Which is the Worst

Which sucks the Most?

  • Soviet Under Stalin

    Votes: 31 67.4%
  • Black in British Rhodesia

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • An Indian under Raj

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • Aboriginal in Australia

    Votes: 11 23.9%

  • Total voters
    46
Status
Not open for further replies.
Warning
Which of the following situations suck the most?

Being a Russian-speaking Soviet farmer in 1930s.

Being a Black Rhodesian farmer owner (yes, some were allowed to own land) or laborer in the 1930s.

Being an Indian Hindu farmer in the 1930s.

Being an aboriginal Australian in the 1930s.

My vote is Stalin.
 

TheTuck

Banned
Stalin without a doubt, the terror of not knowing when the NKVD will descend on you and throw you in a Gulag or execute you is what makes it so horrible.
 
I’d have to cast my vote for the Soviet farmer too(though, knowing the depth of prejudice against native peoples by Euro-
pecans, I would put the aboriginal Aus-
trailian farmer second).
 
(though, knowing the depth of prejudice against native peoples by Euro-
pecans, I would put the aboriginal Aus-
trailian farmer second).


Vote for first place only.

Also, British monarchs actually took a dim view of pointless killings of natives. Especially after some inccidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myall_Creek_massacre. They also took a dim view of the land confiscation done to the natives by the 1870s since "enouigh" land had been cultivated for the white man and like the Indians, the aboriginals should keep their property rights. And thirdly, whenever someone took the topic off Australia, the monarchs forgot about the Aboriginal Australians.
 
My late Father in Law was a black farmer and land owner in Southern Rhodesia and a Shona tribal chief. He was made a provincial Governor by Ian Smith and had a Cabinet post (60’s / 70’s admittedly). My late Mother in Law was inducted into the Rhodesian Guild of Master Farmers in 1969, and displayed the certificate proudly on the wall of the lounge in her six bedroom farmhouse until her death in April 2016. So I’m not going to pick the Rhodesian option (not that there wasn’t racism and discrimination, but no one was trying to genocide you and there were political outlets).

For me it’s a toss up between Soviet Russia and the Australian Aborigines. I really can’t decide.
 
I would say Russian speaking Soviet farmer under Stalin. You couldn't ever know when NKVD knock your door and you will not seen anymore. And they didn't need much of reasons.

These others had too shitty life but them had even some kind of possibility deal with situations and it was enough when they kept their heads down.
 
In the early days of colonization, yes they were literally considered part of the Australian wildlife, but long before 1930 they got some rights

In 1929, Arthur Upfield published the first of his immensely successful series of mystery novels featuring Inspector Napoleon Bonaparte ("Bony") of the Queensland Police, who is half-Aboriginal. (He was an orphan taken in and named by a whimsical guardian.) If Aboriginals were regarded as subhuman in the 1930s, this would have been impossible. In any case, most of Upfield's novels are set in the far Outback and include Aboriginals as characters, not "wildlife".
 
My late Father in Law was a black farmer and land owner in Southern Rhodesia and a Shona tribal chief. He was made a provincial Governor by Ian Smith and had a Cabinet post (60’s / 70’s admittedly). My late Mother in Law was inducted into the Rhodesian Guild of Master Farmers in 1969, and displayed the certificate proudly on the wall of the lounge in her six bedroom farmhouse until her death in April 2016. So I’m not going to pick the Rhodesian option (not that there wasn’t racism and discrimination, but no one was trying to genocide you and there were political outlets).

For me it’s a toss up between Soviet Russia and the Australian Aborigines. I really can’t decide.
Very impressive. I wrote a thesis on the protective villages movement. Ian Smith should have worked with people like your father in law and Jeremiah chirau sooner. I’d love to know more.
 
In the early days of colonization, yes they were literally considered part of the Australian wildlife, but long before 1930 they got some rights

In the early days for sure for example if you were an Aboriginal in Tasmania, according to the Wikipedia "there were an estimated 3,000–15,000 Palawa....by 1835 only some 400 full-blooded Tasmanian aborigines survived...the last 47 living inhabitants of Wybalenna were transferred .... Two individuals, Truganini (1812–1876) and Fanny Cochrane Smith (1834–1905), are separately considered to have been the last people solely of Tasmanian descent."
 
Which of the following situations suck the most?

Being a Russian-speaking Soviet farmer in 1930s.

Being a Black Rhodesian farmer owner (yes, some were allowed to own land) or laborer in the 1930s.

Being an Indian Hindu farmer in the 1930s.

Being an aboriginal Australian in the 1930s.

My vote is Stalin.

This isn't an alternate history topic. General discussion threads go in Chat, and polls aren't allowed there.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top