What does the UK, France and the Netherlands have in common?

[InsaneApache]

Answers on the back of a postcard please....

Well they are all going to be sued for implementing slavery in the West Indies. We've been here before havn't we?

As my RL name is of Norman extraction, I'm going to sue France of my bit of Normandy. Then the Romans. I wonder if I could get something on Nebuchadrezzar.

Discuss....

[Husar]

I think you should pay because it's important to be tough on crime.

[Fragony]

It happened, but a person who has any dignity wouldn't ask for money.

[HoreTore]

I think you should pay because it's important to be tough on crime.

Tough on crime only applies when it's someone else doing the crime.

[InsaneApache]

Funny thing is, my step-mum used to think that only blacks were enslaved. That was until I educated her about the Barbary pirates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade

[Pannonian]

Answers on the back of a postcard please....

Well they are all going to be sued for implementing slavery in the West Indies. We've been here before havn't we?

As my RL name is of Norman extraction, I'm going to sue France of my bit of Normandy. Then the Romans. I wonder if I could get something on Nebuchadrezzar.

Discuss....

If we get sued for implementing slavery in the West Indies, do we get to bill them back for the costs of enforcing the abolition of slavery? The costs of running the Royal Navy, by far the biggest navy in the world, for nearly century has to amount to a fair bit.

[Fisherking]

Funny thing is, my step-mum used to think that only blacks were enslaved. That was until I educated her about the Barbary pirates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade

Not enough! go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076

[Beskar]

HoreTore's kin invaded my lands. I require compensation in the form of large amounts of oil money so I can sleep at night.

[Pannonian]

HoreTore's kin invaded my lands. I require compensation in the form of large amounts of oil money so I can sleep at night.

One of those vikings was a cnut.

[Sarmatian]

You're gonna paaaay, you're gonna paaay, you're gonna paaay.... La-la-la-la... you're gonna paaaay...

Disregarding the moral point you guys are trying to make when you compare Viking raids to colonial exploitation, legally they have a much better case, since there is a legal link from British Empire and modern UK, which does not exist between Viking tribes and modern Norway...

On the other hand, international courts and organizations are funded and controlled precisely by those former colonial powers. So, it's kind of like suing a guy because he took something from you and finding out he's the judge presiding over the case.

[Husar]

On the other hand, international courts and organizations are funded and controlled precisely by those former colonial powers. So, it's kind of like suing a guy because he took something from you and finding out he's the judge presiding over the case.

Except if you consider the point Fragony makes in every post about Europeans and self-flaggelation.

If the British don't want to pay for the West Indies I say they can start by giving us all the reparations back that we paid them since WW1 or they could get used to being called imperialist opportunists and hypocrites.

[Sarmatian]

Except if you consider the point Fragony makes in every post about Europeans and self-flaggelation.

If the British don't want to pay for the West Indies I say they can start by giving us all the reparations back that we paid them since WW1 or they could get used to being called imperialist opportunists and hypocrites.

Self-flagelation is strictly verbal.

"Oh, we're so very, very sorry for that. It was ghastly of us, we apologize. I'm personally ashamed of my ancestors. I wish there was something we could do... What did you say? Reparations? Well... Oh, I'm sorry, is that the time... We have to go. How time flies when you're having fun. Ta-ta."

[Pannonian]

Except if you consider the point Fragony makes in every post about Europeans and self-flaggelation.

If the British don't want to pay for the West Indies I say they can start by giving us all the reparations back that we paid them since WW1 or they could get used to being called imperialist opportunists and hypocrites.

Erm, it's part of the school curriculum, under History. Also, I wouldn't mind us being billed for slavery, as long as we get to bill them back for enforcing the end of slavery.

[Pannonian]

Such a payment would come from taxes, nobody alive today who pays taxes is responsible for slavery, ergo this is stupid.

Stupid though the claim is, I still wouldn't mind the claimants paying us for the cost of maintaining the Royal Navy for a century, scaled to 2013 levels.

[Sarmatian]

Such a payment would come from taxes, nobody alive today who pays taxes is responsible for slavery, ergo this is stupid.

Nobody alive today who pays taxes was responsible for ww2, yet current German taxpayers still pay for it.

Countries are entities in foreign policy and international law. Just because there's a new generation doesn't mean international treaties and international law doesn't apply.


Stupid though the claim is, I still wouldn't mind the claimants paying us for the cost of maintaining the Royal Navy for a century, scaled to 2013 levels.

First you'd have to prove that the sole purpose of the Royal Navy for a century was to enforce abolition of slavery.

[Husar]

Erm, it's part of the school curriculum, under History. Also, I wouldn't mind us being billed for slavery, as long as we get to bill them back for enforcing the end of slavery.

That was already weird the first time you mentioned it.

Do you also offer thieves payment if they stop stealing stuff? You didn't maintain the Royal Navy for altruistic reasons, that's just laughable.

[Pannonian]

This "reparations" isn't something that could actually happen could it? Holding modern people responsible for their ignorant and conquering ancestors is the height of stupid.

If they're prepared to pursue that logic, I'd be happy to follow it as long as they follow the subsequent course of that logic as well. The UK pays for each slave that we'd been involved in transporting, paying their descendants wages for their work and compensation for work-related injuries and deaths. They in turn, since their logic is based on the immorality of slavery, pay for the upkeep of the Royal Navy that enforced the stoppage of slavery on the high seas, paying for the building and maintenance of the warships that made it feasible, and the training and wages of crews that did the enforcement, including compensation for work-related injuries and deaths. I'd wager the second lot of costs is many times that of the first.

[InsaneApache]

You didn't maintain the Royal Navy for altruistic reasons, that's just laughable.

I dunno, it was pretty altruistic because it pissed off the French.

[Sarmatian]

Common sense has to enter in somewhere. Modern Germans paying for WW2 is just as dumb.

UK held on to Hong Kong until a few decades ago. Did modern generations had something to do with that?

You can't pull a "common sense" just where it suits you.


If they're prepared to pursue that logic, I'd be happy to follow it as long as they follow the subsequent course of that logic as well. The UK pays for each slave that we'd been involved in transporting, paying their descendants wages for their work and compensation for work-related injuries and deaths. They in turn, since their logic is based on the immorality of slavery, pay for the upkeep of the Royal Navy that enforced the stoppage of slavery on the high seas, paying for the building and maintenance of the warships that made it feasible, and the training and wages of crews that did the enforcement, including compensation for work-related injuries and deaths. I'd wager the second lot of costs is many times that of the first.

I've seen that kind of reasoning with modern Serbian tycoons. They bought huge companies for peanuts, sold off anything they could, fired 90% of the workforce and now claim we should all be thanking them since they employ 100,000 people.

[Pannonian]

UK held on to Hong Kong until a few decades ago. Did modern generations had something to do with that?

You can't pull a "common sense" just where it suits you.

We'd have been able to hold on to it a while longer if modern standards of self-determination had been applied. Modern Hong Kong is rather fonder of London than of Beijing.

[SwordsMaster]

Sow how far back do you draw the line? Suing the NL for the cost incurred to Spain with their disobedience? Suing the Mongols for wages lost when they beheaded iranian peasants? Suing the Visigoths for books lost when they looted France? Or Charles Martel for the arab horses he killed in Rousillon? I say get them all. Since we have proved time and again that money is just a number, we might as well put some zeroes behind it. I for one will buy government debt with El Cid's face on it. Or Frederic Barbarrossa's. Or Totanka's if it comes to that.

Edit: Ah, shouldn't then the formerly-colonised countries pay back the cost of the buildings they inherited from their suzerains? I know Ireland has a bunch of buildings built by the British, should they claim the costs back? Should they claim the cost for building up Jamaica, or Hong Kong? Should Spain for Buenos Aires or Havana, or France for Casablanca or Pondicherry?

[Husar]

I dunno, it was pretty altruistic because it pissed off the French.

I could give you a snappy reply but then I'd have to ask Andres to ban me* since jokes about German crimes are generally viewed as disgusting unlike British crimes which are apparently really just misunderstood charity efforts. So you'll just have to do with giving us our World War reparations back which you never seem to have questioned in 60 years while every attempt to make Britain pay for anything is apparently just laughable and an affront to the British imperial spirit.




*I'm sure he's just waiting for his chance... :sweatdrop:

[Sarmatian]

@Sarmation I think the people of Hong Kong had more to do with that than anything. There was a huge scare when they finally had to go back to China.

People of Hong Kong were worried they would lose their special status. When they saw that the day after was just business as usual, they went about their business.

[Pannonian]

People of Hong Kong were worried they would lose their special status. When they saw that the day after was just business as usual, they went about their business.

And yet, despite having seen the results, they still think more highly of London than of Beijing.

[Husar]

Sow how far back do you draw the line? Suing the NL for the cost incurred to Spain with their disobedience? Suing the Mongols for wages lost when they beheaded iranian peasants? Suing the Visigoths for books lost when they looted France? Or Charles Martel for the arab horses he killed in Rousillon? I say get them all. Since we have proved time and again that money is just a number, we might as well put some zeroes behind it. I for one will buy government debt with El Cid's face on it. Or Frederic Barbarrossa's. Or Totanka's if it comes to that.

Edit: Ah, shouldn't then the formerly-colonised countries pay back the cost of the buildings they inherited from their suzerains? I know Ireland has a bunch of buildings built by the British, should they claim the costs back? Should they claim the cost for building up Jamaica, or Hong Kong? Should Spain for Buenos Aires or Havana, or France for Casablanca or Pondicherry?

Or Germany for London? Oh woops, we actually did pay for that over a period of 60+ years...

Also if anything, Spain should pay the Netherlands for the occupation. The revolt was the beginning of the European spring and the Dutch just rid themselves of the Spanish dictators and created one of the first if not the first republic.

[gaelic cowboy]

I know Ireland has a bunch of buildings built by the British, should they claim the costs back? Should they claim the cost for building up Jamaica, or Hong Kong? Should Spain for Buenos Aires or Havana, or France for Casablanca or Pondicherry?


Technically any Irish buildings from before the union were paid with Irish money, it might have be stolen but you could argue we were repaid for them by taking them over on independence.

Anything after Act of Union was actually paid for in the treaty and ordinary people were of course still paying rents to the british for various land reforms until the 30s.

[Sarmatian]

And yet, despite having seen the results, they still think more highly of London than of Beijing.

That's kind of like kidnapping a baby and getting caught three years later - telling the court the kid now likes you more than its parents isn't gonna work.

And anyway, it's been a few decades. Let's ask them after it's been part of China for 150 years.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Stupid though the claim is, I still wouldn't mind the claimants paying us for the cost of maintaining the Royal Navy for a century, scaled to 2013 levels.

I thought the RN was being downsized into oblivion as an anachronism?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Actually, Greenpeace should lodge a climate-change lawsuit against Tanzania.

Grounds: A lack of effective population management allowed an incredibly dangerous species to propagate beyond the Olduvai Gorge, eventually establishing itself on all seven continents and cranking up the greenhouse gasses through overpopulation and excessive terrain modification.

THEN, the various "they invaded us" and "they enslaved us" lawsuits could be rolled into one class action and combined with the above so that we are truly bringing suit against the point of origin for the problem.


Force them to pay damages or accept the return of the species at the center of the problem.

[Montmorency]

That's kind of like kidnapping a baby and getting caught three years later - telling the court the kid now likes you more than its parents isn't gonna work.

And anyway, it's been a few decades. Let's ask them after it's been part of China for 150 years.

How chauvinistic of you, the territories that experienced European colonization have the legal agency of underaged dependents? :tongue:

[Pannonian]

That's kind of like kidnapping a baby and getting caught three years later - telling the court the kid now likes you more than its parents isn't gonna work.

And anyway, it's been a few decades. Let's ask them after it's been part of China for 150 years.

You can equate Hong Kongers' opinion with any dismissal you want. But why don't you find out their opinion first before condemning Britain? The last I heard, the antipathy between native Hong Kongers and mainlanders was notorious, with quite a swell of opinion towards the old days of British rule, and mainland Chinese condemning Hong Kongers as traitors. And the British government trying to keep out of the dispute.

[SwordsMaster]

Or Germany for London? Oh woops, we actually did pay for that over a period of 60+ years...

Also if anything, Spain should pay the Netherlands for the occupation. The revolt was the beginning of the European spring and the Dutch just rid themselves of the Spanish dictators and created one of the first if not the first republic.

What occupation? The NL were legally inherited, there was no invasion whatsoever. It was the dutch who rebelled against their lawful ruler.

What did Germany build in London in the past 60 years that they should be compensated for? Paying war reparations is nothing new. Carthage paid them to Rome. That's hassle pay. Paying for colonisation is a different topic.

[Sarmatian]

How chauvinistic of you, the territories that experienced European colonization have the legal agency of underaged dependents? :tongue:

Comparison isn't politically correct I admit, but it is appropriate. Additionally, we're discussing organized exploitation of hundreds of millions of people...

Just to be clear, I'm not really advocating former colonies have the moral grounds to demand reparations, but it is extremely childish (not to mention legally dubious) to compare to Viking raids or feudal politics. If we could dispense with that, we could have a serious discussion.


You can equate Hong Kongers' opinion with any dismissal you want. But why don't you find out their opinion first before condemning Britain? The last I heard, the antipathy between native Hong Kongers and mainlanders was notorious, with quite a swell of opinion towards the old days of British rule, and mainland Chinese condemning Hong Kongers as traitors. And the British government trying to keep out of the dispute.

I didn't condemn Britain, Hong Kong comparison was a response to something else.

On the other side, wherever there's a highly developed part of a country, people from that part often feel antipathy for people from other parts who are coming there "to steal their jobs and places at their schools and generally exploit the fact that they are so developed".

[Montmorency]

Actually, hold on, I like this idea - If China is the parent to Hong Kong's child, then what about contemporary national entities that were once held under colonial authority to their whole extent?

1. They are not of the age of majority and therefore have no legal standing to enter into any legally-binding agreements with 'adult' states, let alone sue them for anything.

2. Holy :daisy:, these kids have no guardians! This is unacceptable! As responsible adult nations, we must arrange for the custody of these underage states: we must place them into foster care.

To avoid handing over nations to either their one-time kidnappers or to nations that can not adequately provide for them if given the responsibility, it is obvious that China should receive the entirety of the Caribbean, Latin America, and Africa as "wards of the state". :elephant:

[Husar]

How chauvinistic of you, the territories that experienced European colonization have the legal agency of underaged dependents? :tongue:

Stockholm syndrome also applies to adults, not sure what your problem is.


What occupation? The NL were legally inherited, there was no invasion whatsoever. It was the dutch who rebelled against their lawful ruler.

That Louis XIV inherited France didn't make him any less of a dictator. Lawful doesn't mean much if the law is made by the oppressors.


What did Germany build in London in the past 60 years that they should be compensated for? Paying war reparations is nothing new. Carthage paid them to Rome. That's hassle pay. Paying for colonisation is a different topic.

London was just attempted colonsation, the British are to blame that we didn't build anything.

Besides, doyou think building some infrastructure and forts so that you can exploit and steal the natural resources faster counts as a positive point?

[Montmorency]

Stockholm syndrome also applies to adults, not sure what your problem is.

Well, adults aren't children, so...

The point is that coercing (hehe) sovereign states into these analogies can take you to some weird places.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, adults aren't children, so...

The point is that coercing (hehe) sovereign states into these analogies can take you to some weird places.

Are you making a NAMBLA reference?

[Husar]

Well, adults aren't children, so...

The point is that coercing (hehe) sovereign states into these analogies can take you to some weird places.

You mean holding entire countries and populations hostage and then drawing arbitrary borders on a map that lead to centuries of conflicts in the regions you "benevolently" left behind after draining them of most of their resources is worse than aducting a single child? In that case I agree with you.

[SwordsMaster]

Stockholm syndrome also applies to adults, not sure what your problem is.
That Louis XIV inherited France didn't make him any less of a dictator. Lawful doesn't mean much if the law is made by the oppressors.

London was just attempted colonsation, the British are to blame that we didn't build anything.

Besides, doyou think building some infrastructure and forts so that you can exploit and steal the natural resources faster counts as a positive point?

I'm not referring to forts. I'm referring to palaces, administration, offices, housing, railroads, trams, ports, and industry.

Laws are always made by the ruling class, so I'm not sure what your point is here, and have nothing to do with colonisation. Laws in Laos or Thailand are made by locals, and slavery hasn't exactly disappeared...

[Sarmatian]

Way to go with making up excuses to dodge the point of the example.

Ah, the arrogance of colonial powers. It's nice to know it's still there.

[Husar]

I'm not referring to forts. I'm referring to palaces, administration, offices, housing, railroads, trams, ports, and industry.

That's exactly what I said when I said infrastructure and forts....
And that you are not referring to the inconvenient parts doesn't improve the reality one bit.


Laws are always made by the ruling class, so I'm not sure what your point is here, and have nothing to do with colonisation. Laws in Laos or Thailand are made by locals, and slavery hasn't exactly disappeared...

I meant the laws of the dictators, and the Dutch decided they had enough of those. Tht the ruling class makes the laws is irrelevant, in a democracy the people are the ruling class.

[Brenus]

“Nobody alive today who pays taxes was responsible for ww2, yet current German taxpayers still pay for it.” No, they don’t. However, in France we still cleaning the mess of the WW1, even not talking of WW2, or the lands that will never be able to produce anything…

“That Louis XIV inherited France” Err, read the childhood of the future Sun King, and you might change this (see: La Fronde). Just for the detail, no need to develop.

[Pannonian]

Way to go with making up excuses to dodge the point of the example.

Ah, the arrogance of colonial powers. It's nice to know it's still there.

A bit like how Hong Kong is the fault of the Brits. The Brits were wrong to hold it for so long as a colony, simply by virtue of an inter-state treaty signed before any of us were born. The Hong Kongers panicked when the Brits left, but only because they were uncertain about their future, but all that's been solved when China guaranteed its future, and now the Brits are gone and good riddance. Except the Brits have been gone for over a decade, have given up the ex-colony as no longer theirs, and Hong Kongers are still pining after them, and are at odds with mainland China whom they regard as more alien than the British. But that can still be blamed on Britain as having once been there, and the opinions of the natives can be dismissed as Stockholm syndrome or whatever it is that dismisses their right to self-determination whilst still blaming Britain.

The lesson in all this is: blame Britain. The arguments may vary, but as long as the conclusion is there, they're pointing in the right direction. If the logic directly contradicts this conclusion, dismiss the logic as irrelevant. So Britain is at fault for promoting slavery, but Britain's massive efforts at stopping slavery should be ignored. To paraphrase Cato, aim for the conclusion and the arguments will write themselves.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Haiti still has slavery, several hundred thousand child slaves.

From Jean-Robert Cadet's "Restavec: From Haitian slave-child to middle class american".

"Restavecs are slave children who belong to well-to-do families.
They receive no pay and are kept out of school. Since the emanci-
pation and independence of 1804, affluent blacks and mulattoes
have reintroduced slavery by using children of the very poor as
house servants. They promise poor families in faraway villages
who have too many mouths to feed a better life for their children.
Once acquired, these children lose all contact with their families
and, like the slaves of the past, are sometimes given new names for
the sake of convenience. The affluent disguise their evil deeds with
the label restavec, a French term that means “staying with.” Other
children taunt them with the term because they are often seen in
the streets running errands barefoot and dressed in dirty rags.
Restavecs are treated worse than slaves, because they don’t cost
anything and their supply seems inexhaustible. They do the jobs
that the hired domestics, or bonnes, will not do and are made
to sleep on cardboard, either under the kitchen table or outside
on the front porch. For any minor infraction they are severely
whipped with the cowhide that is still being made exclusively for
that very purpose. And, like the African slaves of the past, they of-
ten cook their own meals, which are comprised of inferior corn-
meal and a few heads of dried herring. Girls are usually worse off,
because they are sometimes used as concubines for the teenage
sons of their “owners.” And if they become pregnant, they are
thrown into the streets like garbage. At maturity, restavecs are re-
leased into the streets to earn their living as shoeshine boys, gar-
deners, or prostitutes.
...
Every night at ten o’clock, I collected the chamber pot from the
bathroom and placed it beside Florence’s bed. Whenever she de-
tected the smell of urine, she would put the pot over my head and
shake it as if she were ringing a bell. The chamber pot had to be re-
washed with mint leaves from her garden and returned to her bed-
room. And I would sit in a corner of the kitchen, waiting for her to
go to bed before spreading my rags on the cool mosaic floor. I
would lie down, cover my body with an old dress, and listen to the
monotonous hum of the refrigerator until I fell asleep. I would wake
up early in the morning with palpitating heart in a pool of urine.
On occasion, restavecs managed to form friendships with other
restavecs and play together when their “masters” were out for ex-
tended hours. I had met René, a boy about fourteen years old with
a dark-brown complexion. He seemed a few years older than I was.
I must have been between ten and twelve years old. René had been
acquired by the Beauchamp family, who lived three houses away.
Madame Beauchamp needed a permanent sitter for her two boys,
and Monsieur Beauchamp, a tall and stingy mulatto, wanted some-
one to wash his small fleet of taxis every morning. René was thin,
with a face that always looked hungry. He once told me that he
had been acquired from a small village in Jérémi, and that his
mother Dieudonne had named him Prophet. Every morning he
woke up at the crowing of the first rooster to wash the cars before
the drivers arrived. At eight o’clock in the evening he collected the
car keys and the moneybags from the drivers. Between eight and
nine o’clock at night, I would listen for René’s signal—three long
whistles. If I whistled back, we would meet behind Florence’s
house to watch I Love Lucy through the window screen, standing
on cement blocks in the dark while mosquitoes feasted on our
exposed arms and legs. When Florence had left the house and I
was locked out at night, René and I would meet beside the
Beauchamps’ house to eat sugarcane under the almond tree and
count passing cars. In the Beauchamps’ living room, the television
was placed under the window and restavecs were not allowed to
watch it indoors. We rarely saw each other during daytime hours.
René was always busy watching the children, and I had to be con-
stantly within the reach of Florence’s voice.
One beautiful moonlit night, the air was cool, the crickets were
quarreling back and forth, and the mosquitoes were barely notice-
able. The adventures of Tarzan had just started when René arrived
nervously with a hand basket.
“What’s in there?” I asked.
René pulled out a bowl of grillot (fried pork) and plantains, two
bottles of Cola Couronne, and fresh pastries. We sat on the cement
block and ate in silence with our fingers from the same bowl. I
wanted to ask him where he got the money to buy the food, but I
didn’t want to know the answer. At the end of the show, René
walked away without saying good-bye. I watched him disappear
into the darkness as my heart beat faster than usual.
By midmorning, news had quickly spread among the maids
and restavecs that René had stolen two dollars from Monsieur
Beauchamp’s cashbox. René was severely beaten with a rigoise—a
whip made of cowhide. Every strike lifted the skin and formed a
blister.
Monsieur Beauchamp wanted to know whether René had
shared the money with other restavecs, but René did not implicate
me. He was made to kneel on a bed of hot rocks, used by the maids
to whiten clothes under the punishing tropical sun, while holding
two mango-sized stones in each hand high above his head. After
René blacked out, Monsieur Beauchamp threw him in the backseat
of his car and drove to the police station.
The police brought René back late in the afternoon. His nose was
bleeding, his eyes were swollen shut, and his lips resembled two
pieces of raw cow’s liver. His puffy face was twisted to one side and
his ragged shirt was glued to his broken body. That night I listened
for René’s whistles that I knew would never be heard again. Al-
though I never saw René again, I listened every night between
eight and nine o’clock for the signal that I could hear only with my
imagination."

[Kralizec]

In our defense, we only did it because all the cool nations dit it at the time. Give us a break.

[Pannonian]

In our defense, we only did it because all the cool nations dit it at the time. Give us a break.

It was the norm among everyone who were able to do it. It only stopped being the norm when some countries decided it was not morally acceptable, defying the opinion of everyone else but them. And Britain proceeded to make this an immoveable testing point for foreign policy, devoting massive resources to stopping slavery. And despite that defiance of historical norms to pursue an ethical ideal and being the first in history to go out of our way to enforce said ideal, we're still blamed for the original actions which everyone else was also doing, while our singular actions in ending the practice are ignored.

Is there any other country in history that has done more to end slavery across the world than Britain?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Is there any other country in history that has done more to end slavery across the world than Britain?

No.

[Husar]

A bit like how Hong Kong is the fault of the Brits. The Brits were wrong to hold it for so long as a colony, simply by virtue of an inter-state treaty signed before any of us were born. The Hong Kongers panicked when the Brits left, but only because they were uncertain about their future, but all that's been solved when China guaranteed its future, and now the Brits are gone and good riddance. Except the Brits have been gone for over a decade, have given up the ex-colony as no longer theirs, and Hong Kongers are still pining after them, and are at odds with mainland China whom they regard as more alien than the British. But that can still be blamed on Britain as having once been there, and the opinions of the natives can be dismissed as Stockholm syndrome or whatever it is that dismisses their right to self-determination whilst still blaming Britain.

Yeah, because HongKong is the only example of a British colony while Africa and the Middle East do not really exist. Did the people of HongKong also greet the British when the British first arrived and did they offer them to govern the city? To pretend colonialism was all honey and milk and daffodils is still weird. Maybe some good came out of it once all the dissenters were killed in bloody military campaigns or left to China but I doubt that it was all roses and orchidees when you tried to subjugate China with opium.

[Pannonian]

Yeah, because HongKong is the only example of a British colony while Africa and the Middle East do not really exist. Did the people of HongKong also greet the British when the British first arrived and did they offer them to govern the city? To pretend colonialism was all honey and milk and daffodils is still weird. Maybe some good came out of it once all the dissenters were killed in bloody military campaigns or left to China but I doubt that it was all roses and orchidees when you tried to subjugate China with opium.

It was the stick Sarmatian used to batter Britain with, as an example of how Britain abused its powerful status to grab something that she had no right to. Which amused me with its irony, given I was there not that long ago and many people there were longing for the old days of British rule, and the rightful Chinese rulers and the poor Hong Kongers who'd been so oppressed by the colonialist British absolutely hated each other.

[Sarmatian]

A bit like how Hong Kong is the fault of the Brits. The Brits were wrong to hold it for so long as a colony, simply by virtue of an inter-state treaty signed before any of us were born. The Hong Kongers panicked when the Brits left, but only because they were uncertain about their future, but all that's been solved when China guaranteed its future, and now the Brits are gone and good riddance. Except the Brits have been gone for over a decade, have given up the ex-colony as no longer theirs, and Hong Kongers are still pining after them, and are at odds with mainland China whom they regard as more alien than the British. But that can still be blamed on Britain as having once been there, and the opinions of the natives can be dismissed as Stockholm syndrome or whatever it is that dismisses their right to self-determination whilst still blaming Britain.

Hong Kong was a response to something else. GC said it was all irrelevant since it had nothing to do with current generation. Hong Kong was an example that international treaties are enforced, regardless of the opinion or involvement of current taxpayers.

That being said, it's naive to pretend that Hong Kong was an inter-state treaty. It was taken at gunpoint and later the acquisition was legalized, again at gun point. Luca Brasi diplomacy.


The lesson in all this is: blame Britain. The arguments may vary, but as long as the conclusion is there, they're pointing in the right direction. If the logic directly contradicts this conclusion, dismiss the logic as irrelevant. So Britain is at fault for promoting slavery, but Britain's massive efforts at stopping slavery should be ignored. To paraphrase Cato, aim for the conclusion and the arguments will write themselves.

I have not blamed Britain and I have not mentioned slavery. I've mentioned colonialism.


It was the stick Sarmatian used to batter Britain with, as an example of how Britain abused its powerful status to grab something that she had no right to. Which amused me with its irony, given I was there not that long ago and many people there were longing for the old days of British rule, and the rightful Chinese rulers and the poor Hong Kongers who'd been so oppressed by the colonialist British absolutely hated each other.

Give it a generation or two and animosity will weaken.

[Husar]

It was the stick Sarmatian used to batter Britain with, as an example of how Britain abused its powerful status to grab something that she had no right to. Which amused me with its irony, given I was there not that long ago and many people there were longing for the old days of British rule, and the rightful Chinese rulers and the poor Hong Kongers who'd been so oppressed by the colonialist British absolutely hated each other.

Noone said that the British engaged in a lot of evil colonialism since WW2, it's not surprising that the modern people of Hongkong like the British given that the British provided them wealth. We are talking about how the city got into British hands in the first place, which wasn't voluntary at all. Most of the colonial oppression stopped somewhere in the 20th century but that doesn't excuse what happened in the centuries before that. Would Germany bringing the Autobahn to Russia, Poland and France have excused the second world war if Germany had won?

[SwordsMaster]

That's exactly what I said when I said infrastructure and forts....
And that you are not referring to the inconvenient parts doesn't improve the reality one bit.

I meant the laws of the dictators, and the Dutch decided they had enough of those. Tht the ruling class makes the laws is irrelevant, in a democracy the people are the ruling class.

What inconvenient bits? The fact that these buildings were built with indentured labour does not mean we should tear them down after. That'd be like spitting on the effort of the people who built them. Which is why the case of Germany is completely out of proportion, the net effect of the war was devastation, not edification, and thus they pay reparations.

And about the people being the ruling class. Well, I don't know who this recession made richer in Germany, but in the countries I've been to it isn't the taxpayer.

And on Hong Kong - It was a wasteland with mostly fishermen living there after the first war with the portuguese in the XVII century. Most of the opium trade went through Canton, and the british occupation of the island as a defensible position (for a nation with a strong navy) met little opposition from the powers in China at the time who preferred to keep all the foreigners in one little box (which is why Portugal also got to keep Macao, across the bay).

Going from a small fishing town to a major global metropolis in 150 years while the rest of China remains what is essentially a feudal society with a few urban hotspots is a net positive influence of British rule, I would say.

[Beskar]

Surprised no one has brought up the Falklands, Gibraltar and all those little islands we still possess.

[SwordsMaster]

Surprised no one has brought up the Falklands, Gibraltar and all those little islands we still possess.
Heh, well, I'd say the Falklands issue is only sensitive in some Argentinian political circles, but I hear the Gibraltar debate is heating up in Spain. With the harbouring of contrabandists, pirates, gambling, and tax exempt status. Should be fun.

[Husar]

What inconvenient bits? The fact that these buildings were built with indentured labour does not mean we should tear them down after. That'd be like spitting on the effort of the people who built them. Which is why the case of Germany is completely out of proportion, the net effect of the war was devastation, not edification, and thus they pay reparations.

It's not about net effects, it´'s about there bein g a war in the first place and that people were robbed of their country by force. Germany never had the time or resources to build anything up because it never managed to win the war like the colonial powers usually did in their colonies before they built most of the stuff they built. The question is whether some buildings and roads justify starting a brutal war to achieve superiority and oppress the people, make them build stuff for you and then take their resources for a low or no payment.


And about the people being the ruling class. Well, I don't know who this recession made richer in Germany, but in the countries I've been to it isn't the taxpayer.

Merkel's party got even more votes this election than in the last, it's obviously what the people want...


And on Hong Kong - It was a wasteland with mostly fishermen living there after the first war with the portuguese in the XVII century. Most of the opium trade went through Canton, and the british occupation of the island as a defensible position (for a nation with a strong navy) met little opposition from the powers in China at the time who preferred to keep all the foreigners in one little box (which is why Portugal also got to keep Macao, across the bay).

You mean there never was an opium war and noone was ever killed for the glory of the Empire?


Going from a small fishing town to a major global metropolis in 150 years while the rest of China remains what is essentially a feudal society with a few urban hotspots is a net positive influence of British rule, I would say.

China has over a hundred cities with more than a million citizens, the only city in the UK that counts for something is London. The net influence doesn't really count with crimes anyway, it's just a convenient excuse to detract the attention away from the crimes that started the whole influence in the first place. Like I said, had Germany conquered all of Russia and built the country up, would that have excused the mass murder that preceded it if Russia had a higher GDP now?

Or do you think if a rich guy kills a family and then donates 5 million $ to a charity, should we let him off because of the net benefit?

[Pannonian]

Noone said that the British engaged in a lot of evil colonialism since WW2, it's not surprising that the modern people of Hongkong like the British given that the British provided them wealth. We are talking about how the city got into British hands in the first place, which wasn't voluntary at all. Most of the colonial oppression stopped somewhere in the 20th century but that doesn't excuse what happened in the centuries before that. Would Germany bringing the Autobahn to Russia, Poland and France have excused the second world war if Germany had won?

Depends on what the Russians, Poles and French thought of the Germans. When the Romans departed from Britain, people didn't complain about their imperialist predecessors that unjustly took over a previously free people. That was par for the course, and nothing to be especially het up about. Their memory of Rome was a peace and civilisation that was the best we had until we produced our own advanced society. Similarly for the Germans. You have various former colonies such as the sausage factory in Tanganyika, whose inhabitants retain a fondness for the days of German rule. Good for you, and you deserve recognition for that. You also tried building an empire in mainland Europe, and the people of those territories are less than fond of the memory of German rule. That deserves recognition too.

And that's what the British should be recognised for. We used slaves, as did everyone who could. But we stopped using them because of a moral argument, and very few countries in history did so. And alone in history, we devoted huge resources to backing up that moral argument, actively stopping slavery as the societal norm. The first bit of our history is carped on about, as the story of the evil British. As we moved more and more towards what is the modern ethical norm, in many cases defining it ourselves, more and more of it gets ignored, so as to maintain the story of the evil British.

As for the Hong Kongers settling with the Chinese given a few more decades, we can only see what will happen after said decades. But their history museums celebrate the economic and social programmes that the British left behind, and the complaints are about what they see as Chinese exploitation of the territory without the parallel care about the health of the society that the British attended to. Funny to see the things the British are often accused of, used to criticise their successors.

[Montmorency]

Or do you think if a rich guy kills a family and then donates 5 million $ to a charity, should we let him off because of the net benefit?

Really, don't analogize states to individuals in this context. It doesn't serve your position and it creates :jawdrop: :dizzy: if you think it through.

[Husar]

And that's what the British should be recognised for.

According to British people and their colonial collaborators...


We used slaves, as did everyone who could. But we stopped using them because of a moral argument, and very few countries in history did so. And alone in history, we devoted huge resources to backing up that moral argument, actively stopping slavery as the societal norm. The first bit of our history is carped on about, as the story of the evil British. As we moved more and more towards what is the modern ethical norm, in many cases defining it ourselves, more and more of it gets ignored, so as to maintain the story of the evil British.

The modern British people did not commit that, they just inherited it. If the modern British are evil, it's just because they continue to support bankers who caused a huge economic downturn and ripped off the taxpayers.


But their history museums celebrate the economic and social programmes that the British left behind, and the complaints are about what they see as Chinese exploitation of the territory without the parallel care about the health of the society that the British attended to. Funny to see the things the British are often accused of, used to criticise their successors.

First of all, you claim that you built almost everything that Hongkong has and is today, so you probably also built the museums that celebrate you. -> doesn't count.
Secondly, modern China may not be the communist country it is today without the early negative capitalist imperial influences that made so many people turn to communism. So while your net influence on Hongkong may look positive today, your net influence on the entire rest of China was a lot worse as you say yourself.


Really, don't analogize states to individuals in this context. It doesn't serve your position and it creates :jawdrop: :dizzy: if you think it through.

I was merely saying that the net benefit does not equal justice. Not on a personal level and not on a state level either. Would you like to die fighting a Chinese invasion even if there were actually a net benefit for the USA in it after 300 years of Chinese occupation?

[Sarmatian]

And on Hong Kong - It was a wasteland with mostly fishermen living there after the first war with the portuguese in the XVII century. Most of the opium trade went through Canton, and the british occupation of the island as a defensible position (for a nation with a strong navy) met little opposition from the powers in China at the time who preferred to keep all the foreigners in one little box (which is why Portugal also got to keep Macao, across the bay).

Going from a small fishing town to a major global metropolis in 150 years while the rest of China remains what is essentially a feudal society with a few urban hotspots is a net positive influence of British rule, I would say.

What you're gonna say about Shenzhen then? Right next to Hong Kong, it was a small fishing village 40-50 years ago and now is rivaling Hong Kong. Obviously they do better job than Brits. Now that it's been proven, choose an area of UK where a huge port can be built and give it to China.

[Montmorency]

What exactly is this discussion about anyway?

Britain did not leave its colonies looking like Mordor: that's not really something we should be obliged to be thankful for.

The natives were oppressed by their colonial overlords: they would have been oppressed by native overlords otherwise.

It all seems like a lot of puffery to me.

[Slyspy]

What exactly is this discussion about anyway?

Britain did not leave its colonies looking like Mordor: that's not really something we should be obliged to be thankful for.

The natives were oppressed by their colonial overlords: they would have been oppressed by native overlords otherwise.

It all seems like a lot of puffery to me.


Yeah, but now they are free to be oppressed!

[Sarmatian]

The natives were oppressed by their colonial overlords: they would have been oppressed by native overlords otherwise.



As I've said, it's nice to know that colonial mindset is still alive and well.

[Montmorency]

So...what's your point?

[Pannonian]

First of all, you claim that you built almost everything that Hongkong has and is today, so you probably also built the museums that celebrate you. -> doesn't count.
Secondly, modern China may not be the communist country it is today without the early negative capitalist imperial influences that made so many people turn to communism. So while your net influence on Hongkong may look positive today, your net influence on the entire rest of China was a lot worse as you say yourself.

Re: the museums, I doubt Britain has had much influence on what they show, besides providing them with material for them to pick and choose from. Museum displays aren't limited by the structures they're hosted in, but are whatever their organisers see fit to put up. It's been 16 years since we last had any influence on who the organisers would be, and the displays were put up after Beijing's takeover.

As for the British influencing the rise of Communism in China, I don't think so. Have a look at the blokes they supplanted, their record in mainland China, and their record after they were exiled to Taiwan. Hell, Hong Kong under Britain was a haven for freedom lovers long pre-dating Communism, with Sun Yatsen and his cronies sheltering there from the Qing officials hunting them. Except for the Japanese occupation, Hong Kong was seen as a stable territory that protected free speech and liberal politics.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So...what's your point?

His point has always been pretty consistent. To wit:

The West gets on its high horse as though it were somehow superior, but in practice they are just as selfish, just as often murderous bastards and no better in any way than the rest of humanity -- just luckier because their technology advantages snapped in before most of the rest of the world so they had the opportunity to be greedy, arrogant jerks on a global scale rather than more locally. He views anything vaguely resembling a sense of moral/spiritual/intellectual superiority on the part of the West (Western Europe and USA in partic) as the height of hubris.

[Montmorency]

The West gets on its high horse as though it were somehow superior, but in practice they are just as selfish, just as often murderous bastards and no better in any way than the rest of humanity -- just luckier because their technology advantages snapped in before most of the rest of the world so they had the opportunity to be greedy, arrogant jerks on a global scale rather than more locally. He views anything vaguely resembling a sense of moral/spiritual/intellectual superiority on the part of the West (Western Europe and USA in partic) as the height of hubris.

...

That's it? I don't see why there even needs to be a thread going on about it.

Next I suppose we'll have a debate over whether Classical Athens was the apotheosis of art and literature...

[Husar]

What exactly is this discussion about anyway?

British hubris.


Britain did not leave its colonies looking like Mordor: that's not really something we should be obliged to be thankful for.

Britain only invaded everyone who couldn't resist like Mordor. There is no complaint about how you left stuff, just about your meddling and invading everywhere in the first place.


The natives were oppressed by their colonial overlords: they would have been oppressed by native overlords otherwise.

Possibly, but two wrongs still don't make a right. You're just trying to whitewash British crimes with the benefit of hindsight and after having spent the better part of a century or even longer trying to correct past mistakes. It's all about the benefits but that thousands of people had to die so british aristocrats could sip their tea or that India was left starving because they weren't important enough to British gentlemen is not really important. And the conflicts in Africa and the Middle East that are a direct consequence of colonial line drawing on maps and antagonism caused by colonial slave trade are apparently not part of the "net benefits" either.

[Sarmatian]

So...what's your point?

Very simple.

Even if you don't agree with the sentiment by former colonial nations, dismissing it out of hand and justifying it with "if it weren't us, it would have been someone else so it doesn't matter",or something along that line of thought, is quite reminiscent of old colonial mindset.

If that is your position, then discussion about this subject with you is pointless, like discussing slavery with a slave owner or crime with a mobster.


His point has always been pretty consistent. To wit:

The West gets on its high horse as though it were somehow superior, but in practice they are just as selfish, just as often murderous bastards and no better in any way than the rest of humanity -- just luckier because their technology advantages snapped in before most of the rest of the world so they had the opportunity to be greedy, arrogant jerks on a global scale rather than more locally. He views anything vaguely resembling a sense of moral/spiritual/intellectual superiority on the part of the West (Western Europe and USA in partic) as the height of hubris.

With more subtlety and less eloquence, but that doesn't have much to do with this particular discussion.

[Montmorency]

Possibly, but two wrongs still don't make a right. You're just trying to whitewash British crimes with the benefit of hindsight and after having spent the better part of a century or even longer trying to correct past mistakes. It's all about the benefits but that thousands of people had to die so british aristocrats could sip their tea or that India was left starving because they weren't important enough to British gentlemen is not really important. And the conflicts in Africa and the Middle East that are a direct consequence of colonial line drawing on maps and antagonism caused by colonial slave trade are apparently not part of the "net benefits" either.

I am neither whitewashing anything nor attempting a cost-benefit analysis.


Even if you don't agree with the sentiment by former colonial nations, dismissing it out of hand and justifying it with "if it weren't us, it would have been someone else so it doesn't matter",or something along that line of thought, is quite reminiscent of old colonial mindset.



So, if one SS kills a Jew, it's not insightful or informative to decry his individual crime; plenty more SS where he came from. Yeah, he's a bad man - so what?


If that is your position, then discussion about this subject with you is pointless, like discussing slavery with a slave owner or crime with a mobster.

(Leaving aside that this analogy is pretty poor...)

Discussion? But you aren't discussing anything! You're just flatly stating that Imperial Britain oppressed a bunch of people, and that this is bad. If you have no point beyond this, then I'm afraid there is nothing of substance to discuss here.

[Husar]

Apologizing for imperialism? Might as well apologize for being born. Does anyone doubt that history leading up to the age of global consciousness could have been anything less than violent, regardless of the specifics?

What matters is that nation-states ostensibly know better now (...hah...), and dwelling on the mistakes of the past only gives them and their attendant feelings of nationalism new life.

I generally agree, but in the face of Godwin's law and everybody mentioning my nation as the poster boy of a criminal nation I find it quite arrogant of the British to whitewash their own crimes and present them as though they were actually always a generous nation and never really did anything wrong. Your own forefathers found the british rule bad enough to start a war for independence over it and they were better off than most other colonies. Or would you say that whole war was just fun and games because they really liked the British but were even more fond of going to war?

Oh and saying that everyone did it at the time so it was kinda okay is a bad excuse given that war and killing have not been seen as glorious everywhere and at any time. Read some accounts from the 30 years war for example, people weren't really fond of or neutral towards what was going on. To declar people from 300 years ago as some kind of dumb barbarians without morals who were not really responsible for their actions seems quite naive. Maybe they weren't quite where we are today but they still colonized and conquered because of greed and they knew that this greed wasn't right or morally correct.

[Husar]

I think Germany is the poster boy for odd self hate. Modern germans should feel totally removed and guiltless, but instead swastikas are banned.

I don't feel any guilt for the millions of native Americans intentionally wiped out or displaced, even though I objectively recognize the horror of what happened. White guilt leads to white denial, which leads to places like Pine Ridge Reservation looking like the third world because its just an issue nobody wants to talk about.

History has to be confronted without ownership if it is to have a constructive use. Easier said than done, I know.

It's not about guilt, I do not feel guilty, but I recognize what happened as evil and as a big mistake. The British seem to say they would repeat colonialism since it was really great...

[Sarmatian]

(Leaving aside that this analogy is pretty poor...)

Discussion? But you aren't discussing anything! You're just flatly stating that Imperial Britain oppressed a bunch of people, and that this is bad. If you have no point beyond this, then I'm afraid there is nothing of substance to discuss here.

What do you mean "nothing to discuss". There's plenty:

1) Do former colonies have a moral right to demand compensation?
Is it different than any other conquest in history? We have a different world order set up by western powers, supposedly based on different moral values than "conquer thy neighbour" of old. Today, it is accepted both by political elite and scholars that colonialism was about exploitation. Do former colonies have a right to material compensation rather than just verbal they've received so far.


2) Do they have a legal case?
Separate from moral argument, the question of legality is a different topic. Is there a legal case? Which court, if any, should rule on it? Do they have a chance...

[Pannonian]

Well.. all I'll say is that British exceptionalism has always put American exceptionalism to shame. Don't believe me? Watch Doctor Who.

:creep:

Surely Japan-centrism is even more hilariously misplaced. At least an alien invading the Earth might have had intelligence from a hundred years ago and have the mistaken impression that London is the centre of the most powerful faction on the planet. But why do aliens and monsters keep invading Japan?

[Husar]

London is where some of the world's most powerful and most evil banks plot their evil capitalist schemes, conquer the money, conquer the world.

Doctor Who is great though, Anglos generally seemt to do very well with fiction if they put in some effort.
I also watch Torchwood, although that is more like a drama about human feelings than actual Sci-Fi.

[Montmorency]

What do you mean "nothing to discuss". There's plenty:


In which case you're using that position to raise questions, rather than just pushing it apropos of nothing. That's what I was looking for.


1) Do former colonies have a moral right to demand compensation?
Is it different than any other conquest in history? We have a different world order set up by western powers, supposedly based on different moral values than "conquer thy neighbour" of old. Today, it is accepted both by political elite and scholars that colonialism was about exploitation. Do former colonies have a right to material compensation rather than just verbal they've received so far.

Heck no! Get off my lawn! No solicitors!


2) Do they have a legal case?
Separate from moral argument, the question of legality is a different topic. Is there a legal case? Which court, if any, should rule on it? Do they have a chance...

Beats me, but new (ex-post facto) laws to make it explicitly legal probably wouldn't fly. Anyway, to evaluate suitable compensation one would need to estimate the psychological, cultural, economic, and environmental costs directly attributable to colonization, and I suppose even those of imperial-clientilistic subordination (of territories that never endured direct colonial administration or heavy European settlement). That's impossible, to put it lightly.

[Husar]

Oh, I just saw something very relevant: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-9-2013/michael-fassbender

Skip to 4:30 if you're impatient.

[Papewaio]

Payment should be based on the delta between there lifestyle now and that of the nations they came from.

Since a lot of them would be worse off in Africa then WI, the Indies owe UK.

[Husar]

Or how about payment should be based on the goods they produced while they were enslaved and the market value these good had plus interest.

[Montmorency]

the goods

How do you calculate that?


they produced

All goods everywhere? I don't suppose every worker during the colonial era was bent toward the advancement of colonial economic goals...


market value these good had


Whose market value? When? Where?


plus interest.

1%? 10%? 1000000%?

[Husar]

How do you calculate that?

Shipping lists.


All goods everywhere? I don't suppose every worker during the colonial era was bent toward the advancement of colonial economic goals...

The exported goods which the locals produced with slave labor. Since the colonial powers could make a huge profit selling them elsewhere while not paying the locals for producing them.


Whose market value? When? Where?

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/commodity/cotton


1%? 10%? 1000000%?

http://www.crestmontresearch.com/interest-rates/

If you don't trust a single provider or don't have exact historical values, I'm sure there are methods of calculation that both sides can agree on such as averages.

[Pannonian]

Well.. all I'll say is that British exceptionalism has always put American exceptionalism to shame. Don't believe me? Watch Doctor Who.

:creep:

You might enjoy a little-known BBC comedy/drama series called Sleepers, about a couple of Soviet agents sent to Britain who are reactivated 25 years later, but who have become so thoroughly embedded in their new lives and have no desire to return. That's the premise, but IMHO the most enjoyable parts are the various spy agencies who are investigating the matter, who are portrayed as national stereotypes. The Americans are powerful and have all the resources they want at their disposal, but have preconceptions that drive them to erroneous conclusions. The British are broke and are trying to run their operation on what small change they can scrape together, and only ever get something done when they call in favours from old schoolfriends who've used their greater competence to get themselves better paid jobs in the private sector. The Russians are more interested in their western lives and feathering their own nests than doing their jobs. None of them have any clue, although to be fair to the Russians they don't care and are only going through the motions because Moscow is giving them orders. The only competent spymaster in all of this is the one Moscow sends to fetch the agents back.

[Montmorency]

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/commodity/cotton

What does this tell us, for example, about the market value of cotton in Calcutta in 1770?


I'm sure there are methods of calculation that both sides can agree on such as averages.

You really think so? :inquisitive:

[Husar]

What does this tell us, for example, about the market value of cotton in Calcutta in 1770?

This site in particular not much, but there is certainly historical data available. If not about the market prices, then probably about the total exported value or volume. Not everything can always be calculated 100%, even in today's businesses. To demand that it is as a prerequisite for reparations is quite weird. One could also add money for the emotional damages but I left that out for now since Anglos don't have emotions anyway.


You really think so? :inquisitive:

I wouldn't mind forming an independent commision under the ECHR to find a fair and balanced sum.

[Montmorency]

To demand that it is as a prerequisite for reparations is quite weird.

I'm not confident that it could be gotten to within several orders of magnitude...

China and Japan would need to pay as well, btw.

It's not a good idea to siphon billions - who knows, maybe trillions - from the richest and give to the poorest, especially when the ultimate cost might leave the former indebted for centuries at least.

At the minimum, any countries awarded reparations should have a share of the settlement awarded directly to each adult citizen, and nothing at all to the national government itself.

Anyway, let's invoke statute of limitations.

[Sarmatian]

I'm not confident that it could be gotten to within several orders of magnitude...

China and Japan would need to pay as well, btw.

It's not a good idea to siphon billions - who knows, maybe trillions - from the richest and give to the poorest, especially when the ultimate cost might leave the former indebted for centuries at least.

At the minimum, any countries awarded reparations should have a share of the settlement awarded directly to each adult citizen, and nothing at all to the national government itself.

Anyway, let's invoke statute of limitations.

Calculating the actual amount would be the hardest part. Modern day USA, Canada and Australia were sparsely populated with almost non-existent economies, except some barter and practically no concept of ownership. Some parts of Africa were similar.

India or Dutch colonies in southeast Asia on the other hand had functioning states and economies. If it were to be calculated on the value on actual goods, adjusted for inflation, just the worth of salt from India, a tax that went directly to the British crown would be enough to bankrupt UK several times over. If we try to add other, direct and indirect profits, we would probably come to some unimaginable figures.

Bankrupting those nations and throwing world's economy in a turmoil obviously isn't the solution.

What I think is fair is actually a compromise - we couldn't really take the price of pepper in 15th and 16th century when 1kg of pepper = 1kg of gold as a starting point. Likewise, it wouldn't be fair to base the calculations on the 21st century price of pepper. Some middle ground would have to be found.
It also wouldn't be fair to expect former colonial masters to "pay up" immediately. Maybe former colonial countries could set up very long term funds for development of their former colonies. Money from those funds would be used to build infrastructure, highways, railways, ports, airports, schools, university, hospital, housing etc... in former colonies and companies from the former colony and former colonial country would have preferential status to be picked. So, for example, in the case of India, British and Indian companies would have "first option" to build a highway in India. If they can't do it or don't want to do it under allotted budget for whatever reason, only then are other international companies offered to do it.

That way there would be less corruption than with cash payments, former colonial countries could bear it relatively painlessly, former colonies get infrastructure developed for free and the money is injected, at least partially, into the former colonial country economy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Don't think you're gonna see that anytime soon, Sarmatian. I suspect the more likely sentiment will parallel Hayakawa's regarding the Panama Canal.

"We should keep [it]. After all, we stole it fair and square."

[Pannonian]

That way there would be less corruption than with cash payments, former colonial countries could bear it relatively painlessly, former colonies get infrastructure developed for free and the money is injected, at least partially, into the former colonial country economy.

And in cases like Hong Kong where the former colonial masters developed the infrastructure far, far beyond what the original inhabitants had ever dreamed of, and left them with a society, economy and everything else that they're vocally happy with, the achievements of said former masters should be dismissed by morallists living thousands of miles away, who ignore the natives' opinions as irrelevant whilst condemning the British for seizing the colony in the first place. As always, cherry pick the bad bits of Britain's history and ignore the good bits.

The lasting legacy of the British empire is to leave the world with someone to blame for all the evils of the world for the next few centuries. I wonder if the Gauls and Iberians ever pursued the Romans for compensation for forcibly incorporating them into their empire. Going by Julius Caesar's figures, 1 million dead and 1 million enslaved should come to a hefty sum when calculated over 2000 years of interest.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And in cases like Hong Kong where the former colonial masters developed the infrastructure far, far beyond what the original inhabitants had ever dreamed of, and left them with a society, economy and everything else that they're vocally happy with, the achievements of said former masters should be dismissed by morallists living thousands of miles away, who ignore the natives' opinions as irrelevant whilst condemning the British for seizing the colony in the first place. As always, cherry pick the bad bits of Britain's history and ignore the good bits.

The lasting legacy of the British empire is to leave the world with someone to blame for all the evils of the world for the next few centuries. I wonder if the Gauls and Iberians ever pursued the Romans for compensation for forcibly incorporating them into their empire. Going by Julius Caesar's figures, 1 million dead and 1 million enslaved should come to a hefty sum when calculated over 2000 years of interest.

I am reminded of the "what've the Romans ever done for us" scene from Life of Brain.

[Pannonian]

Sarkozy visit marks 70th year of de Gaulle’s radio broadcast (http://www.irishexaminer.com/world/kfcwcwidcwql/rss2/)


“We come as friends, and friends who remember the past and what France owes you,” Sarkozy told an audience of 1,500 veterans and dignitaries at London’s Royal Hospital Chelsea, a hospital and retirement centre for former soldiers.


We remember indeed. The French invaders kept pretty good records (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesday_Book) of the assets they seized when they enslaved the English, so we should be able to equitably work out just what they owe us plus 947 years of interest.

[Husar]

The French invaders kept pretty good records (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesday_Book) of the assets they seized when they enslaved the English, so we should be able to equitably work out just what they owe us plus 947 years of interest.

The french have killed their monarchistic leaders and distanced themselves from their practices while the British keep claiming that their nation and government have continued since and are based on the one formed in 1066. Of course this matters in terms of responsibility.

If they pay something anyway, it might help you with paying the former colonies.

[Pannonian]

The french have killed their monarchistic leaders and distanced themselves from their practices while the British keep claiming that their nation and government have continued since and are based on the one formed in 1066. Of course this matters in terms of responsibility.

If they pay something anyway, it might help you with paying the former colonies.

So do we get to end these claims if we send Liz and family to the guillotine? I'm sure they'd be willing to take one for the team.

[Sarmatian]

And in cases like Hong Kong where the former colonial masters developed the infrastructure far, far beyond what the original inhabitants had ever dreamed of, and left them with a society, economy and everything else that they're vocally happy with, the achievements of said former masters should be dismissed by morallists living thousands of miles away, who ignore the natives' opinions as irrelevant whilst condemning the British for seizing the colony in the first place. As always, cherry pick the bad bits of Britain's history and ignore the good bits.

The lasting legacy of the British empire is to leave the world with someone to blame for all the evils of the world for the next few centuries. I wonder if the Gauls and Iberians ever pursued the Romans for compensation for forcibly incorporating them into their empire. Going by Julius Caesar's figures, 1 million dead and 1 million enslaved should come to a hefty sum when calculated over 2000 years of interest.

I don't know why you are equating colonial masters with Britain. Britain certainly wasn't the only one, it was just the most successful. I'd consider it fair for Britain to be compensated where it's applicable, Hong Kong or Singapore or somewhere else. Any other nation, for that matter.

But, you're not really strengthening British case with that, as that would be miniscule compared to what would Britain owe.


Sarkozy visit marks 70th year of de Gaulle’s radio broadcast (http://www.irishexaminer.com/world/kfcwcwidcwql/rss2/)


“We come as friends, and friends who remember the past and what France owes you,” Sarkozy told an audience of 1,500 veterans and dignitaries at London’s Royal Hospital Chelsea, a hospital and retirement centre for former soldiers.


We remember indeed. The French invaders kept pretty good records (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesday_Book) of the assets they seized when they enslaved the English, so we should be able to equitably work out just what they owe us plus 947 years of interest.


So do we get to end these claims if we send Liz and family to the guillotine? I'm sure they'd be willing to take one for the team.

Besides the moral issue, there is also the legal issue. For your particular example, I can say that there is no legal link from Duchy of Normandy to modern France, or from Gaul to modern France or from Roman Empire to modern Italy. Likewise, modern France couldn't demand compensation from modern UK for HYW.That means you can't ask compensation because the entity you want to request it from no longer exists and there is no successor state. Russian Federation is a successor state of SU and by default it is expected to honor any and all international obligations of the SU. SU, on the other hand isn't considered (legally) a successor state to Imperial Russia.

There is, however, a legal link from colonial UK to modern UK. Just beheading your royal family wouldn't be enough. Overall, the cost of creating a "new" UK would be so high it wouldn't be worth it. Legally, you couldn't be sued for compensation from former colonies but you would also lose everything else, like membership in all international organizations, starting with UN and permanent security council seats to FIFA and UEFA membership and would have to apply for recognition from every country in the world.

[Brenus]

“We remember indeed. The French invaders kept pretty good records of the assets they seized when they enslaved the English, so we should be able to equitably work out just what they owe us plus 947 years of interest.” Err, the invasion of England by William was not in the name of France but by for Private (family and heritage) Reasons.
I don’t think you can blame a Private Company that happened to be French to make profit then blame the State for it. You may try to suit the Heirs of William (and his knights). They are actually all English.

[Pannonian]

The English should be grateful for all those castles the Normans built.

:creep:

Which reminds me of the best anti-Welsh insult I've ever heard. In response to Welsh complaints about overbearing English governments: "Stop getting uppity or we'll start building castles again".

[Tellos Athenaios]

Calculating the actual amount would be the hardest part. Modern day USA, Canada and Australia were sparsely populated with almost non-existent economies, except some barter and practically no concept of ownership. Some parts of Africa were similar.

India or Dutch colonies in southeast Asia on the other hand had functioning states and economies. If it were to be calculated on the value on actual goods, adjusted for inflation, just the worth of salt from India, a tax that went directly to the British crown would be enough to bankrupt UK several times over. If we try to add other, direct and indirect profits, we would probably come to some unimaginable figures.

Yes but then you'd also have to factor in things like: "what exactly did the British pay for?". Such a question when applied to the Dutch government of Indonesia for example leads to the rather sobering reflection that, Indonesia was for most of the time a loss-making enterprise from the point of view of the Dutch state.

Which brings me to my next point. If I understand the reasoning (legal theory) as to why the Dutch government should pay, then the basic premise is: slavery made us poor, you implemented slavery, therefore you made us poor. Unfortunately, that rather requires establishing slavery as the direct cause of modern poverty. Which especially in the case of Suriname with its well documented corruption and economic mismanagement is a bit dubious at best. Sure it might explain why Suriname is not the richest country on the planet, but what it does not, and cannot explain is why there is a well-documented and rather systemic extraction of wealth from the Surinamese people to benefit certain select party members and affiliates of the ruling elites...

Maybe former colonial countries could set up very long term funds for development of their former colonies. Money from those funds would be used to build infrastructure, highways, railways, ports, airports, schools, university, hospital, housing etc... in former colonies and companies from the former colony and former colonial country would have preferential status to be picked. So, for example, in the case of India, British and Indian companies would have "first option" to build a highway in India. If they can't do it or don't want to do it under allotted budget for whatever reason, only then are other international companies offered to do it.

That way there would be less corruption than with cash payments, former colonial countries could bear it relatively painlessly, former colonies get infrastructure developed for free and the money is injected, at least partially, into the former colonial country economy.

We tried something suspiciously like that already with Suriname. They didn't like that much, though. They prefer no-strings-attached cash. Not quite as cynical as "to be paid to certain selected Swiss bank accounts", but still.

That's the whole point: the countries are not suing everyone who's ever had a hand in their slavery to get recompense for the injustice. They simply want to force a few wealthy patrons to hand over more money, and they think this is how to get it. Which is fine, but you shouldn't make the mistake of trying to evaluate the case on its "objective" merits without factoring in the dirty politics. Expect the case to be dropped as soon as they figure they can cut a better deal somehow.

[Husar]

The imperialists brought them the idea that everybody has to look out for himself first, corruption is somehing the colonial empires should pay them for. Their politicians just adopted the stance of the former colonial powers which means the powerful can do with the weak what they want.

And since noone bothered to build schools and libraries for the slaves since schools and libraries do not export colonial goods, they cannot educate themselves or their children on how to improve their countries.

[Tellos Athenaios]

And since noone bothered to build schools and libraries for the slaves since schools and libraries do not export colonial goods, they cannot educate themselves or their children on how to improve their countries.
Take up the White Man's burden.

[Husar]

Take up the White Man's burden.

I wasn't the one who claimed that colonialism was a charity effort.

[Greyblades]

So is there an actual event or artical we're talking about, or are we just getting nationalistic and worked over nothing?

[InsaneApache]

The french have killed their monarchistic leaders and distanced themselves from their practices while the British keep claiming that their nation and government have continued since and are based on the one formed in 1066. Of course this matters in terms of responsibility.

If they pay something anyway, it might help you with paying the former colonies.

I seem to remember an act of regicide about 300 years ago. So that's us off the hook then.

[Slyspy]

The imperialists brought them the idea that everybody has to look out for himself first, corruption is somehing the colonial empires should pay them for. Their politicians just adopted the stance of the former colonial powers which means the powerful can do with the weak what they want.

And since noone bothered to build schools and libraries for the slaves since schools and libraries do not export colonial goods, they cannot educate themselves or their children on how to improve their countries.

Ah, the assumption that people lived idealistic, ultruistic lives before the evil Europeans intervened. Hilarious.

[Husar]

I seem to remember an act of regicide about 300 years ago. So that's us off the hook then.

One problem is that you still celebrate and defend the atrocities, another is that you didn't have a restart like France did as Sarmatian explained.

I have incidentally found a way out for you. Given that your Royals are German royals anyway, they could become viceroys of the German colony of England, basically turning your entire country into a German colony, which also equals a change of great magnitude. Since we have already paid our war reparations, you'd be off the hook. The whole story being voluntary, there wouldn't be any bad blood between us either and who knows, maybe we'd improve your country and let you off our hook after 200 years or so. :2thumbsup:


Ah, the assumption that people lived idealistic, ultruistic lives before the evil Europeans intervened. Hilarious.

No, that is not in there, set your strawman up somewhere else. However, tribal cultures do require more cooperation within a tribe even though there is a clear leader with benefits, it's usually not as blatant and the whole thing is more transparent for all members. In contrast we got duped by our banks and our governments pretend there was nothing bad about it, just threw more money at them. Regardless of this, European intervention was not aimed at improving anything but the situation of the Europeans. To assume any kind of altruism by colonial powers is even more hilarious.

[Slyspy]

One problem is that you still celebrate and defend the atrocities, another is that you didn't have a restart like France did as Sarmatian explained.

I have incidentally found a way out for you. Given that your Royals are German royals anyway, they could become viceroys of the German colony of England, basically turning your entire country into a German colony, which also equals a change of great magnitude. Since we have already paid our war reparations, you'd be off the hook. The whole story being voluntary, there wouldn't be any bad blood between us either and who knows, maybe we'd improve your country and let you off our hook after 200 years or so. :2thumbsup:

That is the way that some Indian states chose and look what happened to them!

I'll leave the interpretation of that sentence up to the reader.

[HoreTore]

This whole thread is like scenes in Cops where a drug dealer shouts "I aint done nothing" while the cops find a bag of cocaine in his trunk.

Get over yourselves, Brits.

[Greyblades]

I wouldn't get your hopes up. Its been 1600 years and people still haven't gotten over Rome, the British empire will be thought back to fondly for millenia to come.

[Husar]

I wouldn't get your hopes up. Its been 1600 years and people still haven't gotten over Rome, the British empire will be thought back to fondly for millenia to come.

You can't even get your own neighbors to like you: http://www.eirigi.org/latest/latest220511_2.html

http://www.johnhorse.com/trail/00/bg/21azz.htm
http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/3391728

Just because some people like you nowadays there is no reason that contemporaries thought the same.
Rome has brought technology to others but it still happened through brutal war and conquering.
Had the German Reich won the war and established a new Reich for a thousand years where many technological advancements had been made, the survivors may also have thought fondly of it after a few hundred years. But I have never heard someone say that such a prospect would excuse the murders committed to establish it. And the same is true for every other empire.

[Pannonian]

You can't even get your own neighbors to like you: http://www.eirigi.org/latest/latest220511_2.html

http://www.johnhorse.com/trail/00/bg/21azz.htm
http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/3391728

Just because some people like you nowadays there is no reason that contemporaries thought the same.
Rome has brought technology to others but it still happened through brutal war and conquering.
Had the German Reich won the war and established a new Reich for a thousand years where many technological advancements had been made, the survivors may also have thought fondly of it after a few hundred years. But I have never heard someone say that such a prospect would excuse the murders committed to establish it. And the same is true for every other empire.

Why should it need to excuse it? It was par for the course for empires and kingdoms back then. No-one blames the African chiefs for enslaving African continentals in the first place, they only blame the British for transporting and using them. Hell, when we stopped the practice and started forcing slavers to release their captives (and who else in history did this before us?), we had to resettle them in out of the way places so they'd be safe from the original continental slavers. As for telling the Brits to suck it up, we do. We admit our history of using slaves and in inhumane conditions. We admitted that back in the 19th century. That's why we stopped doing it. To atone for our previous sins, we progressively stopped slavery, freed all remaining slaves in the empire, stopped other countries from transporting slaves, and resettled all those we'd captured from slavers wherever we could. All the later bits are being ignored, even though we were singularly principled in doing this at a time when slavery was the norm. Instead, we're asked to go back to the first sentence, "we used slaves in inhumane conditions", and ignore everything else.

[Husar]

Why should it need to excuse it? It was par for the course for empires and kingdoms back then. No-one blames the African chiefs for enslaving African continentals in the first place, they only blame the British for transporting and using them. Hell, when we stopped the practice and started forcing slavers to release their captives (and who else in history did this before us?), we had to resettle them in out of the way places so they'd be safe from the original continental slavers. As for telling the Brits to suck it up, we do. We admit our history of using slaves and in inhumane conditions. We admitted that back in the 19th century. That's why we stopped doing it. To atone for our previous sins, we progressively stopped slavery, freed all remaining slaves in the empire, stopped other countries from transporting slaves, and resettled all those we'd captured from slavers wherever we could. All the later bits are being ignored, even though we were singularly principled in doing this at a time when slavery was the norm. Instead, we're asked to go back to the first sentence, "we used slaves in inhumane conditions", and ignore everything else.

No, you just have a tendency to come across as people who ignore the first sentence and talk about the latter part all the time.

[Pannonian]

Tell you what, this thread wouldn't be well-placed in the Monastery. Judging the past by the standards of the present is a big no-no for modern historians.

[Husar]

Tell you what, this thread wouldn't be well-placed in the Monastery. Judging the past by the standards of the present is a big no-no for modern historians.

But if everything is always okay, how do you measure improvements?

[Montmorency]

But if everything is always okay, how do you measure improvements?

Moral improvements? Stuff that hooey.

Tell you what: these debates can be made moot by simply yoking all nations under the authority of a OWG.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Moral improvements? Stuff that hooey.

Tell you what: these debates can be made moot by simply yoking all nations under the authority of a OWG.

Our squid overlords apparently prefer things to remain sub rosa.

[Kadagar_AV]

Re: What does the UK, France and the Netherlands have in common?

Good neighbors :creep:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Re: What does the UK, France and the Netherlands have in common?

Good neighbors :creep:

Kad':

Why did you say that? The only nation at the nexus of all three is Belgium. Andres is already insufferable with his "my beer is better" and "have some mayo with your fries.."

You're only going to encourage him......

[Pannonian]

Kad':

Why did you say that? The only nation at the nexus of all three is Belgium. Andres is already insufferable with his "my beer is better" and "have some mayo with your fries.."

You're only going to encourage him......

You've forgotten the squid nation, which has a common border with a majority of the world's countries.

[Husar]

Moral improvements? Stuff that hooey.

You and your emotionless, empiric world view again...


Tell you what: these debates can be made moot by simply yoking all nations under the authority of a OWG.

I've always argued for that and said it will come anyway. It's the British who refuse even the EU as a step towards that...

[Slyspy]

No, you just have a tendency to come across as people who ignore the first sentence and talk about the latter part all the time.


I don't understand why you have such an axe to grind.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I wasn't the one who claimed that colonialism was a charity effort.

No, but the poem kinda gives the lie to your statement about not building any schools, libraries, etc. Strange as it might seem not even the British were purely moustache twirling villains.

[HoreTore]

I've always argued for that and said it will come anyway. It's the British who refuse even the EU as a step towards that...

Nationalistic dreams of a bygone era.

They'll come to terms with reality(that britain is largely irrelevant to the world) eventually, it's just a matter of time.

[HoreTore]

No, but the poem kinda gives the lie to your statement about not building any schools, libraries, etc. Strange as it might seem not even the British were purely moustache twirling villains.

....And a murderer might be a loving father, but what do I care?

[Husar]

No, but the poem kinda gives the lie to your statement about not building any schools, libraries, etc. Strange as it might seem not even the British were purely moustache twirling villains.

I never said they were, I said they always behave as though they never did anything wrong and everyone who doesn't like their colonial adventures is an evil liar because the whole thing was really great for everyone involved.


I don't understand why you have such an axe to grind.

You mean you don't understand why I think laughing at people who are not appreciative of your past imperial adventures and the countless wars you waged to gain superiority in addition to you "in your face" attitude about it may come across as arrogant and condescending?

[Greyblades]

I don't understand why you have such an axe to grind.

He's german, he's conditioned to see nationalism as the 8th and greatest deadly sin.

Probably also a bit of jealousy against those who's national history isnt 100% encompassed with shame.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

He's german, he's conditioned to see nationalism as the 8th and greatest deadly sin.

Probably also a bit of jealousy against those who's national history isnt 100% encompassed with shame.

Tad harsh there 'blades.

I'm comfortable with nationalism and see it as largely healthy, but one has to acknowledge that -- at least at the unthinking level -- it can create problems.

Nor would I agree that the national history of Germany is entirely an exercise in shame. The First Reich's efforts for a "place in the sun" were hardly different from their peers of that era and their colonial excesses certainly no worse than those of Belgium for example. The Second Reich's weaknesses were probably an inevitability given the economic turmoil of the era and the results of Versailles. It isn't as though my country didn't manage to opt out of the League of Nations it founded during that same era as well as watch the administration sell the naval oil reserve for personal profit. The Third Reich certainly evokes shame but that is not all their history.

[Kadagar_AV]

He's german, he's conditioned to see nationalism as the 8th and greatest deadly sin.

Probably also a bit of jealousy against those who's national history isnt 100% encompassed with shame.

Really, you went there?

My grandmother was in a forced prostitution concentration camp, and my grandfather was leading a resistance group and was generally hunted and shot after by the Gestapo. My father was tossed around between countries to avoid Gestapo.

If I can forgive the Germans of today, so should you.

Didn't you come from the UK? Do you want us to judge you by your darkest time in history?

I'm by and large a swede, should I be ashamed because my viking ancestors raped yours?

Germany has done pretty much everything in the book to get over with that chapter in history, and repent it. To be quite honest, I don't see why they still put up with all the ****...

[Kralizec]

....And a murderer might be a loving father, but what do I care?

You should; because the Carribean countries are making the claim that the way they were treated by their respective colonial powers negatively affected their development.

Ergo, to come at any meaningful answer to the question "how much did they harm us?", you have to weigh the positives as well.

Regardless; I'm not principally opposed to helping Suriname develop further. But given the current state of politics in that country I have a buttload of reservations regarding A) their motivation B) the (f)utility of "reparations".


Besides the moral issue, there is also the legal issue. For your particular example, I can say that there is no legal link from Duchy of Normandy to modern France, or from Gaul to modern France or from Roman Empire to modern Italy. Likewise, modern France couldn't demand compensation from modern UK for HYW.That means you can't ask compensation because the entity you want to request it from no longer exists and there is no successor state. Russian Federation is a successor state of SU and by default it is expected to honor any and all international obligations of the SU. SU, on the other hand isn't considered (legally) a successor state to Imperial Russia.

I'd say that countries like Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia have a much more tangible claim against Russia than any of the Carribean countries have in this case.

[Sp4]

This "reparations" isn't something that could actually happen could it? Holding modern people responsible for their ignorant and conquering ancestors is the height of stupid.

Ah aehm.. yes.. I agree but what do I know :D

[Greyblades]

Tad harsh there 'blades.
Yeah, sorry. I have little patience when I see someone writing off my nation's history as being all evil etc.

Nor would I agree that the national history of Germany is entirely an exercise in shame. The First Reich's efforts for a "place in the sun" were hardly different from their peers of that era and their colonial excesses certainly no worse than those of Belgium for example. The Second Reich's weaknesses were probably an inevitability given the economic turmoil of the era and the results of Versailles. It isn't as though my country didn't manage to opt out of the League of Nations it founded during that same era as well as watch the administration sell the naval oil reserve for personal profit. The Third Reich certainly evokes shame but that is not all their history.
I was referring less to thier history being all shameful and more that the the third reich pretty much overshadows the rest, as far as anyone cares all the good done in the previous 1000+ years was made meaningless by it. That's assuming that anyone is even aware of the first reich, unless they're history buffs most people I meet dont even know about the HRE's existance.

[Pannonian]

Tad harsh there 'blades.

I'm comfortable with nationalism and see it as largely healthy, but one has to acknowledge that -- at least at the unthinking level -- it can create problems.

Nor would I agree that the national history of Germany is entirely an exercise in shame. The First Reich's efforts for a "place in the sun" were hardly different from their peers of that era and their colonial excesses certainly no worse than those of Belgium for example. The Second Reich's weaknesses were probably an inevitability given the economic turmoil of the era and the results of Versailles. It isn't as though my country didn't manage to opt out of the League of Nations it founded during that same era as well as watch the administration sell the naval oil reserve for personal profit. The Third Reich certainly evokes shame but that is not all their history.

From what I've read, the pre-WW 1 Germans managed their African colonies better than we managed our non-whites, and post-WW2 they handled their legacy better than we managed anything. Their mistake was to make a hash of Europe, where history has been written for the last few hundred years. The Nazi period apart, I don't think the Germans have anything to be ashamed of over and above everyone else's skeletons in the closet, and plenty to be proud of.

[HoreTore]

You should; because the Carribean countries are making the claim that the way they were treated by their respective colonial powers negatively affected their development.

Ergo, to come at any meaningful answer to the question "how much did they harm us?", you have to weigh the positives as well.

Ah, so in a case of child abuse, you would have to count the number of times daddy touched their nono's AND the number of stories he told at night...?

[Kadagar_AV]

Ah, so in a case of child abuse, you would have to count the number of times daddy touched their nono's AND the number of stories he told at night...?

Again, you went there?

What's going on here!?

Did we start being stupid all at once?

[CBR]

Ah, so in a case of child abuse, you would have to count the number of times daddy touched their nono's AND the number of stories he told at night...?
Think it is more something like your great-great-great-great grandfather touched your great-great-great grandmother and now you want money because it clearly still affects you.

The average GDP per capita of the Caribbean islands seems to be 4-5 times higher than the African nations where their ancestors originated. But of course that can be blamed on evil whitey too!

[Montmorency]

Think it is more something like your great-great-great-great grandfather touched your great-great-great grandmother and now you want money because it clearly still affects you.

No, that's not quite it.

It would be more like this (8:50-9:20):
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xty8al_love-at-first-bite-first-part_shortfilms

Yes, to get the analogy right Britain would have to be an ancient vampire that terrorized peasants from distant lands, draining them of their lifesblood for its sustenance - but has since moderated its depredations considerably.

But, you know, some people do have genuinely-long memories - like the Afghan who was certain that Britain has been engaged in Afghanistan the past decade as revenge for its defeat at Maiwand (2nd Anglo-Afghan War).

On the other hand, :daisy: those guys.

[HoreTore]

Think it is more something like your great-great-great-great grandfather touched your great-great-great grandmother and now you want money because it clearly still affects you.

The average GDP per capita of the Caribbean islands seems to be 4-5 times higher than the African nations where their ancestors originated. But of course that can be blamed on evil whitey too!

I don't care about the subject of this thread one bit, as I want no part of this nationalist wankfest celebrating some of the worst crimes against humanity in history.

My comment was only about the notion that you have to weigh pros and cons when discussing a crime.

[Kralizec]

Ah, so in a case of child abuse, you would have to count the number of times daddy touched their nono's AND the number of stories he told at night...?

Karl Marx was in favour of British rule over India because he thought that the suffering of current generations was worth the accelerated development that countless future generations would benefit from. I'd say that most colonial regimes, allthough horrorible, caused these countries to develop faster than they would have in isolation.

Since Marx was a better (i.e. more) leftist than you, your argument requires no further rebuttal :smug:


The average GDP per capita of the Caribbean islands seems to be 4-5 times higher than the African nations where their ancestors originated. But of course that can be blamed on evil whitey too!

I was going to say something along the same lines, but I don't think that this adresses all of the issues.

I think that at the time of emancipation (my country was, sadly, a lot slower than the Brits) the European powers had a responsibility towards those former slaves for what had been done to them. In addition, since they (in most cases) were still subject to the same European goverments, these governments had the same responsibility towards them as they do towards any of their whitey citizens in terms of education, providing a certain level of infrastructure and whatnot.

In short, I think that if there should be reparations at all, it should be for any negligence from the moment of emancipation and onwards.

[Kadagar_AV]

I don't care about the subject of this thread one bit, as I want no part of this nationalist wankfest celebrating some of the worst crimes against humanity in history.

My comment was only about the notion that you have to weigh pros and cons when discussing a crime.

Yeah... If one threw himself flat catching someone falling off of a bridge, he obviously not only have to pay for the lightbulb he destroyed in the process, he should also get ridiculed and shamed for eons.

This argument obviously isn't one of my better ones, I am just trying to connect to you on an even setting :rolleyes:

[HoreTore]

Karl Marx was in favour of British rule over India because he thought that the suffering of current generations was worth the accelerated development that countless future generations would benefit from. I'd say that most colonial regimes, allthough horrorible, caused these countries to develop faster than they would have in isolation.

Since Marx was a better (i.e. more) leftist than you, your argument requires no further rebuttal :smug:

Marx was full of shit anyway, his arguments are all invalid.

He and his buddy also believed killing the entire population of eastern europe was a splendid idea.

Not unlike so many English heroes...

[Montmorency]

He and his buddy also believed killing the entire population of eastern europe was a splendid idea.

I believe killing everyone is a splendid idea. :grin:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I believe killing everyone is a splendid idea. :grin:

Certainly would settle the anthropogenic climate change stuff.

[Husar]

Yeah, sorry. I have little patience when I see someone writing off my nation's history as being all evil etc.

I never said that.


I was referring less to thier history being all shameful and more that the the third reich pretty much overshadows the rest, as far as anyone cares all the good done in the previous 1000+ years was made meaningless by it. That's assuming that anyone is even aware of the first reich, unless they're history buffs most people I meet dont even know about the HRE's existance.

Well, to make my point more clear and since the Godwin alrady happened by now (I tried to avoid it), let me apply the British argument to WW2:
Basically you cannot blame Germany for the Holocaust because if you look at the net benefit, the Jews havethei own democratic country now, German rocket science got the USA and Russia into space, countless other scientific advances were made purely due to the war effort. The USA got off their arses and started to police the world. The EU was founded and all European countries entered an unparalleled peaceful cooperation that made everyone rich. And all this net benefit happened because Hitler showed Europe how bad the alternative is and really made everyone want to go forward. So clearly the next time someone says the Holocaust was bad I'll laugh in his face and tell him how ridiculous it is to say that given the clearly and overwhelmingly positive net benefits of the whole episode.


Karl Marx was in favour of British rule over India because he thought that the suffering of current generations was worth the accelerated development that countless future generations would benefit from. I'd say that most colonial regimes, allthough horrorible, caused these countries to develop faster than they would have in isolation.

Now that is a very interesting point, I didn't know we had this many British marxists here. ~D

[Greyblades]

I never said that.Not word for word. Same difference.




Well, to make my point more clear and since the Godwin alrady happened by now (I tried to avoid it), let me apply the British argument to WW2:
Basically you cannot blame Germany for the Holocaust because if you look at the net benefit, the Jews havethei own democratic country now, German rocket science got the USA and Russia into space, countless other scientific advances were made purely due to the war effort. The USA got off their arses and started to police the world. The EU was founded and all European countries entered an unparalleled peaceful cooperation that made everyone rich. And all this net benefit happened because Hitler showed Europe how bad the alternative is and really made everyone want to go forward. So clearly the next time someone says the Holocaust was bad I'll laugh in his face and tell him how ridiculous it is to say that given the clearly and overwhelmingly positive net benefits of the whole episode.

...No, the historical net benefits of colonialism makes it easier to swallow, it doesnt absolve in and of it's self, Its the reasons behind the two that makes it forgivable. Britain gets a better rap because the atrocities that happened in its history happened because of greed and/or neglect, germany gets a crap rap beacuse it's atrocites were needless and done out of hate and sadism. Slavery was ultimately done to make money, the africans got screwed over because they were the easiest and cheapest people to enslave, Colonialism too was done to make money, the natives got screwed over because they got in the way of making that money. There was no specific hate for africans or the natives and if there was an easier way to make the same amount of money that didnt require screwing over thier fellow man they would have done it.
In contrast the holocaust was done for shits and giggles and the jews were screwed over specifically because germany's government hated jews.

Additionally britain cleaned up its own messes, when the times changed and slavery was declared unacceptable britain took it upon themselves to end the slave trade and freed thier slaves, after taking time to make sure thier economy could survive it happening before doing so of course. Germany only stopped after being forced to through war.

[Husar]

Not word for word. Same difference.

No, not even indirectly. You might want to read all my posts again.


...No, the historical net benefits of colonialism makes it easier to swallow, it doesnt absolve in and of it's self, Its the reasons behind the two that makes it forgivable. Britain gets a better rap because the atrocities that happened in its history happened because of greed and/or neglect, germany gets a crap rap beacuse it's atrocites were needless and done out of hate and sadism. Slavery was ultimately done to make money, the africans got screwed over because they were the easiest and cheapest people to enslave, Colonialism too was done to make money, the natives got screwed over because they got in the way of making that money. There was no specific hate for africans or the natives and if there was an easier way to make the same amount of money that didnt require screwing over thier fellow man they would have done it.
In contrast the holocaust was done for shits and giggles and the jews were screwed over specifically because germany's government hated jews.

Additionally britain cleaned up its own messes, when the times changed and slavery was declared unacceptable britain took it upon themselves to end the slave trade and freed thier slaves, after taking time to make sure thier economy could survive it happening before doing so of course. Germany only stopped after being forced to through war.

Wow, that's some nice spin right there...
First off the Nazis actually believed a lot of the stuff that made them hate the Jews, they didn't do it for fun and giggles unless they were all psychopaths or sociopaths. Surely there were some among them but to claim this for all of them is quite absurd.

And secondly, you completely ignore all the racist theories which the british had just as well, thinking themselves to be inherently superior to their slaves and colonial natives. http://aidwatchers.com/2009/09/how-the-british-invented-“development”-to-keep-the-empire-and-substitute-for-racism/

Further you ignore that the Nazi government actually had a sizeable amount of enemies among the populace which resulted in assassination attempts and underground resistance while the British government enjoyed mostly support and I'm not aware of any sophisticated attempts to end the colonial wars by the British public.

I'm also glad to say I found British people who agree with me:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/27/britain-slave-trade

"Britons were the first in the world to abolish slavery," says Hall. "That's the way in which the history's been written; that's the way it's been memorialised. The first histories that are written do that precisely: for example, in Macaulay's great History of England, he scarcely mentions slavery – scarcely mentions the Caribbean – but he celebrates the fact of abolition. And that's a very common pattern."

There is, she adds, an understandable reluctance to scratch away at the most shameful and horrific aspects of empire when one can instead concentrate on abolition, railway building and the export of the British legal system.

But to ignore slavery and its aftermath is to ignore a significant strand of the social, cultural and economic development of the UK and the Caribbean.
I never said Britain's history is 100% negative, I said your glorification of the good parts and your acknowledgement of the bad parts are out of proportion. And that's incidentally why Germans are now so careful with nationalism, beause it usually leads to such views where the atrocities are swept under a rug and the good parts are highlighted. Of course the whole world ikes to remind us of WW2 and the Holocaust now because they can feel better about themselves and their own mistakes then.

[Slyspy]

No, not even indirectly. You might want to read all my posts again.



Wow, that's some nice spin right there...
First off the Nazis actually believed a lot of the stuff that made them hate the Jews, they didn't do it for fun and giggles unless they were all psychopaths or sociopaths. Surely there were some among them but to claim this for all of them is quite absurd.

And secondly, you completely ignore all the racist theories which the british had just as well, thinking themselves to be inherently superior to their slaves and colonial natives. http://aidwatchers.com/2009/09/how-the-british-invented-“development”-to-keep-the-empire-and-substitute-for-racism/

Further you ignore that the Nazi government actually had a sizeable amount of enemies among the populace which resulted in assassination attempts and underground resistance while the British government enjoyed mostly support and I'm not aware of any sophisticated attempts to end the colonial wars by the British public.

I'm also glad to say I found British people who agree with me:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/27/britain-slave-trade

I never said Britain's history is 100% negative, I said your glorification of the good parts and your acknowledgement of the bad parts are out of proportion. And that's incidentally why Germans are now so careful with nationalism, beause it usually leads to such views where the atrocities are swept under a rug and the good parts are highlighted. Of course the whole world ikes to remind us of WW2 and the Holocaust now because they can feel better about themselves and their own mistakes then.


You shouldn't let your own sense of persecution cloud your judgement.

[Husar]

You shouldn't let your own sense of persecution cloud your judgement.

I don't feel persecuted, you might want to stop making things up to distract from your British mistakes.

[Fisherking]

The notion that British atrocities are somehow less bad because they were “for profit” is outlandish!

Instead of some sick madman dictator giving the orders, it was Parliament or government agents giving the orders.

That logic seems a bit twisted.


Every nation had dark moments in its past. PR and spin a side, dead people are dead people. Atrocities are atrocities.

I see little difference in whether an atrocity was committed for ideological reasons or the profit motive.

One can blame the Nazi Party for the German crimes. For the British, who? Parliament? British Capitalism? British Nationalism? British Imperialism?

Not everyone sees Britain as a benevolent peace bringer or liberator. The US has the same problem. They have a view of history where they were always the “good guy” and can’t understand that others don’t share their views.

The past is past, though. No point in cataloging all the wrongs of humanity.

[Greyblades]

Wow, that's some nice spin right there...Sir, I may rotate, exagerate, obfucate and maybe even gravitate but I do not "spin".

First off the Nazis actually believed a lot of the stuff that made them hate the Jews, they didn't do it for fun and giggles unless they were all psychopaths or sociopaths. Surely there were some among them but to claim this for all of them is quite absurd.A poor choice of words, though I suspect the ones involved in the worst of it had less than stoic reasons for thier participation, perhaps "doing it out of malice" is more appropriate to my meaning.


And secondly, you completely ignore all the racist theories which the british had just as well, thinking themselves to be inherently superior to their slaves and colonial natives. http://aidwatchers.com/2009/09/how-the-british-invented-“development”-to-keep-the-empire-and-substitute-for-racism/ Ah yes, theories that provoked an attitude of seeing the natives as childlike and prone to savagery on thier own. While these theories resulted in much patronising and proved a detriment to equal rights causes in britain I see it as more embarrassing than damning, believers probably genuinely believed that what they were doing was for the best of the natives and those who didnt used it as an excuse to exploit them, good and bad came of it and we grew out of it later on.

Further you ignore that the Nazi government actually had a sizeable amount of enemies among the populace which resulted in assassination attempts and underground resistance while the British government enjoyed mostly support and I'm not aware of any sophisticated attempts to end the colonial wars by the British public. Well I dont exactly equate the two, what I see as important in when determining when a war is objectionable (peyond pacifistic feelings of war is bad, grr war)is the conduct of the sides, most of the colonial wars britain was involved in during the 1800's were conventional land disputes and the violence stayed on the battlefields with civillians being left alone for the most part, as long as it stayed that way the average 1800 person had little to object to. The nazis systematically shipped conquered undesirable civillians off to death camps, bit of a disconnect

Slavery had a lot of opposition in the form of the quaker movement and the concentration camps of the boer war resulted in much scandal at home, the obvious horrors were opposed and alot the issues of the time we see in hindsight we didnt even know were problems. As for colonialism in itself, it wasnt seen as objectionable because they didnt share the conception that colonisation is objectionable in and of itself.


I never said Britain's history is 100% negative, I said your glorification of the good parts and your acknowledgement of the bad parts are out of proportion.
Which is ironic because my main frustration is how downplayed it all is here in britain, the empire wasnt taught in my school (catholic school in protestant England, was probably to be expected) and I barely had any inkling of its existance until I was 15 and discovered wikipedia. Probably what exhaserbates it is that the only good things on TV is american, they havent done half the good we did and yet its them shouting "we rule" at every opportunity.


The notion that British atrocities are somehow less bad because they were “for profit” is outlandish!
...I said the people carrying them out seem less bad, not the atrocities themselves, the british atrocities are less bad because they are genuinely less bad than what the nazis did.


Not everyone sees Britain as a benevolent peace bringer or liberator. The US has the same problem. They have a view of history where they were always the “good guy” and can’t understand that others don’t share their views.Pretty sure pretentions as liberators and peace bringers are an american invention.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...The past is past, though. No point in cataloging all the wrongs of humanity.

This is a noble concept, and would probably a benefit to us all, but current events suggest that the catalogs will still be made -- the violent cause of the moment must be "justified."

"We must never forget" is the cautionary watchword of history, but far too many (most?) of us are too willing to add "...or forgive."

[HoreTore]

This is a noble concept, and would probably a benefit to us all, but current events suggest that the catalogs will still be made -- the violent cause of the moment must be "justified."

"We must never forget" is the cautionary watchword of history, but far too many (most?) of us are too willing to add "...or forgive."

So the responsibility is purely on the (formerly) oppressed? They are the ones who need to learn to forgive? The oppressor has no responsibility?

These debates always have a tendency to switch victim and abuser around. Western nations immediately go into victim-mode when faced with crimes of the past.

Man up and do like the Aussie PM did a few years ago: apologize.

[Fisherking]

Greyblades

The only way I see the Nazis as being worse was in their efficiency methods. But slightly more humane than starvation.

Concentration Camps, better read up on the British using them in the Second Bore War, just as bad as anything coming out of Germany. They housed mostly women and children.

We can skip over the 800 year history of rule in Ireland. Too many atrocities to list.

Let’s just take a look at one item in India:


In his book Late Victorian Holocausts, published in 2001, Mike Davis tells the story of the famines which killed between 12 and 29 million Indians(1). These people were, he demonstrates, murdered by British state policy.
When an El Nino drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan plateau in 1876 there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the viceroy, Lord Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent its export to England. In 1877 and 1878, at height of the famine, grain merchants exported a record 6.4 million hundredweight of wheat. As the peasants began to starve, government officials were ordered “to discourage relief works in every possible way”(2). The Anti-Charitable Contributions Act of 1877 prohibited “at the pain of imprisonment private relief donations that potentially interfered with the market fixing of grain prices.” The only relief permitted in most districts was hard labour, from which anyone in an advanced state of starvation was turned away. Within the labour camps, the workers were given less food than the inmates of Buchenwald. In 1877, monthly mortality in the camps equated to an annual death rate of 94%.
As millions died, the imperial government launched “a militarized campaign to collect the tax arrears accumulated during the drought.” The money, which ruined those who might otherwise have survived the famine, was used by Lytton to fund his war in Afghanistan. Even in places which had produced a crop surplus, the government’s export policies, like Stalin’s in the Ukraine, manufactured hunger. In the North-western provinces, Oud and the Punjab, which had brought in record harvests in the preceding three years, at least 1.25m died.

1. Mike Davis, 2001. Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino Famines and the Making of the Third World. Verso, London.
2. An order from the lieutenant-governor Sir George Couper to his district officers. Quoted in Mike Davis, ibid.

We won’t even look at any of the rest, but I assure you the 9 million the Nazis murdered do not hold a candle to the deaths of those under British Rule.

[Greyblades]

The only way I see the Nazis as being worse was in their efficiency methods. But slightly more humane than starvation...You do know that the nazis did starve people right? And that starvation was intentional and not a side effect of thier general policies.


Concentration Camps, better read up on the British using them in the Second Bore War, just as bad as anything coming out of Germany. They housed mostly women and children.I mentioned it earlier, due to weak admin and outrage at home when revealed, immense cock up but not intentional act by Britain. And they didnt have ovens or gas chambers.


Let’s just take a look at one item in India:

[...]

We won’t even look at any of the rest, but I assure you the 9 million the Nazis murdered do not hold a candle to the deaths of those under British Rule.

This isnt a numbers game, mao's china killed around 70 million yet the nazi's are considered the bigger bastards because they did it out of idealogical hatred and with no purpose but to kill them. India's famine as you said was down to the acts of Lytton, either by greed, stupidity, malice, none know but him, and the blame falls on his person and the government who appointed him, the blame falls on Britain. But to say that this is even close to equaling the acts of Nazi germany is disingenuous to say the least.

Incidentally I looked up the The Anti-Charitable Contributions Act of 1877 and all google had was a bunch of reposting of mike davis's book and one blog saying it was made up in a satire of the viceroy's policies made at the time (http://sodabottle.blogspot.co.uk/2009_10_01_archive.html) Make of that what you will.

[Fisherking]

We could also go to Kenya, and that is not the only incident of starvation in India, the last coming in 1943-45.

No one is saying that Britain is an evil that should be purged. Just a nation that seems to overlook what was done elsewhere, in their name.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So the responsibility is purely on the (formerly) oppressed? They are the ones who need to learn to forgive? The oppressor has no responsibility?

These debates always have a tendency to switch victim and abuser around. Western nations immediately go into victim-mode when faced with crimes of the past.

Man up and do like the Aussie PM did a few years ago: apologize.

I cannot apologize for something I have not done. I can only express regret for the wrongs done by others before me (which IS worthwhile, don't mistake me). Fisherking referenced things more broadly in the line I quoted. He was implying that until we focused more on effecting a better future than on assessing blame in the past that we would be missing something. I concurred, but despaired of it being likely -- my personal experience suggests that to truly forgive is tough to do -- regardless of any apology or regret tendered.

[HoreTore]

I cannot apologize for something I have not done.

So what?

The Aussie PM wasn't responsible, yet he apologized on behalf of Australia. The Norwegian PM didnt ship the jews off to the Nazi's, yet he apologized for it a couple of years ago.

Symbolic actions, definitely, but very meaningful for the descendants of those who were wronged.

The Brits haven't apologized to anyone, and they need to do it.

EDIT: Also, we are talking about state actions and state responsibilities here, not individual actions or responsibilities.

[InsaneApache]

The Brits haven't apologized to anyone, and they need to do it.

Wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6185176.stm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/blair-issues-apology-for-irish-potato-famine-1253790.html

So can we stop the Brit bashing now?

[a completely inoffensive name]

This thread should be renamed, "Evidence that the European Union is anything but."

I have to say, I love British culture (blasting through Sherlock right now on Netflix) and politics and food and weather and history.

But when it comes down to it, Germany will always have a special place in my heart due to Leibniz and his notation. Way to half ass it with a single dot, Newton. Jesus.

[InsaneApache]

Evidence that the European Union is anything but.

Quite.

[Fisherking]

Yorkshire men get a pass, it is all the Midlanders and Southerners that should be strung up! (only kidding)

It is not about the British People anyway. It is about the Government, and their education system that covers over incontinent facts. Just like every other government and their educational system.

Governments seem to be a necessary evil we all must put up with and they are intertwined with Nationalism to a degree that makes them hard to separate.

It is natural to take pride in accomplishments and forget the mistakes, but when viewing others we tend to remember the bad and gloss over their accomplishments.

[Husar]

The problem with the EU is that countries which are not in Europe such as Britain and Turkey are considered as members in the first place.

And what Fisherking says is of course not true for the German education system. We learned numerous times about all the horrible things we did and the rest was about the glorious French revolution with some Romans and Bismarck thrown in.

[Pannonian]

Yorkshire men get a pass, it is all the Midlanders and Southerners that should be strung up! (only kidding)

It is not about the British People anyway. It is about the Government, and their education system that covers over incontinent facts. Just like every other government and their educational system.

Governments seem to be a necessary evil we all must put up with and they are intertwined with Nationalism to a degree that makes them hard to separate.

It is natural to take pride in accomplishments and forget the mistakes, but when viewing others we tend to remember the bad and gloss over their accomplishments.

The education system doesn't cover the bad bits of empire in much detail. It covers the good bits of empire in even less detail. During history, what I was taught was overwhelmingly domestic history. The only bit of empire that crept in was Ireland and how we variously screwed the Irish over. Other than that, it was British political reforms from the 1860s onwards, then the first world war. Other than anglo-centrism, I'm not sure what kind of nationalism was evident in my history curriculum.

[Sir Moody]

The problem with the EU is that countries which are not in Europe such as Britain and Turkey are considered as members in the first place.

errr sorry what?

Britain is IN Europe - while the public deny it at every opportunity our country has always being Geographically and politically part of Europe - its only very recent modern history which has seen us distance ourselves from Europe somewhat... I am not sure what angle you are pulling here but it sounds jingoistic to me...

as for Turkey... they aren't in the EU yet so what are you harping on about...

[Sarmatian]

This thread should be renamed, "Evidence that the European Union is anything but."

I have to say, I love British culture (blasting through Sherlock right now on Netflix) and politics and food and weather and history.

But when it comes down to it, Germany will always have a special place in my heart due to Leibniz and his notation. Way to half ass it with a single dot, Newton. Jesus.

This is where you lost me.

[HoreTore]

Wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6185176.stm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/blair-issues-apology-for-irish-potato-famine-1253790.html

So can we stop the Brit bashing now?

I say we continue our most cherished activity:


But Mr Blair stopped short of issuing a full apology

[Husar]

errr sorry what?

Britain is IN Europe - while the public deny it at every opportunity our country has always being Geographically and politically part of Europe - its only very recent modern history which has seen us distance ourselves from Europe somewhat... I am not sure what angle you are pulling here but it sounds jingoistic to me...

as for Turkey... they aren't in the EU yet so what are you harping on about...

Yeah, I lied, but I don't care. Because if I had written that Europe should stop opposing EU integration and accept that it is a part of Europe, I'd be looking at another 3 pages of discussion about how Britain is special...

As for Turkey, I wrote "considered as members" for a reason...

And IA, as HoreTore hinted at, half of your BBC article is about how this was only the first step in the right direction and far from enough.

[Sir Moody]

And IA, as HoreTore hinted at, half of your BBC article is about how this was only the first step in the right direction and far from enough.

and I agree wholeheartedly - we should issue an full apology about the monsterous things the Empire did - and we should be educating the public on both the good and the bad of our Empire days - I also found the "my Monster was better than your Monster" argument laughable, I simply took umbrage at your insistence Britain wasn't part of Europe... its bad enough I have to listen to our isolationists when they try to pull that one...

[Fragony]

and I agree wholeheartedly - we should issue an full apology about the monsterous things the Empire did - and we should be educating the public on both the good and the bad of our Empire days - I also found the "my Monster was better than your Monster" argument laughable, I simply took umbrage at your insistence Britain wasn't part of Europe... its bad enough I have to listen to our isolationists when they try to pull that one...

Our former colonies don't even want an apoligy, they just want to move on. There is no grudge in any of the former colonies to speak of.

[Sir Moody]

Our former colonies don't even want an apoligy, they just want to move on. There is no grudge in any of the former colonies to speak of.

that is true of most of our former colonies as well but that doesn't mean we should distance ourselves from the wrongs our ancestors committed... I am unsure of where I stand on reparations but an apology is a simple acknowledgment of our mistakes

[Greyblades]

I also found the "my Monster was better than your Monster" argument laughable,...

In a world populated solely by monsters it is the only argument you can have on the subject.

As for reparation, I dare say leaving most of the empire without needing to be kicked out in a costly war (an unusual if not almost unprecedented act) should cover a large amount of what is deemed owed. Also take into consideration the millions we have given them over the years in aid.

[InsaneApache]

The thing is, who will actually pay? The taxpayer? If so there are millions of members of former colonies living and working in the UK. Do they have to contribute or will they be exempt? I not, why not? If they do have to pay then the whole thing becomes ludicrous.

Like unraveling spaghetti.

Never mind the fact that I, my children and possible my grand-children will be asked to pay for something that even my great, great grandad didn't get anything out of. Perhaps the descendents of the plantations and slave ships should pay. My guess is they can't and wont be numerous enough to make any difference.

[Sir Moody]

The thing is, who will actually pay? The taxpayer? If so there are millions of members of former colonies living and working in the UK. Do they have to contribute or will they be exempt? I not, why not? If they do have to pay then the whole thing becomes ludicrous.

Like unraveling spaghetti.

Never mind the fact that I, my children and possible my grand-children will be asked to pay for something that even my great, great grandad didn't get anything out of. Perhaps the descendents of the plantations and slave ships should pay. My guess is they can't and wont be numerous enough to make any difference.

which is precisely why I am unsure where I stand on reparations...

[Husar]

The taxpayers also bailed out the banks even if they had no responsibility for the whole real estate failure.
Sometimes life just isn't fair...it's not like slavery was fair either.

[Montmorency]

Don't you esteem fairness?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Don't you esteem fairness?

Yes, in no small part because of its rarity.

[Pannonian]

Don't you esteem fairness?

Read through the thread. See how the opinions of people who lived in these former colonies are dismissed in favour of philosophical arguments made by people living thousands of miles away. The correct approach is to start with the conclusion that Britain is wrong, then work backwards to find an argument that results in that conclusion, rejecting any evidence or arguments that might divert from that approach. Fairness is useful only if it results in the desired conclusion. If not, the world being unfair is also a useful argument as long as it also results in the conclusion that Britain is wrong.

Colonials thinking that Britain on balance might not have been such a bad thing? Stockholm syndrome causing the victims to like their kidnappers. Former colonials liking Britain even more now that they've had a taste of rule by their own native rulers? Not enough time has passed to show them how evil the British were and how much better off they are now the evil Brits are gone. Former colonials dedicating history exhibitions that showcase the achievements under British rule? Bias coming from these museums being made during the British era. Nope, it all goes back to the original wrong by the Brits which has never been admitted, even though there has never been any attempt to whitewash that event. I wonder what Sun Yatsen and the founders of the Chinese republic would have made of these efforts at excoriating British Hong Kong, particularly the arguments about victims getting to like their kidnappers. Apparently Stockholm syndrome kicks in after 100 years of British rule, but is somehow absent after 300 years of Manchurian rule.

[Husar]

Read through the thread. See how the opinions of people who lived in these former colonies are dismissed in favour of philosophical arguments made by people living thousands of miles away. The correct approach is to start with the conclusion that Britain is wrong, then work backwards to find an argument that results in that conclusion, rejecting any evidence or arguments that might divert from that approach. Fairness is useful only if it results in the desired conclusion. If not, the world being unfair is also a useful argument as long as it also results in the conclusion that Britain is wrong.

Colonials thinking that Britain on balance might not have been such a bad thing? Stockholm syndrome causing the victims to like their kidnappers. Former colonials liking Britain even more now that they've had a taste of rule by their own native rulers? Not enough time has passed to show them how evil the British were and how much better off they are now the evil Brits are gone. Former colonials dedicating history exhibitions that showcase the achievements under British rule? Bias coming from these museums being made during the British era. Nope, it all goes back to the original wrong by the Brits which has never been admitted, even though there has never been any attempt to whitewash that event. I wonder what Sun Yatsen and the founders of the Chinese republic would have made of these efforts at excoriating British Hong Kong, particularly the arguments about victims getting to like their kidnappers. Apparently Stockholm syndrome kicks in after 100 years of British rule, but is somehow absent after 300 years of Manchurian rule.

If you think it's unfair to make the modern British pay for past mistakes, you can start by giving me back my tax money that was spent paying reparations to Britain for a war that happened long before I was born.

[Greyblades]

Britain's vehicle by which it did it's wrongs we dismantled ourselves at our own cost and through our own volition, while yours had to be broken apart by, and at the cost of, everyone else while you fought against its destruction.

If the nazi's had been overthrown by the germans instead of requiring everyone else to enter into the most bloody and costly war in history to shift them, you wouldnt be paying, but history played out differently. People dont care who made the mess just who had to pay to clean it up.

[Sarmatian]

Read through the thread. See how the opinions of people who lived in these former colonies are dismissed in favour of philosophical arguments made by people living thousands of miles away. The correct approach is to start with the conclusion that Britain is wrong, then work backwards to find an argument that results in that conclusion, rejecting any evidence or arguments that might divert from that approach. Fairness is useful only if it results in the desired conclusion. If not, the world being unfair is also a useful argument as long as it also results in the conclusion that Britain is wrong.

Colonials thinking that Britain on balance might not have been such a bad thing? Stockholm syndrome causing the victims to like their kidnappers. Former colonials liking Britain even more now that they've had a taste of rule by their own native rulers? Not enough time has passed to show them how evil the British were and how much better off they are now the evil Brits are gone. Former colonials dedicating history exhibitions that showcase the achievements under British rule? Bias coming from these museums being made during the British era. Nope, it all goes back to the original wrong by the Brits which has never been admitted, even though there has never been any attempt to whitewash that event. I wonder what Sun Yatsen and the founders of the Chinese republic would have made of these efforts at excoriating British Hong Kong, particularly the arguments about victims getting to like their kidnappers. Apparently Stockholm syndrome kicks in after 100 years of British rule, but is somehow absent after 300 years of Manchurian rule.

You're talking about a colonial empire that covered quarter of the globe and exploited more than a billion people and dismiss it because of a few insignificant cases? Really?

[Greyblades]

You're talking about a colonial empire that covered quarter of the globe and exploited more than a billion people and dismiss it because of a few insignificant cases? Really? Why not it still was better for those 1 billion in the empire than it was for everything else on offer at the time. The world was kinda crap at the time.


Well, okay, it was better than everyone else, except France. Slightly.

[Sarmatian]

Why not it still was better for those 1 billion in the empire than it was for everything else on offer at the time.

And this is the core of the problem - average Brit still can't to grasp that colonization wasn't.a.good.thing.

To be fair, most of the other colonizers can't seem to grasp it, either...

[Kadagar_AV]

During my time in England, I couldn't help but notice that the Englishmen themselves referred to Europe as foreign.

Had to bite my tongue on several occasions - "Where do you think you live?"

Not that it matters much, just saying; Englishmen don't take being part of Europe for granted.

They also still talk about the Empire which is laughable

[a completely inoffensive name]

I would rather live in a culture of reluctant sympathy than a culture that doesn't neglect to pile on the guilt 24/7.

Oh wait, I live in the US, we don't even give sympathy because we are #1.

[Husar]

Britain's vehicle by which it did it's wrongs we dismantled ourselves at our own cost and through our own volition, while yours had to be broken apart by, and at the cost of, everyone else while you fought against its destruction.

If the nazi's had been overthrown by the germans instead of requiring everyone else to enter into the most bloody and costly war in history to shift them, you wouldnt be paying, but history played out differently. People dont care who made the mess just who had to pay to clean it up.

How is any of that my fault? Just the fact that people don't care ain't make it any more fair.

[Greyblades]

How is any of that my fault? Just the fact that people don't care ain't make it any more fair.

It money, its not supposed to be fair. We dont care taht your father's friends, uncle's, tennis partner was part of the nazis, or whatever. We see an estate taht owes us money for services rendered and expenses entailed, that your inheritance is not of your fault is beside the point.


They also still talk about the Empire which is laughable Hmm, complaining that someone's bragging about conquests you find embarrassing and ultimately worthless. Kettle, old chum, I do believe Pot just called you black.

[Husar]

It money, its not supposed to be fair. We dont care taht your father's friends, uncle's, tennis partner was part of the nazis, or whatever. We see an estate taht owes us money for services rendered and expenses entailed, that your inheritance is not of your fault is beside the point.

That was exactly the argument I made why Britin should pay, so what's your point? Just pay already, we see an estate that owes people money for crimes committed and damages done, that your inheritance is not your fault is beside the point.

[Greyblades]

That was exactly the argument I made why Britin should pay, so what's your point? Just pay already, we see an estate that owes people money for crimes committed and damages done, that your inheritance is not your fault is beside the point.

Except your debt was agreed to in print and enforced by war, whereas our "debt" is pure speculation, dubious in validity, asked for by neither involved sides and demanded by outside parties powerless to enforce it. Unfortunately your ancestors signed the dotted line to a sum to be paid over time, ours signed to cessation of land ownership and we are 4-7 decades too late to do anything about it.

[Husar]

Except your debt was agreed to in print and enforced by war, whereas our "debt" is pure speculation, dubious in validity, asked for by neither involved sides and demanded by outside parties powerless to enforce it. Unfortunately your ancestors signed the dotted line to a sum to be paid over time, ours signed to cessation of land ownership and we are 4-7 decades too late to do anything about it.

So you basically say you got away with it in both cases because you won the respective wars.
That's exactly what I meant when I said you show some arrogance and lack of actual regret.

All the arguments brought up are really just a cover for "might makes right, nanana, suck it up!"
The Americans are a lot more honest about it.

[Greyblades]

So you basically say you got away with it in both cases because you won the respective wars.No, I'm saying that we dont have any debt beyond what you think we do. Any debt we did have, we paid by leaving quietly and not breaking or taking back the stuff we left behind.

1 billion taxpayers, billions of tonnes of untapped resources, trillions in yet unclaimed relics and we still left it all behind, willingly, without much incident or sour feeling during the transition on either side. How many times in history has that happened that? Add that to the millions we've spent on aid over the years and I think the debt's been sufficiently settled.

[Husar]

No, I'm saying that we dont have any debt beyond what you think we do. Any debt we did have, we paid by leaving quietly and not breaking or taking back the stuff we left behind.

1 billion taxpayers, billions of tonnes of untapped resources, trillions in yet unclaimed relics and we still left it all behind, willingly, without much incident or sour feeling during the transition on either side. How many times in history has that happened that? Add that to the millions we've spent on aid over the years and I think the debt's been sufficiently settled.

All of which you acquired through crime and wasn't yours to begin with.
And now you think you get bonus points for giving it back...

The aid is a good point however and does indeed speak in your favor.

[Greyblades]

All of which you acquired through crime and wasn't yours to begin with.
And now you think you get bonus points for giving it back...

Well it took you having Russian troops sacking Berlin to give your criminal possessions back, so really leaving and not fighting yet another costly war when we stood to loose 50 times more than you did should count as a plus in comparison to the rest of the thieves.

[Husar]

Well it took you having Russian troops sacking Berlin to give your criminal possessions back, so really leaving and not fighting yet another costly war when we stood to loose 50 times more than you did should count as a plus in comparison to the rest of the thieves.

Well, you forget the real motives again, such as your economic situation after the World Wars, which made it too expensive to hold on to the colonies by force, that the colonies had become more of a drain than an actual surplus for your economy (contrary to what "1 billion of taxpayers" insinuates) and the revolutions wthat sprung up such as the one by Gandhi etc. It's like you stole a credit card and gave it back once it was locked, and now expect a reward for giving it back.

[Pannonian]

You're talking about a colonial empire that covered quarter of the globe and exploited more than a billion people and dismiss it because of a few insignificant cases? Really?

I'm referring to the example that you cited as an example of Britain's wrongdoing. Subsequent arguing to put Britain in the wrong regarding that example was symptomatic of the whole blame Britain tendency, which is to start with the conclusion of blaming Britain, then working backwards to find the argument, ignoring all evidence that might argue against it, even if the evidence might originate from more reliable sources than the philosophical arguments of someone who lives far away from the area being discussed. The worst part of that argument was the dismissal of primary sources from people on the spot, which were deemed insignificant against a theoretical argument that would take years to play out if it does at all. There are lots of arguments against the British in Hong Kong, using primary sources and on location. But the argument in this thread missed all of them completely, as it never had any interest in examining the subject matter, but only in finding an philosophical argument using scant sources that would result in the desired conclusion of finding the British in the wrong.

Here's an argument against the British in Hong Kong: the British colonials were racist and regarded the natives as inferiors. If you knew anything about that colony, you'd be able to make this argument. And if you knew anything more, you'd know there are further colours to that argument, and the British don't come out the worst from an examination of this argument.

[a completely inoffensive name]

For all the Opium Wars and spheres of influence that the West imparted on China, the West has more than repaid them with rampant consumerism and outsourcing driving China's 7% GDP growth year after year for two decades now.

You can generalize this argument to all of East Asia in fact to some degree. And throw in India as well. Sounds like the West is already cleaned most of the blood off their hands.


Now as for Africa.....that might be a bit more problematic.

[Kadagar_AV]

Hmm, complaining that someone's bragging about conquests you find embarrassing and ultimately worthless. Kettle, old chum, I do believe Pot just called you black.

That made my day :2thumbsup:
:bow:

[Sarmatian]

For all the Opium Wars and spheres of influence that the West imparted on China, the West has more than repaid them with rampant consumerism and outsourcing driving China's 7% GDP growth year after year for two decades now.

You can generalize this argument to all of East Asia in fact to some degree. And throw in India as well. Sounds like the West is already cleaned most of the blood off their hands.
Now as for Africa.....that might be a bit more problematic.

That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard, and I've heard a lot, so... Congratulations.


I'm referring to the example that you cited as an example of Britain's wrongdoing. Subsequent arguing to put Britain in the wrong regarding that example was symptomatic of the whole blame Britain tendency, which is to start with the conclusion of blaming Britain, then working backwards to find the argument, ignoring all evidence that might argue against it, even if the evidence might originate from more reliable sources than the philosophical arguments of someone who lives far away from the area being discussed. The worst part of that argument was the dismissal of primary sources from people on the spot, which were deemed insignificant against a theoretical argument that would take years to play out if it does at all. There are lots of arguments against the British in Hong Kong, using primary sources and on location. But the argument in this thread missed all of them completely, as it never had any interest in examining the subject matter, but only in finding an philosophical argument using scant sources that would result in the desired conclusion of finding the British in the wrong.

Here's an argument against the British in Hong Kong: the British colonials were racist and regarded the natives as inferiors. If you knew anything about that colony, you'd be able to make this argument. And if you knew anything more, you'd know there are further colours to that argument, and the British don't come out the worst from an examination of this argument.

For the third (and last) time, Hong Kong wasn't an example of British wrongdoings, it was an example that countries must respect international treaties even if those treaties weren't made by the current generation. Capisce?

[a completely inoffensive name]

That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard, and I've heard a lot, so... Congratulations.

Well, my job here is finished then. It's what happens when this argument broke out where one side is clearly wrong in defending imperialistic policies, and the other side is just plain unreasonable in what the correct solution is in regards to reparations. If Kadagar is the ignorant outsider on USAnian threads, then I shall be the Kadagar of European threads.

[Sarmatian]

Well, my job here is finished then. It's what happens when this argument broke out where one side is clearly wrong in defending imperialistic policies, and the other side is just plain unreasonable in what the correct solution is in regards to reparations.

Trying to take the high road and failing utterly.

If you have read the thread you would have noticed that there are indeed two sides, but we haven't actually reached possible reparations. The side you labeled "unreasonable in what correct solution is in regards to reparations" is still stuck trying to convince the other side that something bad did happen and that there is a need for some kind, any kind, of reparations.

When we get past that, then we can talk about what the actual reparations should be.

[Kadagar_AV]

Well, my job here is finished then. It's what happens when this argument broke out where one side is clearly wrong in defending imperialistic policies, and the other side is just plain unreasonable in what the correct solution is in regards to reparations. If Kadagar is the ignorant outsider on USAnian threads, then I shall be the Kadagar of European threads.

Hmpfh, I see myself as your friendly neighborhood poker and joker on USAnian exceptionalism :stare:

[Husar]

Hmm, complaining that someone's bragging about conquests you find embarrassing and ultimately worthless. Kettle, old chum, I do believe Pot just called you black.

I don't think you used that saying correctly because the person complaining wasn't bragging about any worthless conquests himself.

I also notice a completely monetary fixation in this thread, everything is about money and net sums o money and goods and more money and money as compensation. Noone even acknowledges the human suffering which cannot and should not be weighed up with money. Maybe we can come to an agreement where the British won't have to give away their precious money that their banks steal from all the world's taxpayers and instead go on a journey once a year where they travel around the world and give hugs and kisses to former colonials whose parents were slaves.

[Greyblades]

I don't think you used that saying correctly because the person complaining wasn't bragging about any worthless conquests himself.Its a joke refering to his earlier years, ask him about being a ski instructor some time.

I also notice a completely monetary fixation in this thread, everything is about money and net sums o money and goods and more money and money as compensation. Noone even acknowledges the human suffering which cannot and should not be weighed up with money. Well you keep telling us to "pay pay pay" and money's the only thing we really see as something we can give that they would want in reparations, except land, which we've given away all but the stuff we started out with, and them some.
Maybe we can come to an agreement where the British won't have to give away their precious money that their banks steal from all the world's taxpayers and instead go on a journey once a year where they travel around the world and give hugs and kisses to former colonials whose parents were slaves. I think we already do that, teenagers and college students volunteer to be aid workers and because they're basically unskilled workers giving guilt laden hugs and kisses is the only thing they do that the locals cant do themselves.


Well, you forget the real motives again, such as your economic situation after the World Wars, which made it too expensive to hold on to the colonies by force, that the colonies had become more of a drain than an actual surplus for your economy (contrary to what "1 billion of taxpayers" insinuates) and the revolutions wthat sprung up such as the one by Gandhi etc. It's like you stole a credit card and gave it back once it was locked, and now expect a reward for giving it back. When the rest of history is full of nations that had a habit of fighting over much less, regardless of the practicality of the attempts, are you really going to say that sparing the colonies yet another series of bloody revolutionary wars is not a point in Britain's favor?

[Pannonian]

For the third (and last) time, Hong Kong wasn't an example of British wrongdoings, it was an example that countries must respect international treaties even if those treaties weren't made by the current generation. Capisce?

If that's the standard you want to use, then I fail to see how Britain are remotely in the wrong regarding slavery. When we practiced it, it was the human norm, and anyone who could used slaves. Then we stopped based on a humanistic argument that is now being used to bash us with, and when we stopped we were one of a very small minority of countries to do so. Note that slavery was still the norm around the world when we stopped. Slavery gradually became the exception by way of multilateral treaties, treaties that were signed only because we pushed hard for them, and provided muscle to enforce them.

It's a bit like bashing the US for not respecting self-determination prior to WW1. While that's the philosophical norm now, they were the ones who pushed the ideal in the first place, and have been more consistent than most in promoting it and in providing muscle to enable it. If they're not perfect, that's reality for you, and I'm certainly not going to hold them to task for not living up to that ideal prior to voicing it.

[Pannonian]

I think we already do that, teenagers and college students volunteer to be aid workers and because they're basically unskilled workers giving guilt laden hugs and kisses is the only thing they do that the locals cant do themselves.

And former colonies who need help and are willing to work with us to improve their infrastructure are given help. Sierra Leone, the colony created from liberated slaves that our slaver patrols captured, imported a British administrative strata in the 00s, and are presumably given preferential status in various economic links. Somaliland, the unofficial state situated in former British Somaliland that's best known for being the stable part of Somalia, is seeking British aid in gaining diplomatic recognition and has already been given some help in moving towards a viable statehood. That's a couple of former colonies that immediately come to mind.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...When the rest of history is full of nations that had a habit of fighting over much less, regardless of the practicality of the attempts, are you really going to say that sparing the colonies yet another series of bloody revolutionary wars is not a point in Britain's favor?

Having read this thread as a spectator, mostly, I wonder if the subtext of all of this isn't a rather Catholic need for penance in the expiation of guilt.

England, alone among Europe, has not suffered for their "crimes." France, Germany, Russia, Poland, Belgium, Italy -- virtually the rest of Europe -- have all, as a consequence of their direct or indirect actions, been invaded, conquered, destroyed, ethnically cleansed, partitioned, bankrupted, etc. In contrast, the UK has been largely secure from physical harm perpetrated against them by the rest of Europe (though not against internal strife) for a nearly a millennium.

So does the anger stem, I wonder, from a sense that the UK -- particularly England -- has not done it's fair share of penance for sins perpetrated in much the same manner and to much the same degree as the rest of Europe?

Again, I am an outsider to this, operating from limited data on an internet forum....centered on games that revel in Europeans killing one another....I might have it all wrong.

[Husar]

Interesting observation Seamus, but I think the the fact England hasn't been conquered for a while has affected their self-image far more than it has affected the image others have of England. As has been brought up in this thread, it's always the English/British who bring up their exceptionalism and their unique position and so on whenever the rest of Europe invites them to be just Europeans like the rest of us.

Even in this thread it's the English arguing the whole time about how they are/were better than everyone else and how noone can touch them anyway. As Gelatinous Cube phrased it, British exceptionalism is even stronger than the American kind.

[Pannonian]

Interesting observation Seamus, but I think the the fact England hasn't been conquered for a while has affected their self-image far more than it has affected the image others have of England. As has been brought up in this thread, it's always the English/British who bring up their exceptionalism and their unique position and so on whenever the rest of Europe invites them to be just Europeans like the rest of us.

Even in this thread it's the English arguing the whole time about how they are/were better than everyone else and how noone can touch them anyway. As Gelatinous Cube phrased it, British exceptionalism is even stronger than the American kind.

On the subject of slavery, which is the topic of this thread, it's hard to see the British as anything but exceptional.

[Kadagar_AV]

On the subject of slavery, which is the topic of this thread, it's hard to see the British as anything but exceptional.

Why?

Arabic countries have continued the trade into this millenium...

[InsaneApache]

I think he means that the British abolished slavery and used the Royal Navy to back that up. But I think you made his point for him. Inadvertently.

[Husar]

I think he means that the British abolished slavery and used the Royal Navy to back that up. But I think you made his point for him. Inadvertently.

I think he meant that the Royal Navy was apparently not very successful at abolishing slavery, slavery is still around everwhere in the world, even former British colonies.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think he meant that the Royal Navy was apparently not very successful at abolishing slavery, slavery is still around everwhere in the world, even former British colonies.

There is a market for it. Until people refuse to own slaves, someone will find a way to provide for the market. My country declared a war on drugs. Nothing can stop drugs from being brought to market save for the absence of that market. The war on drugs is, at best, a quixotic effort. At worst, a farce.

While it must be noted that France took the very first measure towards abolition, they didn't follow up on it very well. England's efforts at the end of the Georgian era and the opening of the Victorian era helped inculcate a broader climate of opposition to the entire institution. It would be hard to assert that any other country has done more to change pro-slavery attitudes or more to interrupt human trafficking.

It is a source of shame that my nation did not abolish the whole thing as part of our declaration of independence, and a travesty that both the Articles and the Constitution supported it. Even after the abolition movement gained broader acceptance, Russia beat us to emancipation by two years. :shame:

[Slyspy]

I think he meant that the Royal Navy was apparently not very successful at abolishing slavery, slavery is still around everwhere in the world, even former British colonies.

Perhaps you'd like us to go back in and take over again so that we can stop anyone ever doing ill to anyone else?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Trying to take the high road and failing utterly.

If you have read the thread you would have noticed that there are indeed two sides, but we haven't actually reached possible reparations. The side you labeled "unreasonable in what correct solution is in regards to reparations" is still stuck trying to convince the other side that something bad did happen and that there is a need for some kind, any kind, of reparations.

Any reparations would be unreasonable. There is no sense in international intervention in order to correct for international intervention.

[Montmorency]

Perhaps you'd like us to go back in and take over again so that we can stop anyone ever doing ill to anyone else?

OWG


There is no sense in international intervention in order to correct for international intervention.

OWG

:curtain:

[Husar]

OWG



OWG

:curtain:

I don't know why you say Osteoporosis Working Group (http://www.abbreviations.com/OWG) but I agree that acompletelyinoffensivename raised a good point against Slyspy, who just proved once again that the British want their empire back more than anything.

[Montmorency]

No, I just meant that everyone is just jealous of Europeans' natural supremacy in the Olympic Winter Games.

Not our fault y'all can't luge for :daisy:!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

U.S. luges can luge for [flower]....and that is about it. Some year we will finish 1st in bobsleigh....some year...

[Sarmatian]

Any reparations would be unreasonable. There is no sense in international intervention in order to correct for international intervention.

Excuse me?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Excuse me?

He means "keep your hand out of my pocket."

[Sarmatian]

He means "keep your hand out of my pocket."

I know what he means, I'm interested into a rationale behind his opinion.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I know what he means, I'm interested into a rationale behind his opinion.

I don't know how European politics operates, but I am assuming that it operates in the same way that American politics does such that there are always winners and losers.

Take the example of the Native Americans living here in the United States, after centuries of genocide and conquest, our efforts at reparations have been inefficient at best, criminal at worst. After stuffing them onto the poorest and harshest land on the continent, several states and the federal government attempted at providing reparations. One of the worst policies in my opinion was the silly idea of promoting "Indian Casinos" which are not uncommon to anyone living in California or Connecticut. The idea was that by promoting such infrastructure, Native American tribes and communities can become self sufficient and build themselves up from the abject poverty they were all living under.

What instead has happened is that only the biggest and well known tribes have established casinos which are frequently the sole money making operation for the entire community in question (in a depression, people don't want to gamble their money and hence the tribe no longer has income) and meanwhile the smaller and lesser known tribes still live out there in the badlands, living in abject poverty with the highest rates of alcoholism and unemployment in the entire nation.

Now I have a question for you Sarmatian. Please elaborate on your rationale for the idea of reparations. What arguments can you give that would satisfy my demand that whatever policy you implement would not hand out winners and losers accordingly but instead raise the entire standard of living across and entire region? If you wish for the Western Europeans to help out Africa, or East Asia, or Eastern Europe, regions where national boundaries criss-coss over ethnic and tribal regions, you must accordingly desire that Western Europe exercise the power to overrule the desires of the national government and local authorities in order to prevent corruption and favoritism from muddling the process in the way that I have explained.

In which case we might as well call the Western Europeans our benevolent imperial masters once again. Hence, there is no sense in using intervention in order to cure intervention. If you want the job done right, you must give the outsiders the same amount of power they had when they went and screwed everything up in the first place.

[InsaneApache]

I think he meant that the Royal Navy was apparently not very successful at abolishing slavery, slavery is still around everwhere in the world, even former British colonies.

I see. However we were talking about how hubristic and arrogant the British were for using their entire fleet to enforce a domestic law, yes?

Show me another time in history that this has been done. Moreover please furnish me with an example of any country in the world that operated for the whole of humanity.

I wont go on about the moral stance we took not so long ago that also served the whole of humanity.

Perfect? No. Not by a long stretch. Malevolent? Certainly not.

[Husar]

I see. However we were talking about how hubristic and arrogant the British were for using their entire fleet to enforce a domestic law, yes?

I wasn't but yes, sounds good.


Show me another time in history that this has been done. Moreover please furnish me with an example of any country in the world that operated for the whole of humanity.

America! Daisy Yeah! America!

Incidentally they have a very similar self-image to yours, now they seem a bit tame in comparison though since they're more willing to make up for their slavery mistakes of the past instead of talking about how they made up for it by saving us all from communist slavery.


I wont go on about the moral stance we took not so long ago that also served the whole of humanity.

Perfect? No. Not by a long stretch. Malevolent? Certainly not.

In this, our british-capitlist world, only the results matter. "We had a really good intention" isn't an excuse for utterlyfailing the goal to top slavery. The excuse has never been accepted for the Americans in Afghanistan and we shouldn't accept it for the British and their failure to stop slavery completely either. We're not in lieberal lalaland here where we tell children the only thing that matters is that they tried and had good intentions, they'll become wussies that way.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Show me another time in history that this has been done.

Various Wars on Things should convince you that it does not take too much effort to come up with a few examples.


Moreover please furnish me with an example of any country in the world that operated for the whole of humanity.

Operating for the whole of humanity is a bit of a staple motivation, even if that doesn't always translate into what we would recognise as for the benefit of humanity ... Even so, Jesuits (humanitarianism) and the French efforts to export their revolution (establishing civic liberty and much of the basis for all modern standards of fair and equitable governance) arguably qualify.

[Sarmatian]

I don't know how European politics operates, but I am assuming that it operates in the same way that American politics does such that there are always winners and losers.

Take the example of the Native Americans living here in the United States, after centuries of genocide and conquest, our efforts at reparations have been inefficient at best, criminal at worst. After stuffing them onto the poorest and harshest land on the continent, several states and the federal government attempted at providing reparations. One of the worst policies in my opinion was the silly idea of promoting "Indian Casinos" which are not uncommon to anyone living in California or Connecticut. The idea was that by promoting such infrastructure, Native American tribes and communities can become self sufficient and build themselves up from the abject poverty they were all living under.

What instead has happened is that only the biggest and well known tribes have established casinos which are frequently the sole money making operation for the entire community in question (in a depression, people don't want to gamble their money and hence the tribe no longer has income) and meanwhile the smaller and lesser known tribes still live out there in the badlands, living in abject poverty with the highest rates of alcoholism and unemployment in the entire nation.

Now I have a question for you Sarmatian. Please elaborate on your rationale for the idea of reparations. What arguments can you give that would satisfy my demand that whatever policy you implement would not hand out winners and losers accordingly but instead raise the entire standard of living across and entire region? If you wish for the Western Europeans to help out Africa, or East Asia, or Eastern Europe, regions where national boundaries criss-coss over ethnic and tribal regions, you must accordingly desire that Western Europe exercise the power to overrule the desires of the national government and local authorities in order to prevent corruption and favoritism from muddling the process in the way that I have explained.

In which case we might as well call the Western Europeans our benevolent imperial masters once again. Hence, there is no sense in using intervention in order to cure intervention. If you want the job done right, you must give the outsiders the same amount of power they had when they went and screwed everything up in the first place.

No policy ever, no matter how noble (or rotten, for that matter), wasn't 100% perfectly executed. That's true everywhere and for everything. From taxes, across university tuition to medical insurance.

If we agree that reparations are something that's fair and needed than it's something that should be done. Like in all other cases, we should take lessons learned from previous attempts and look how we can improve on them. Taking one example where such policy didn't yield desired results is no reason to refrain from even trying.

I offered an idea how it could be done a few pages back.

[Pannonian]

In this, our british-capitlist world, only the results matter. "We had a really good intention" isn't an excuse for utterlyfailing the goal to top slavery. The excuse has never been accepted for the Americans in Afghanistan and we shouldn't accept it for the British and their failure to stop slavery completely either. We're not in lieberal lalaland here where we tell children the only thing that matters is that they tried and had good intentions, they'll become wussies that way.

Wow, we're getting blamed for the failure to stop slavery completely now.

[Husar]

Wow, we're getting blamed for the failure to stop slavery completely now.

If your sarcasm detector is completely broken, then yes, you are!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Wow, we're getting blamed for the failure to stop slavery completely now.

Must be a Saturday. I distinctly recall that on Saturdays it is always England's fault.

[InsaneApache]

I always blame the parents meself.

There's an old English saying that applies here.

Never let a good deed go unpunished.

Apt.

[Pannonian]

If your sarcasm detector is completely broken, then yes, you are!

So what's your point? That we're to blame whatever happens, either for our taking part in the slavery business in the first place, for not doing more to redress it, or whatever argument best results in the conclusion that Britain is in the wrong? We've tried all sorts of solutions, from resettling captured slaves in Sierra Leone to getting out of where we weren't wanted to helping build infrastructure in places where we were asked for help. And despite all that, we have people living far away from these places telling us we're in the wrong. Yeah, right. Show me that Germany has done more to end slavery across the world, and your arguments might have some credence. Or alternatively, set aside a special fund of German tax money, and we'll happily spend it on any worthy cause of your choice, in whatever manner you wish. We'll couple it with whatever profuse apologies of your choice as well if you want.

[Husar]

So what's your point? That we're to blame whatever happens, either for our taking part in the slavery business in the first place, for not doing more to redress it, or whatever argument best results in the conclusion that Britain is in the wrong? We've tried all sorts of solutions, from resettling captured slaves in Sierra Leone to getting out of where we weren't wanted to helping build infrastructure in places where we were asked for help. And despite all that, we have people living far away from these places telling us we're in the wrong. Yeah, right. Show me that Germany has done more to end slavery across the world, and your arguments might have some credence. Or alternatively, set aside a special fund of German tax money, and we'll happily spend it on any worthy cause of your choice, in whatever manner you wish. We'll couple it with whatever profuse apologies of your choice as well if you want.

My point was to let you know that the quote you got so worked up over was sarcasm and not meant seriously...

[InsaneApache]

Various Wars on Things should convince you that it does not take too much effort to come up with a few examples.

Name one.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Name one.

The obvious example is the War on Drugs.

[Greyblades]

America! Daisy Yeah! America!

Incidentally they have a very similar self-image to yours, now they seem a bit tame in comparison though since they're more willing to make up for their slavery mistakes of the past instead of talking about how they made up for it by saving us all from communist slavery.

Americans are British 2.0, now with more self destruction.

[Pannonian]

Americans are British 2.0, now with more self destruction.

They always were Britain 2.0, a more fanatically principled version of us. Slavery is just about the only issue where Britain 1.0 held the higher moral ground. On every other issue, the Americans are just like the British, except with more belief in liberal ideals that over here are more of a general understanding than a nationalistic pseudo-religion. On most things, we're happy with being not as bad as most, but the Americans have to be the most highly principled of all. They're the young guns that we ought to have aspired to be, but we're the retirees who're just happy to be out of it all.

[Furunculus]

No policy ever, no matter how noble (or rotten, for that matter), wasn't 100% perfectly executed. That's true everywhere and for everything. From taxes, across university tuition to medical insurance.

If we agree that reparations are something that's fair and needed than it's something that should be done. Like in all other cases, we should take lessons learned from previous attempts and look how we can improve on them. Taking one example where such policy didn't yield desired results is no reason to refrain from even trying.

I offered an idea how it could be done a few pages back.


we have been reparating-furiously(tm)* ever since we 'failed' at stopping the slave trade whilst spending the about 150 years and lives of over 1,500 british sailors freeing over 150,000 african slave**, i think that modern britain is sitting pretty by modern standards***.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_for_International_Development

** http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/visit_see_victory_cfexhibition_infosheet.htm

*** http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/21/modern-slavery_n_4124496.html

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The premise of this topic and the discussion are absurd.

Have I ever owned slaves?

No - ergo I should not be paying for the mistakes of others, not that my sheep-farming ancestors had anything to do with slavery, but even so.

Have I spent any time freeing slaves?

No - ergo I get no props for that.

OK - so what do I win?

[Rhyfelwyr]

The premise of this topic and the discussion are absurd.

Have I ever owned slaves?

No - ergo I should not be paying for the mistakes of others, not that my sheep-farming ancestors had anything to do with slavery, but even so.

Have I spent any time freeing slaves?

No - ergo I get no props for that.

OK - so what do I win?

I think the silliest thing in this thread is the failure of some people to see the distinction between the Viking raids on the one hand, and the accumulation of wealth by the continuing British state in the slave trade on the other. This is not about individuals, it is about states, and paying reparations for ill-gotten gains. Some small part of the wealth that the British state has today is from historic gains from the slave trade. The British state of today is the same one that played a major role in fostering the Atlantic slave trade. Thus at an institutional level, it should acknowledge some sort of responsibility, especially when it is responsible for the on-going humanitarian disaster that is Haiti, and much of the trouble in Africa.

And while this is not about individuals, every British citizen has in some way benefited from the wealth of the slave trade.

[HoreTore]

Have I ever owned slaves?

Are you personally asked for anything?

Or is it the British state they ask, which has owned slaves?

[Montmorency]

Well, hold on - if we want to get technical about it, there was a long period in which the British state didn't really do anything besides support organizations like the East India Company, which did all the slavery and exploitation directly.

Since that organization no longer exists, shouldn't its direct depredations be written off at least in part?

[HoreTore]

Well, hold on - if we want to get technical about it, there was a long period in which the British state didn't really do anything besides support organizations like the East India Company, which did all the slavery and exploitation directly.

Since that organization no longer exists, shouldn't its direct depredations be written off at least in part?

Wasn't the East India Company nationalized in some fashion when it went bankrupt?

[Pannonian]

The premise of this topic and the discussion are absurd.

Have I ever owned slaves?

No - ergo I should not be paying for the mistakes of others, not that my sheep-farming ancestors had anything to do with slavery, but even so.

Have I spent any time freeing slaves?

No - ergo I get no props for that.

OK - so what do I win?

It's to do with successor states apparently. Because we've been more stable than most (having taken part in toppling some of these tyrannical states, more fool us), we get to be screwed further back than most. Maybe Greece should allow Macedonia the privilege of claiming to be the successor to the Alexandrian kingdom, since that way they won't get billed for Alex's actions. I'd hate to imagine what the central Asians could claim from China, since the Chinese claim to be the successors to the Mongolian empire. Oh hang on, nobody claims from the Greeks and Chinese, since one is broke and the other is too powerful to mess with. Dang these perfidious French for renumbering their republic every once in a while and giving themselves a clean sheet. Maybe we should renumber our governments in the same way. Since Thatcher is year zero for modern British politics, the current government could be called the 8th parliament (with 1979 being the 1st, and including the Major and Brown interregnums).

[Montmorency]

>>>Wasn't the East India Company nationalized in some fashion when it went bankrupt?<<<

My impression was that it progressively came under more state control from the late 18th c. until full nationalization after the Rebellion of 1857.

[HoreTore]

It's to do with successor states apparently. Because we've been more stable than most (having taken part in toppling some of these tyrannical states, more fool us), we get to be screwed further back than most. Maybe Greece should allow Macedonia the privilege of claiming to be the successor to the Alexandrian kingdom, since that way they won't get billed for Alex's actions. I'd hate to imagine what the central Asians could claim from China, since the Chinese claim to be the successors to the Mongolian empire. Oh hang on, nobody claims from the Greeks and Chinese, since one is broke and the other is too powerful to mess with. Dang these perfidious French for renumbering their republic every once in a while and giving themselves a clean sheet. Maybe we should renumber our governments in the same way. Since Thatcher is year zero for modern British politics, the current government could be called the 8th parliament (with 1979 being the 1st, and including the Major and Brown interregnums).

You would also need to adopt the french way of shaving...

@Monty: nationalization also means adopting responsibilities, so in that case the current british state would be liable for the actions of the East India Company...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So, after all of these reparations are dispensed.

Let us suppose that mores have shifted yet again, say 100 years hence, and the cultures of the world have reverted to a "it happened in the past, let it be" attitude.

Would those paying reparations today then receive payments because they were wrongfully forced to pay reparations?




Just a thought.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think the silliest thing in this thread is the failure of some people to see the distinction between the Viking raids on the one hand, and the accumulation of wealth by the continuing British state in the slave trade on the other. This is not about individuals, it is about states, and paying reparations for ill-gotten gains. Some small part of the wealth that the British state has today is from historic gains from the slave trade. The British state of today is the same one that played a major role in fostering the Atlantic slave trade. Thus at an institutional level, it should acknowledge some sort of responsibility, especially when it is responsible for the on-going humanitarian disaster that is Haiti, and much of the trouble in Africa.

And while this is not about individuals, every British citizen has in some way benefited from the wealth of the slave trade.

The British State was effectively bankrupt after WWII - the wealth of the State today is the result of taxes accumulated and debts paid down since then. If there is residual wealth left over from the days of slavery, it is in the hands of the aristocracy.

Nor is it true that we all benefited - slavery was generally a bad thing for my ancestors, being arable farmers in Hampshire and sheep farmers in Wales, slavery allowed for cheap imports, and the replacement of wool cloth with cotton in many places.

Even assuming that the modern British Citizen HAS benefited, so has the modern Caribbean, whole nations in the West Indies which are the result of the slave trade, and are now quite prosperous and democratic.

the point being - you cannot quantify the gain of either side - and in any case "reparations" are about punishment, we used them to (wrongly) punish Germany after WWI and following an immoral principle other are now trying to use them to punish us for something our forebears may or may not have done.

Are the sins of the father to be visited upon the son unto the 21st generation now?


Are you personally asked for anything?

Or is it the British state they ask, which has owned slaves?

I'm not sure that the State ever own slaves - but in any case as a voting Citizen of the State I effectively AM the State - I determine the government, I may even serve in the government, and my taxes pay for everything.

The British State is the British people, as Rhy has acknowledged, it is us who are being asked to actually pay. Given that historic responsibilty was has been acknowledged and apolagised for, and that responsibility was recognised AT THE TIME, and the Royal Navy was accordingly employed to dismantle the Slave Trade it had previously fostered...

I'm not buying what you're selling - even if Norway is willing to cough up too.

[Sarmatian]

we have been reparating-furiously(tm)* ever since we 'failed' at stopping the slave trade whilst spending the about 150 years and lives of over 1,500 british sailors freeing over 150,000 african slave**, i think that modern britain is sitting pretty by modern standards***.


... And British ships transported between 3.5 and 5 million slaves, Europeans overall about 12.

I like this sheet:


Who profited?

British slave ship owners - some voyages made 20-50% profit. Large sums of money were made by ship owners who never left England.

British Slave Traders - who bought and sold enslaved Africans.

Plantation Owners - who used slave labour to grow their crops. Vast profits could be made by using unpaid workers. Planters often retired to Britain with the profits they made and had grand country houses built for them. Some planters used the money they had made to become MPs. Others invested their profits in new factories and inventions, helping to finance the Industrial Revolution.

The factory owners in Britain - who had a market for their goods. Textiles from Yorkshire and Lancashire were bought by slave-captains to barter with. One half of the textiles produced in Manchester were exported to Africa and half to the West Indies. In addition, industrial plants were built to refine the imported raw sugar. Glassware was needed to bottle the rum.

West African leaders involved in the trade - who captured people and sold them as slaves to Europeans.

The ports - Bristol and Liverpool became major ports through fitting out slave ships and handling the cargoes they brought back. Between 1700 and 1800, Liverpool's population rose from 5000 to 78,000.

Bankers - banks and finance houses grew rich from the fees and interest they earned from merchants who borrowed money for their long voyages.

Ordinary people - the Transatlantic Slave Trade provided many jobs for people back in Britain. Many people worked in factories which sold their goods to West Africa. These goods would then be traded for enslaved Africans. Birmingham had over 4000 gun-makers, with 100,000 guns a year going to slave-traders.

Others worked in factories that had been set up with money made from the Slave Trade. Many trades-people bought a share in a slave ship. Slave labour also made goods, such as sugar, more affordable for people living in Britain.

[Montmorency]

@Monty: nationalization also means adopting responsibilities, so in that case the current british state would be liable for the actions of the East India Company...

Including for the past 200 years? So much for LLC...

[Pannonian]

So, after all of these reparations are dispensed.

Let us suppose that mores have shifted yet again, say 100 years hence, and the cultures of the world have reverted to a "it happened in the past, let it be" attitude.

Would those paying reparations today then receive payments because they were wrongfully forced to pay reparations?




Just a thought.

It doesn't change the salient point. Start with the conclusion that Britain is to get a kicking, then set up the rules so that Britain is found to be in the wrong and needs a kicking, and tweak the rules so that Britain and only Britain gets a kicking. It's Calvinball.

[Sarmatian]

It doesn't change the salient point. Start with the conclusion that Britain is to get a kicking, then set up the rules so that Britain is found to be in the wrong and needs a kicking, and tweak the rules so that Britain and only Britain gets a kicking. It's Calvinball.

You got me. I invented slave trade and colonial exploitation so that Britain would be in the wrong.

Neither ever existed in history.

[Pannonian]

You got me. I invented slave trade and colonial exploitation so that Britain would be in the wrong.

Neither ever existed in history.

Everything that Britain has done since we gave up slavery has also not existed in history. Only what we did when carrying out slavery existed in history. Ergo Britain is in the wrong, and has done nothing to redress this wrong. If other countries have also done the same, then rules are invented to excuse them whilst leaving Britain still in the wrong and in need of a kicking.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It doesn't change the salient point. Start with the conclusion that Britain is to get a kicking, then set up the rules so that Britain is found to be in the wrong and needs a kicking, and tweak the rules so that Britain and only Britain gets a kicking. It's Calvinball.

I hear your point.

I was commenting on the apples/oranges factor of applying current moral and ethical standards to actions taken by people decades or centuries in the past when then-accumulated human wisdom established entirely different standards for evaluation. Would we evaluate the effectiveness of a Roman Legion by its comparative capability against the 82nd Airborne division? By that metric, the Roman military was a sad joke -- your typical legion would be trashed by a platoon of paratroopers if the paras could get a double-ration of ammo.

[Slyspy]

This is what happens when you regard history as the present in a different suit.

[Husar]

Everything that Britain has done since we gave up slavery has also not existed in history. Only what we did when carrying out slavery existed in history. Ergo Britain is in the wrong, and has done nothing to redress this wrong. If other countries have also done the same, then rules are invented to excuse them whilst leaving Britain still in the wrong and in need of a kicking.

What? The others have to pay as well, possibly even more. They're just not making fun of it here like the Brits do and avoid the silly arguments.

[HoreTore]

Everything that Britain has done since we gave up slavery has also not existed in history. Only what we did when carrying out slavery existed in history. Ergo Britain is in the wrong, and has done nothing to redress this wrong. If other countries have also done the same, then rules are invented to excuse them whilst leaving Britain still in the wrong and in need of a kicking.

The scramble for Africa was post-slavery. So was quite a few of the massacres in India.

...And this post highlights the problem with British nationalism perfectly. The "It's Britain and ONLY Britain"-attitude. No it's not, there's not a single nation on earth who doesn't get criticized when they act like dicks.

Quite a few of them end up being invaded as well, while all the Brits has to put up with is some finger-pointing. Leave your victimization at the door, please.