爾的政策對這場災難負有直接責任。1942年,孟加拉收獲頗豐,但英國人開始將大量糧食從印度轉移到英國,導致包括今天的西孟加拉邦、奧里薩邦、比哈爾邦和孟加拉國在內的地區(qū)出現(xiàn)嚴重的糧食短缺。
“No one had the strength to perform rites,” a survivor tells Mukerjee. “Dogs and jackals feasted on piles of dead bodies in Bengal’s villages.” The ones who got away were men who migrated to Calcutta for jobs and women who turned to prostitution to feed their families. “Mothers had turned into murderers, village belles into whores, fathers into traffickers of daughters,” writes Mukerjee.
Mani Bhaumik, the first to get a PhD from the IITs and whose invention of excimer surgery enabled Lasik eye surgery, has the famine etched in his memory. His grandmother starved to death because she used to give him a portion of her food.
By 1943 hordes of starving people were flooding into Calcutta, most dying on the streets. The sight of well-fed white British soldiers amidst this apocalyptic landscape was “the final judgement on British rule in India”, said the Anglophile Jawaharlal Nehru.
Churchill could easily have prevented the famine. Even a few shipments of food grain would have helped, but the British prime minister adamantly turned down appeals from two successive Viceroys, his own Secretary of State for India and even the President of the US .
作家Madhusree Mukerjee追蹤到了一些幸存者,并描繪了一幅關于饑餓和匱乏影響的令人不寒而栗的畫面。在丘吉爾的《秘密戰(zhàn)爭》中,她寫道:“父母把饑餓的孩子扔進河里和井里。許多人在火車前自殺。饑餓的人乞求煮米飯的淀粉水。孩子們吃樹葉、藤蔓、山芋莖和草。人們太虛弱了,甚至無法火化他們的親人。”
一名幸存者告訴穆克吉:“沒有人有力量舉行儀式?!薄!霸诿霞永拇迩f里,狗和豺狼以成堆的尸體為食。”逃跑的是移民到加爾各答找工作的男人和為了養(yǎng)家糊口而賣淫的女人。作家Madhusree Mukerjee寫道:“母親變成了殺人犯,鄉(xiāng)村美女變成了妓女,父親販賣女兒”。
Mani Bhaumik是第一個從印度理工學院獲得博士學位的人,他發(fā)明的準分子激光屈光手術使激光眼科手術成為可能,饑荒深深印在了他的記憶中。他的祖母是餓死的,因為她把自己的一部分食物給了他。
到1943年,大批饑餓的人涌入加爾各答,大多數(shù)人死在街頭。親英派的賈瓦哈拉爾·尼赫魯說,在這片世界末日的風景中,肚滿腸肥的英國白人士兵是“對英國在印度統(tǒng)治的最終判決”。
丘吉爾本可以輕而易舉地阻止這場饑荒。即使是運輸幾批糧食也會有所幫助,但英國首相堅決拒絕了連續(xù)兩任總督、他自己的印度國務大臣甚至美國總統(tǒng)的呼吁。
Churchill was totally remorseless in diverting food to the British troops and Greek civilians. To him, “the starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis (was) less serious than sturdy Greeks”, a sentiment with which Secretary of State for India and Burma, Leopold Amery, concurred.
Amery was an arch-colonialist and yet he denounced Churchill’s “Hitler-like attitude”. Urgently beseeched by Amery and the then Viceroy Archibald Wavell to release food stocks for India, Churchill responded with a telegram asking why Gandhi hadn’t died yet.
Wavell informed London that the famine “was one of the greatest disasters that has befallen any people under British rule”. He said when Holland needs food, “ships will of course be available, quite a different answer to the one we get whenever we ask for ships to bring food to India”.
當時站在軸心國軍隊一邊作戰(zhàn)的沙布哈斯·昌德拉·鮑斯(Subhas Chandra Bose)提出從緬甸運送大米,但英國審查機構甚至不允許報道他的提議。
丘吉爾毫不留情地把食物分給英國軍隊和希臘平民。對他來說,“無論如何,吃不飽的孟加拉人的饑餓都沒有健壯的希臘人嚴重”,印度和緬甸事務國務卿利奧波德·阿默里(Leopold Amery)也贊同這一觀點。
利奧波德·阿默里(Leopold Amery)是一個徹頭徹尾的殖民主義者,然而他譴責丘吉爾“希特勒式的態(tài)度”。在利奧波德·阿默里(Leopold Amery)和當時的總督阿奇博爾德·韋維爾(Archibald Wavell)的緊急懇求下,丘吉爾發(fā)了一封電報,詢問甘地為什么還沒有去世。
韋維爾告訴倫敦,饑荒“是英國統(tǒng)治下所有人遭受的最大災難之一”。他說,當荷蘭需要食物時,“當然會有船只,這與我們要求用船只將食物運到印度時得到的答案完全不同”。
Churchill’s hostility toward Indians has long been documented. At a War Cabinet meeting, he blamed the Indians themselves for the famine, saying they “breed like rabbits”. His attitude toward Indians may be summed up in his words to Amery: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” On another occasion, he insisted they were “the beastliest people in the world next to the Germans”.
According to Mukerjee, “Churchill’s attitude toward India was quite extreme, and he hated Indians, mainly because he knew India couldn’t be held for very long.” She writes in The Huffington Post, “Churchill regarded wheat as too precious a food to expend on non-whites, let alone on recalcitrant subjects who were demanding independence from the British Empire. He preferred to stockpile the grain to feed Europeans after the war was over.”
丘吉爾的家人和支持者目前正在兜售丘吉爾的借口,即英國無法騰出船只——船只要用來運送緊急物資,但作家Madhusree Mukerjee發(fā)現(xiàn)了一些文件,對他的說法提出了質疑。她引用了官方記錄,顯示從澳大利亞運送糧食的船只在前往地中海的途中繞過了印度。
丘吉爾對印度人的敵意早已被記錄在案。在一次戰(zhàn)時內閣會議上,他將饑荒歸咎于印度人,稱他們“像兔子一樣繁殖”。他對印度人的態(tài)度可以用他對利奧波德·阿默里(Leopold Amery)的話來概括:“我討厭印度人,他們是一個信奉野獸宗教的野獸民族?!边€有一次,他堅稱他們是“僅次于德國人的世界上最野蠻的民族”。
根據(jù)作家Madhusree Mukerjee的說法,“丘吉爾對印度的態(tài)度相當極端,他討厭印度人,主要是因為他知道印度不會被控制很長時間?!彼凇逗辗翌D郵報》上寫道,“丘吉爾認為小麥太珍貴了,不能花在非白人身上,更不用說花在要求從大英帝國獨立的頑固不化的臣民身上了。他更喜歡儲存小麥來養(yǎng)活戰(zhàn)后的歐洲人?!?/b>
Churchill was not only a racist but also a liar.
India-hater Winston Churchill blamed Indians for the famine
A history of holocausts
1943年10月,饑荒最嚴重的時候,丘吉爾在為紀念韋維爾的任命而舉行的盛大宴會上說:“當我們回顧過去的歲月,我們看到地球表面的一部分已經(jīng)有三代人沒有戰(zhàn)爭了。饑荒已經(jīng)過去了——直到戰(zhàn)爭的恐怖和戰(zhàn)爭的混亂讓我們再次嘗到了它們的味道——瘟疫也消失了……隨著時間的推移,這段印度歷史上的插曲肯定會成為黃金時代,英國人給了他們和平與秩序,窮人得到了正義,所有人都受到了保護,免受外界的危險?!?br /> 丘吉爾不僅是個種族主義者,還是個騙子。
憎恨印度的溫斯頓·丘吉爾將饑荒歸咎于印度人
大屠殺史
In his book, Davis tells the story of the famines that killed up to 29 million Indians. These people were, he says, murdered by British State policy. In 1876, when drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan plateau, there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the Viceroy, Robert Bulwer-Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent their export to England.
可以肯定的是,丘吉爾對遭受饑荒的孟加拉的政策與英國早期在印度的行為沒有什么不同。在《維多利亞晚期大屠殺》(Late Victorian Holocaust)一書中,邁克·戴維斯指出,在英國統(tǒng)治的120年里,這里發(fā)生了31次嚴重的饑荒,而在英國統(tǒng)治之前的2000年,僅發(fā)生17次嚴重的饑荒。
戴維斯在書中講述了造成兩千九百萬印度人死亡的饑荒的故事。他說,這些人是被英國國家政策謀殺的。1876年,當干旱摧毀了德干高原的農民時,印度的水稻和小麥出現(xiàn)了凈盈余。但總督羅伯特·布爾維爾-利頓堅持認為,沒有什么能阻止將它們出口到英國。
Even as millions died, Lytton ignored all efforts to alleviate the suffering of millions of peasants in the Madras region and concentrated on preparing for Queen Victoria’s investiture as Empress of India. The highlight of the celebrations was a week-long feast at which 68,000 dignitaries heard her promise the nation “happiness, prosperity and welfare”.
In 1901, The Lancet estimated that at least 19 million Indians had died in western India during the famine of the 1890s. The death toll was so high because the British refused to implement famine relief. Davis says life expectancy in India fell by 20 percent between 1872 and 1921.
So it’s hardly surprising that Hitler’s favourite film was The Lives of a Bengal Lancer, which showed a handful of Britons holding a continent in thrall. The Nazi leader told the then British Foreign Secretary Edward Wood (Earl of Halifax) that it was one of his favorite films because “that was how a superior race must behave and the film was compulsory viewing for the SS (Schutz-Staffel, the Nazi ‘protection squadron’)”.
1877年和1878年,在饑荒最嚴重的時候,糧食商人出口的糧食數(shù)量創(chuàng)了紀錄。由于農民開始挨餓,政府官員被命令“盡一切可能阻止救濟工作”。大多數(shù)地區(qū)唯一允許的救濟對象是苦役,任何處于嚴重饑餓狀態(tài)的人都被拒之門外。在這些勞改營中,工人們得到的食物比二戰(zhàn)納粹集中營布痕瓦爾德的猶太囚犯少。
即使有無數(shù)人死亡,利頓忽視了所有減輕馬德拉斯地區(qū)無數(shù)農民痛苦的努力,集中精力為維多利亞女王加冕為印度女皇做準備。慶?;顒拥牧咙c是為期一周的盛宴,68000名政要在宴會上聽到了她對國家“幸福、繁榮和福利”的承諾。
1901年,《柳葉刀》估計,在19世紀90年代的饑荒中,印度西部至少有1900萬印度人死亡。死亡人數(shù)如此之高是因為英國拒絕實施饑荒救濟。戴維斯說,從1872年到1921年,印度人的預期壽命下降了20%。
因此,希特勒最喜歡的電影是《孟加拉槍騎兵的生活》也就不足為奇了,這部電影展示了少數(shù)英國人奴役著一片大陸。這位納粹領袖告訴當時的英國外交大臣愛德華·伍德(哈利法克斯伯爵),這是他最喜歡的電影之一,因為“這就是一個優(yōu)秀種族的行為方式,黨衛(wèi)軍(Schutz-Staffel,納粹‘保護中隊’)必須觀看這部電影?!?/b>
原創(chuàng)翻譯:龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
While Britain has offered apologies to other nations, such as Kenya for the Mau Mau massacre, India continues to have such GENO....s swept under the carpet. Other nationalities have set a good example for us. Israel, for instance, cannot forget the Holocaust; neither will it let others, least of all the Germans. Germany continues to dole out hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and arms aid to Israel.
Armenia cannot forget the Great Crime — the systematic massacre of 1.8 million Armenians by the Turks during World War I. The Poles cannot forget Joseph Stalin’s Katyn massacre.
The Chinese want a clear apology and reparations from the Japanese for at least 40,000 killed and raped in Nanking during World War II. And then there is the bizarre case of the Ukrainians, who like to call a famine caused by Stalin’s economic policies as GENO...., which it clearly was not. They even have a word for it: Holodomor.
And yet India alone refuses to ask for reparations, let alone an apology. Could it be because the British were the last in a long list of invaders, so why bother with an England suffering from post-imperial depression? Or is it because India’s English-speaking elites feel beholden to the British? Or are we simply a nation condemned to repeating our historical mistakes? Perhaps we forgive too easily.
犯罪和后果
盡管英國已就茅茅大屠殺向肯尼亞等其他國家道歉,但印度仍在掩蓋此類種族滅絕事件。其他民族為我們樹立了一個很好的榜樣。例如,以色列不能忘記大屠殺;它也不會讓其他人,尤其是德國人忘記。德國持續(xù)向以色列提供數(shù)億美元的現(xiàn)金和武器援助。
亞美尼亞不能忘記第一次世界大戰(zhàn)期間土耳其人對180萬亞美尼亞人的系統(tǒng)性屠殺。波蘭人不能忘記約瑟夫·斯大林的卡廷大屠殺。
中國人希望日本對二戰(zhàn)期間在南京被殺害和強奸的至少4萬人作出明確道歉和賠償。還有一個奇怪的烏克蘭人的例子,他們喜歡把斯大林的經(jīng)濟政策造成的饑荒稱為種族滅絕,這顯然不是。他們甚至有一個詞來形容它:烏克蘭大饑荒(Holodomor)。
然而,只有印度拒絕要求賠償,更不用說道歉了。這可能是因為英國人是一長串入侵者名單上的最后一個,所以為什么要為一個遭受后帝國蕭條的英格蘭而煩惱呢?還是因為說英語的印度精英們覺得自己欠英國人的情?還是說我們只是一個注定要重蹈歷史覆轍的國家?也許我們太容易原諒了。
British attitudes towards Indians have to seen in the backdrop of India’s contribution to the Allied war campaign. By 1943, more than 2.5 million Indian soldiers were fighting alongside the Allies in Europe, Africa and Southeast Asia. Vast quantities of arms, ammunition and raw materials sourced from across the country were shipped to Europe at no cost to Britain.
Britain’s debt to India is too great to be ignored by either nation. According to Cambridge University historians Tim Harper and Christopher Bayly, “It was Indian soldiers, civilian labourers and businessmen who made possible the victory of 1945. Their price was the rapid independence of India.”
There is not enough wealth in all of Europe to compensate India for 250 years of colonial loot. Forget the money, do the British at least have the grace to offer an apology? Or will they, like Churchill, continue to delude themselves that English rule was India’s “Golden Age”?
但寬恕不同于遺忘,而遺忘是印度人所犯的錯誤。這是對無數(shù)記憶中印度人的侮辱,他們的生命在人為的饑荒中被扼殺。
英國對印度人的態(tài)度必須放在印度對盟軍戰(zhàn)爭的貢獻的背景下看。到1943年,超過250萬印度士兵在歐洲、非洲和東南亞與盟軍并肩作戰(zhàn)。大量來自全國各地的武器、彈藥和原材料被運往歐洲,而英國沒有付出任何代價。
英國欠印度的債務太大了,任何一個國家都不能忽視。根據(jù)劍橋大學歷史學家Tim Harper和Christopher Bayly的說法,“正是印度士兵、平民勞工和商人使1945年的勝利成為可能。他們的代價是印度迅速獨立?!?br /> 對于印度遭遇的250年殖民掠奪,整個歐洲沒有足夠的財富來進行補償。別管錢了,英國人至少該有道歉的風度吧,或者他們會像丘吉爾一樣,繼續(xù)欺騙自己,認為英國統(tǒng)治下的印度是印度的“黃金時代”。
This is a quite interesting question, ok I will thou try my best to answer your question,
Firstly, Lord was a Honour Given or bestowed on someone for his or her loyalty to the crown or work
Secondly, the people who received Honors are tend to use it in their private or official life
Thirdly, most of the History we study today was written or composed during g the British Raj, so they tend to use their full name
But I would say try to have your own conclusion with specific research.
這是一個很有趣的問題,好吧,我會盡力回答你的問題,
首先,勛爵主是由于某人對王室或工作的忠誠而授予或給予的榮譽
其次,獲得榮譽的人傾向于在私人或公務生活中使用榮譽
第三,我們今天研究的大部分歷史都是在英國統(tǒng)治時期寫成的,所以他們傾向于使用他們的全名
但我想說,試著通過具體的研究得出你自己的結論。
原創(chuàng)翻譯:龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處