Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So, we just passed the 22-year anniversary of Hong Kong's return to China and the 30-year anniversary of Tiananmen Square.

https://www.apnews.com/64f11fdc4fcd4ead8428a1b302747618

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-china-48824110/hong-kong-protests-parliament-never-represented-its-people

Pro-democracy protesters have begun to invoke British symbolism in their protests, but we need to recognise the degree of culpability Britain has in the current circumstances.

To begin with, we knew exactly what sort of society China was when we handed over Hong Kong and despite roughly two decades of negotiation and preparation we largely failed to reform the gerrymandered Legislative Council (where most seats are not directly elected) before the end of British rule. We failed to build the most basic safeguards into Hong Kong's political system that might have stopped or at least slowed Chinese encroachment and the stripping of basic freedoms. That stripping of freedom has been happening for a decade at least but it's being thrown into sharp relief now.

We, the British, imposed this on the people of Hong Kong without a referendum, without any real consultation and largely against their wishes. We told ourselves this was "de-colonisation" and patted ourselves on the back and the rest of Europe and the Americas nodded and agreed with us and told us how right it was for us to "give up" our colony and "return" it to China.

Fundamentally, that view was racist - we look at the Hong Hong Chinese and the people of Mainland China and we we think that because they look the same they are the same and they "belong together" when the truth is the people of Hong Kong were people of the Commonwealth, just like the Canadian, or the Australians, or the New Zealanders and indeed like the people of the Caribbean. They had a British-style civil society and British-style legal system, the same as us, and still do. These people expect the same freedoms you and I take for granted and most of the protesters were born with those freedoms - freedoms that are now being eroded by the PRC.

As a British citizen I am ashamed, and until the people of Hong Kong are free I will never again claim to be "Proud to be British".

[rory_20_uk]

Might makes right. The USA keeps its territories since it has more force than others. Be that its base in Cuba or the islands it has overseas.

As I am sure you are aware, the British had both Hong Kong and some mainland territories since the end of the Opium Wars. One was permanent, the other just rented. So it was always going to come to and end.

You're ashamed? Good for you. I take it that you're going to do nothing more than write you're ashamed about this state of affairs. And what, exactly, would Britain have done had China decided to cut off the water supply from the mainland? Build massive desalination plants?

The Britain was and is a small power with limited ability to project beyond its shores. We could either graciously give it back or tenaciously fight against the inevitable with no treaty when China finally won.

And let's look at the Commonwealth: Pakistan. Bangladesh. Burma. Zimbabwe. Egypt. And so on and so on. There are very few members of the commonwealth that are "proper" democracies - Canada, New Zealand, Australia being the best examples, countries of the Caribbean others and India and Malaysia aren't too bad.

Hong Kong got shafted since a bigger, nastier power took over. A shame. Move on.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

There wasn't much the UK could have done about Hong Kong. Like you said, water was an issue, and had already been an issue in the past. However, there was something the UK could have done about Hong Kongers. And it did. It changed the definition of UK subjects, previously meaning both those on the mainland and in the remaining colonies, to exclude Hong Kongers, so that fleeing Chinese would not be able to move to the UK as British subjects.

[Gilrandir]

We, the British, imposed this on the people of Hong Kong without a referendum, without any real consultation and largely against their wishes.

I think that you, the British, should stay away from referendums as much as possible.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Might makes right. The USA keeps its territories since it has more force than others. Be that its base in Cuba or the islands it has overseas.

As I am sure you are aware, the British had both Hong Kong and some mainland territories since the end of the Opium Wars. One was permanent, the other just rented. So it was always going to come to and end.

You're ashamed? Good for you. I take it that you're going to do nothing more than write you're ashamed about this state of affairs. And what, exactly, would Britain have done had China decided to cut off the water supply from the mainland? Build massive desalination plants?

The Britain was and is a small power with limited ability to project beyond its shores. We could either graciously give it back or tenaciously fight against the inevitable with no treaty when China finally won.

And let's look at the Commonwealth: Pakistan. Bangladesh. Burma. Zimbabwe. Egypt. And so on and so on. There are very few members of the commonwealth that are "proper" democracies - Canada, New Zealand, Australia being the best examples, countries of the Caribbean others and India and Malaysia aren't too bad.

Hong Kong got shafted since a bigger, nastier power took over. A shame. Move on.

~:smoking:

This is easily the worst thing any UK Government has done in my lifetime, or yours I reckon.

after Tiananmen Square we should at least have instituted a fully democratic government based on a parliamentary model so that power was vested in a First Minister and not a Chief Executive.


There wasn't much the UK could have done about Hong Kong. Like you said, water was an issue, and had already been an issue in the past. However, there was something the UK could have done about Hong Kongers. And it did. It changed the definition of UK subjects, previously meaning both those on the mainland and in the remaining colonies, to exclude Hong Kongers, so that fleeing Chinese would not be able to move to the UK as British subjects.

I've previously highlighted the manifest evils committed by multiple UK governments in regards to citizenship, but you are wrong on this account. Whilst it is true that Hong Kongers were not automatically granted citizenship the British National (Overseas) status was by application and was designed to replace the British Dependent Territories Citizenship they would lose automatically when China took over.

Was it the right thing? No. Was it the worst this? Also no.

The worst thing was the handover, full stop. No consultation, little chance of escape.

Now we're bleating about it as though we can do anything - and you're correct we cannot, now.

If this doesn't worry at you like a rotten tooth, though, I suspect you have no soul.

[rory_20_uk]

So in response to the CCP being prepared to kill people in Beijing, you think that the best thing would be to create the type of situation in Hong Kong for an even greater showdown (a showdown between the world's largest army and a groups of unarmed civilians)? And the CCP would have just said "ooooh those cunning British outplayed us! How did we not see this coming - given they announced it months / years before the handover. Well, we're screwed since international opinion is the most important thing for us..."

Unless the UK had somehow convinced the USA to treat Hong Kong like Taiwan and protect it we had either the options of leaving with a whimper or letting the place go up as a bang - if the UK moved all its assets around Hong Kong we would probably have been able to dissuade an invasion - leaving aside we'd have assets in Chinese waters and hence we would be against international law.

The best case scenario would be that the Chinese left all these relics in place and then packed the courts and governments with their own people. North Korea everyone has to vote in elections. Doesn't make them free. Would this pretence of democracy and freedom allay your spirit?

Might makes right. The British stamped out Suttee and The Tuggee cult in India since the British had the power to enforce their rules. Were the British right to do it? I'd say yes - but I also accept they were unilaterally destroying two cultural traditions that were probably thousands of years old in lands that were definitely conquered by force. So others might well say "no".

I accept the UK's place in the world. We have a decent GDP still, and a large amount of soft power. And that's about it. Pax Britannia is 150 dead. I feel no guilt or shame for things that the UK has realistically no ability to alter. The Chinese did it - it is their doing. Whether what they did is right is as subjective as what the British did in India.

~:smoking:

[Shaka_Khan]

I think the British have mixed feelings about the situation in Hong Kong. What especially took my attention were the British news commentators soon after the handover of Hong Kong. After the PRC's flag was raised and the British flag was lowered, the camera switched to those commentators. They looked really depressed. Nowadays, I think the younger generation is in the acceptance stage.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Whether what they did is right is as subjective as what the British did in India.

Or how about we call both situations out as morally wrong and skip the whataboutism.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Or how about we call both situations out as morally wrong and skip the whataboutism.

For clarification - Suttee is the act of murdering a man's wife (or her committing suicide) so that she can serve him in the afterlife. Thuggee is the act of ritually murdering your travelling companions, supposedly as an offering to the God Shiva, or just for profit.

I have no problem with the British repressing those practices AND will calling out the repressive practices of the CCP.

I don't believe in moral relativism, though. I think the British moral outlook in the 19th century was (whilst flawed) fundamentally correct whereas I feel the outlook of the leaders of the CCP is fundamentally repugnant.

[a completely inoffensive name]

For clarification - Suttee is the act of murdering a man's wife (or her committing suicide) so that she can serve him in the afterlife. Thuggee is the act of ritually murdering your travelling companions, supposedly as an offering to the God Shiva, or just for profit.

I have no problem with the British repressing those practices AND will calling out the repressive practices of the CCP.

I don't believe in moral relativism, though. I think the British moral outlook in the 19th century was (whilst flawed) fundamentally correct whereas I feel the outlook of the leaders of the CCP is fundamentally repugnant.

I think you might be a little too biased about your nation's history in the 16th-20th century. But in that specific case, sure that's a bad practice and should be suppressed, although given how many died in India under British control I am not sure that was the goal...

Nevertheless, why can't we simultaneously hold both propositions that governments are not in the business of being moral institutions but we have at the same time a duty as citizens (or even as humans if you swing that way) to hold governments morally accountable.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think you might be a little too biased about your nation's history in the 16th-20th century. But in that specific case, sure that's a bad practice and should be suppressed, although given how many died in India under British control I am not sure that was the goal...

Nevertheless, why can't we simultaneously hold both propositions that governments are not in the business of being moral institutions but we have at the same time a duty as citizens (or even as humans if you swing that way) to hold governments morally accountable.

British colonial government wasn't entirely benevolent or entirely moral, Company rule in India was particularly bad. That being said, the British interference in native Indian culture was done from a moralist standpoint, Thuggee and Suttee were suppressed and so was the practice of execution by elephant trampling.

On the other hand, following the Sepoy Mutiny the British strapped some of the mutineers to canons and then set the canons off. On the other hand, the Sepoys indiscriminately murdered women and children in many cases.

[Tuuvi]

While we're talking about British colonialism let's not forget that the British invaded China twice and forced them to pay huge sums of money in order to punish the Qing government for trying to crack down on opium smuggling when the Chinese population was in the midst of an addiction crisis.

I don't know much about British colonialism in India but I feel like I can say with some confidence that European colonialism in general was a cruel, evil institution that was primarily based on greed with no regard for the sovereignty or material needs of the peoples the Europeans subjugated.

The whole idea that the British were "civilizing" the nations they colonized was never anything more than an excuse for exploiting lands that didn't belong to them, and it was an arrogant, racist excuse at that. The British may have stamped out some evil practices during their time in India but they had no right to ever rule over India in the first place.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

While we're talking about British colonialism let's not forget that the British invaded China twice and forced them to pay huge sums of money in order to punish the Qing government for trying to crack down on opium smuggling when the Chinese population was in the midst of an addiction crisis.

I don't know much about British colonialism in India but I feel like I can say with some confidence that European colonialism in general was a cruel, evil institution that was primarily based on greed with no regard for the sovereignty or material needs of the peoples the Europeans subjugated.

The whole idea that the British were "civilizing" the nations they colonized was never anything more than an excuse for exploiting lands that didn't belong to them, and it was an arrogant, racist excuse at that. The British may have stamped out some evil practices during their time in India but they had no right to ever rule over India in the first place.

You should read more about British colonial administration - we have a lot of private letters, journals etc. it's not just the "government line."

Different Colonial Powers conducted themselves differently - the Germans and Belgians did some truly inhuman things as a matter of course, including creating an artificial ethnic divide in Rwanda to mirror the ethnic divide in Belgium and actually CREATE racism in the natives.

British Imperialism, on the other hand, was essentially "paternalistic" and therefore tended to be more moderate - British treatment of natives in India was objectively better than contemporary French treatment of the Spanish during the Napoleonic Wars. Indeed, British treatment of the local FRENCH was objectively better than the treatment they got from the French government under Napoleon.

For starters, the British paid for what they took and had standing orders to hang rapists.

Insofar as you can call all expansion of any nation "evil" you can call Imperialism "evil" but beyond that the reality is that in the case of India British rule was neither significantly better or worse than the previous "native" rule. Prior to the British many princely states were ruled by Muslim Rajas with Hindu and Sikh subjects, many of these Rajas were descended from Turks or Mongols and you could argue they had as much "right" (Right of Conquest) as the British.

Certainly, the British saw it that way.

Congratulations - we're now talking about history that took place long before any of us were born, rather than the plight of people our own age living today.

[Pannonian]

While we're talking about British colonialism let's not forget that the British invaded China twice and forced them to pay huge sums of money in order to punish the Qing government for trying to crack down on opium smuggling when the Chinese population was in the midst of an addiction crisis.

I don't know much about British colonialism in India but I feel like I can say with some confidence that European colonialism in general was a cruel, evil institution that was primarily based on greed with no regard for the sovereignty or material needs of the peoples the Europeans subjugated.

The whole idea that the British were "civilizing" the nations they colonized was never anything more than an excuse for exploiting lands that didn't belong to them, and it was an arrogant, racist excuse at that. The British may have stamped out some evil practices during their time in India but they had no right to ever rule over India in the first place.

That's a rather post-colonial reading of history. You can question Britain's right to rule over Indians, but you can't question Britain's right to rule over India, as there wasn't a unified India in the first place. Sovereignty wasn't an issue either. Nor arrogance and racism for that matter. Indians were ruled by an arrogant ruler before the British took over, and they were ruled over by an arrogant ruler after the British took over. There were local kingdoms, princedoms, and whatever local government entities there were. What there wasn't was an India. And in the north, where the first British military campaigns took place, the rulers weren't native either. If the British were arrogant and racist for what they did, how would you describe the Mughals whom they replaced in the north? When studying history, avoid using modern norms to assess historical practice. Pre-20th century, British rule over India was no more unusually cruel or despotic than other empires, and a great deal better than most. To say that India didn't belong to them is also a misnomer; it belonged to the British as much as any other realm belonged to their rulers. Britain's exploitation of Indians is besides the point too; British rulers exploited Indian people, Mughal rulers exploited Indian people, Indian rulers exploited Indian people. It's what rulers did in the era, and Britain mostly took over previous forms of exploitation. Britain introduced a couple of additions of malpractice: extortion, which was supporting Indian princes in return for money (until they were eventually bankrupted and the British took over direct control), and incompetence, where the British rulers did not respond sufficiently quickly or flexibly to natural disasters.

On the opium wars: the British needed their tea.

[Husar]

These arguments for how the British were more gentle than others are just a load of whataboutism and bullhonkey.
You make it sound like the people in power at the time didn't even know that an MO other than what they were doing was possible.
Ideas of democracy, resistance against nobility and so on were certainly not new concepts at the time though and had been crushed by nobility to secure their own power. In the end it was just about cold power grabs as far as they could justify with their fake christian decency and the fact that others were worse because they faked less decency isn't an excuse for any of them.

I don't walk around excusing 9/11 by saying that "a lot of people in the Middle Eeast believed that America was satan at the time, he just couldn't know any better", and if I did it would be the same bullhonkey you're spreading to excuse colonial violence. The people responsible were largely serving their own personal ambition, perhaps hiding them below "service to the nation" and maybe some of them were actually deluded enough to think they were doing the right thing, but the same could be said for the other example...I mean you don't fly into a building to get a promotion in your office job, you have to believe to be doing the right thing, because it will be the last thing you do here...

Doesn't make it better though, or does it?

[Montmorency]

If the British were arrogant and racist for what they did, how would you describe the Mughals whom they replaced in the north?

Deflecting evaluations of one's conduct toward the conduct of another is considered unacceptable even in small children. There can be more than one bad thing in the world at a time.


When studying history, avoid using modern norms to assess historical practice.

This incoherent principle cannot fairly be applied without producing absurdities. It does not pass the "straight face" test. All you're communicating here is that you dislike post-colonial standards. For some reason.


Pre-20th century, British rule over India was no more unusually cruel or despotic than other empires, and a great deal better than most.

I'm pretty sure British colonial rule was brutal, destructive, and rapacious. You conquered people to steal their resources and labor. The fact that others - Mughals, Belgians, Americans - were doing the same is no excuse. The past was a pretty awful time; it's OK to learn from history.


By the way, none should miss the irony of Phil denouncing "moral relativism" while trying to assure us that British crimes were "objectively better" than contemporary powers' crimes. Down with apologism (or soon you'll hear the tankie line about Stalin's methods singlehandedly elevating and rescuing Mother Russia).

[Pannonian]

Deflecting evaluations of one's conduct toward the conduct of another is considered unacceptable even in small children. There can be more than one bad thing in the world at a time.



This incoherent principle cannot fairly be applied without producing absurdities. It does not pass the "straight face" test. All you're communicating here is that you dislike post-colonial standards. For some reason.



I'm pretty sure British colonial rule was brutal, destructive, and rapacious. You conquered people to steal their resources and labor. The fact that others - Mughals, Belgians, Americans - were doing the same is no excuse. The past was a pretty awful time; it's OK to learn from history.


By the way, none should miss the irony of Phil denouncing "moral relativism" while trying to assure us that British crimes were "objectively better" than contemporary powers' crimes. Down with apologism (or soon you'll hear the tankie line about Stalin's methods singlehandedly elevating and rescuing Mother Russia).

When I studied history, it was always hammered into me: understand the times as much as possible from the thinking of the period. How else do you understand sources and what they say? When looking at ancient Rome, do you look at things from a modern perspective and impose that perspective onto your understanding of what's going on? Or do you try to understand how ancient Romans (or at least those sources we have) thought, and understand the sources from there?

When I say that Tuuvi's description is post-colonialist, I mean the concept of India as a single nation state to which Britain is alien, invasive and unwanted, imposing itself on an Indian nation that would just throw off its chains given the chance. It was like that at the end, but not in the beginning. The British were one of a collection of warlords, some native, some not, some of them even European (the British took over the French possessions in the Seven Years War). The most powerful of these kingdoms was the Mughal Empire. Were the Mughals natives that the British displaced?

When the British first took over India, democracy wasn't "a thing". It certainly hadn't attained the totem status that it has today. British rule then developed over time to take on different features. At the end it was plainly out of date, and recognised even by Westminster. But to look at the end point and apply it to the rest of its history is bad historiography.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Deflecting evaluations of one's conduct toward the conduct of another is considered unacceptable even in small children. There can be more than one bad thing in the world at a time.

We are discussing history, not the present. One does not need to like the past but one does need to understand it.

This argument started because Rory said that the British suppression of Thuggee and Suttee was the same as the present CCP's suppression of democracy in Hong Kong. I simply made the point that the fact the British had conquered India had nothing to do with the moral rightness of supressing those cults and that, in many cases, British rule was no worse than local rule for local people in terms of outcomes.


This incoherent principle cannot fairly be applied without producing absurdities. It does not pass the "straight face" test. All you're communicating here is that you dislike post-colonial standards. For some reason.

No, you end up with absurdities if you try to apply modern standards. Absurdities like the belief that the religious authorities burned people at the stake because they were sadistic, or that people reported witches so that they could appropriate their land.

That's what happens when you apply modern standards, but if you try to understand the standards of the time you can try to actually understand the psychology of those involved.


I'm pretty sure British colonial rule was brutal, destructive, and rapacious. You conquered people to steal their resources and labor. The fact that others - Mughals, Belgians, Americans - were doing the same is no excuse. The past was a pretty awful time; it's OK to learn from history.

Really, because I'm not "pretty sure" about anything historical? Again, you're applying a certain prism (Colonialism = evil) and then assuming you know the intentions of the British traders and administrators.


By the way, none should miss the irony of Phil denouncing "moral relativism" while trying to assure us that British crimes were "objectively better" than contemporary powers' crimes. Down with apologism (or soon you'll hear the tankie line about Stalin's methods singlehandedly elevating and rescuing Mother Russia).

I said nothing of "British crimes", I imagine I know more about them than you do, I spoke merely of British Colonial Administration, unless you mean all historical government is a "crime."

Does that pass your "straight face" test?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

These arguments for how the British were more gentle than others are just a load of whataboutism and bullhonkey.
You make it sound like the people in power at the time didn't even know that an MO other than what they were doing was possible.

Well, this is debatable. Did they think there was a better way of doing things? The British simply went somewhere, contested with the natives and took over, which is what everyone did everywhere at the time, including the Indians.


Ideas of democracy, resistance against nobility and so on were certainly not new concepts at the time though and had been crushed by nobility to secure their own power. In the end it was just about cold power grabs as far as they could justify with their fake christian decency and the fact that others were worse because they faked less decency isn't an excuse for any of them.

The EIC conquest of India was essentially completed by 1800 with the remaining local rulers reduced to vassal status. That's decades before the First Great Reform Act in 1832 - concepts like "democracy" are not, as Pan said, "really a thing" yet.


I don't walk around excusing 9/11 by saying that "a lot of people in the Middle Eeast believed that America was satan at the time, he just couldn't know any better", and if I did it would be the same bullhonkey you're spreading to excuse colonial violence. The people responsible were largely serving their own personal ambition, perhaps hiding them below "service to the nation" and maybe some of them were actually deluded enough to think they were doing the right thing, but the same could be said for the other example...I mean you don't fly into a building to get a promotion in your office job, you have to believe to be doing the right thing, because it will be the last thing you do here...

Doesn't make it better though, or does it?

This is actually an important historical question, it can be applied to 9/11, revolution in Cuba, the Holocaust, the massacre at Agincourt, the murder of Jesus Christ, the Persian Invasions...

In each case the answer depends on how the actions were seen at the time AND the intention behind them.

[Gilrandir]

While we're talking about British colonialism let's not forget that the British invaded China twice and forced them to pay huge sums of money in order to punish the Qing government for trying to crack down on opium smuggling when the Chinese population was in the midst of an addiction crisis.


Perhaps they thought it was not the Qing but the King government? After all, you can't expect them to have been good at spelling.

[Pannonian]

Perhaps they thought it was not the Qing but the King government? After all, you can't expect them to have been good at spelling.

The Wade-Giles spelling is Ching, pronounced the same as pinyin's Qing.

FWIW, Tuuvi missed another British invasion of what might be called China, except that China did it too. In the British case, it happened in the early 20th century (pre-WWI), and the British commander involved did it on his own initiative without UK government sanction, and was promptly recalled and promoted upstairs and forbidden from leaving the country again on similar foreign adventures. In the Chinese case, it happened in the mid-20th century, was done with full government support (and government resources), and is maintained even today. What does Tuuvi think of the British and Chinese invasions of Tibet?

[Tuuvi]

That's a rather post-colonial reading of history. You can question Britain's right to rule over Indians, but you can't question Britain's right to rule over India, as there wasn't a unified India in the first place.

I meant India as a region/sub-continent, not a unified nation state. Plus my post was mostly just talking about European colonialism in general anyway.


Sovereignty wasn't an issue either. Nor arrogance and racism for that matter. Indians were ruled by an arrogant ruler before the British took over, and they were ruled over by an arrogant ruler after the British took over. There were local kingdoms, princedoms, and whatever local government entities there were. What there wasn't was an India. And in the north, where the first British military campaigns took place, the rulers weren't native either. If the British were arrogant and racist for what they did, how would you describe the Mughals whom they replaced in the north?

I should have said "self-determination" instead of "sovereignty". My bad. Nothing about the statement "British imperialism was bad" implies that the pre-British rulers were good. You're creating a false dichotomy.


When studying history, avoid using modern norms to assess historical practice. Pre-20th century, British rule over India was no more unusually cruel or despotic than other empires, and a great deal better than most.

I'm well aware that good historical research strives to be objective and to understand events from the point of view of the people who lived through them. But this forum is not an academic history conference. It's a place for casual political discussion, and in the context of politics I see nothing wrong with casting moral judgements on the institutions and practices of the past, because these judgements are directly relevant to decisions about what modern political practice should be. Should we really avoid saying stuff like "slavery was immoral" or "the Holocaust was evil" because it would be un-historical?


To say that India didn't belong to them is also a misnomer; it belonged to the British as much as any other realm belonged to their rulers. Britain's exploitation of Indians is besides the point too; British rulers exploited Indian people, Mughal rulers exploited Indian people, Indian rulers exploited Indian people. It's what rulers did in the era, and Britain mostly took over previous forms of exploitation. Britain introduced a couple of additions of malpractice: extortion, which was supporting Indian princes in return for money (until they were eventually bankrupted and the British took over direct control), and incompetence, where the British rulers did not respond sufficiently quickly or flexibly to natural disasters.

Again this is a false dichotomy. I never said anything about whether or not the Mughals or whoever were enlightened, benevolent rulers.


What does Tuuvi think of the British and Chinese invasions of Tibet?

I think invasions are bad.

[Montmorency]

When I studied history, it was always hammered into me: understand the times as much as possible from the thinking of the period. How else do you understand sources and what they say? When looking at ancient Rome, do you look at things from a modern perspective and impose that perspective onto your understanding of what's going on? Or do you try to understand how ancient Romans (or at least those sources we have) thought, and understand the sources from there?

Of course modern perspectives must be applied to the study of history, or all we could ever study would be the biographies of kings, generals, and philosophers. Because those were the perspectives afforded respect throughout history; other perspectives of course always existed, but your doctrine is one more excuse to ignore them. But I'm not even referring to historical analysis, but to the application of moral reasoning to facts. If we observe the fact that a serial killer has brutally slain a dozen indigents, it is a simple judgement to say it was a bad thing for the killer to kill a dozen indigents. The doings of a serial killer, or mercenary or whoever, at any point in history or prehistory, could similarly be labeled a Bad Thing by us for a similar set of acts. That many in the past, depending on circumstances, may not have seen the "serial kiler" the same way is useful for understanding past societies, but has no bearing on what we should think today.


When I say that Tuuvi's description is post-colonialist, I mean the concept of India as a single nation state to which Britain is alien, invasive and unwanted, imposing itself on an Indian nation that would just throw off its chains given the chance. It was like that at the end, but not in the beginning.

The point isn't the disposition of some construct of colonized nationhood but that what the British did was straightforwardly a bad thing to do, over hundreds of years. How cohesive Indian society was bears no relevance, any more than the tectonic qualities of the Indian plate.


But to look at the end point and apply it to the rest of its history is bad historiography.

We're not talking historiography, we're talking morality. Killing people and oppressing them to steal their resources and labor has always been a bad thing, whether it was done by Romans or by Nestle SA.


This argument started because Rory said that the British suppression of Thuggee and Suttee was the same as the present CCP's suppression of democracy in Hong Kong. I simply made the point that the fact the British had conquered India had nothing to do with the moral rightness of supressing those cults and that, in many cases, British rule was no worse than local rule for local people in terms of outcomes.

I agree that the settee and Thugeeism were bad practices, and that British colonization had nothing to do with suppressing them.

British rule was often worse; it shouldn't be whitewashed.


That's what happens when you apply modern standards, but if you try to understand the standards of the time you can try to actually understand the psychology of those involved.

Both are done in parallel.


Really, because I'm not "pretty sure" about anything historical? Again, you're applying a certain prism (Colonialism = evil) and then assuming you know the intentions of the British traders and administrators.

We can read about their intentions, and moreover their actions and the results of those actions are on the historical record. We can deduce colonialism was bad because we have learned that historical record, not merely as a prior commitment.


In each case the answer depends on how the actions were seen at the time AND the intention behind them.

This is the absurdity I was referring to. Taken to its logical conclusion, it becomes impossible to give an account of anything because everything subject to evaluation is past, and all process of evaluation follows from "current" perspective. Who would you then be to second-guess British Hong Kong diplomacy or EU politics then? That was then, and this is now.

"Hitler did nothing wrong" is an easy statement to reject if one knows what is right and what is wrong.

[Pannonian]

Of course modern perspectives must be applied to the study of history, or all we could ever study would be the biographies of kings, generals, and philosophers. Because those were the perspectives afforded respect throughout history; other perspectives of course always existed, but your doctrine is one more excuse to ignore them. But I'm not even referring to historical analysis, but to the application of moral reasoning to facts. If we observe the fact that a serial killer has brutally slain a dozen indigents, it is a simple judgement to say it was a bad thing for the killer to kill a dozen indigents. The doings of a serial killer, or mercenary or whoever, at any point in history or prehistory, could similarly be labeled a Bad Thing by us for a similar set of acts. That many in the past, depending on circumstances, may not have seen the "serial kiler" the same way is useful for understanding past societies, but has no bearing on what we should think today.

The point isn't the disposition of some construct of colonized nationhood but that what the British did was straightforwardly a bad thing to do, over hundreds of years. How cohesive Indian society was bears no relevance, any more than the tectonic qualities of the Indian plate.

We're not talking historiography, we're talking morality. Killing people and oppressing them to steal their resources and labor has always been a bad thing, whether it was done by Romans or by Nestle SA.

What do you think of the practice of fighting wars and taking the possessions of the defeated?

[Montmorency]

What do you think of the practice of fighting wars and taking the possessions of the defeated?

Has someone pretended the Melian Dialogue was a debate of ethics?* It's not good.

*If you like historiography, the common ancient distaste at internecine rapine is one theme.

[Pannonian]

Of course modern perspectives must be applied to the study of history, or all we could ever study would be the biographies of kings, generals, and philosophers. Because those were the perspectives afforded respect throughout history; other perspectives of course always existed, but your doctrine is one more excuse to ignore them. But I'm not even referring to historical analysis, but to the application of moral reasoning to facts. If we observe the fact that a serial killer has brutally slain a dozen indigents, it is a simple judgement to say it was a bad thing for the killer to kill a dozen indigents. The doings of a serial killer, or mercenary or whoever, at any point in history or prehistory, could similarly be labeled a Bad Thing by us for a similar set of acts. That many in the past, depending on circumstances, may not have seen the "serial kiler" the same way is useful for understanding past societies, but has no bearing on what we should think today.


Has someone pretended the Melian Dialogue was a debate of ethics?* It's not good.

*If you like historiography, the common ancient distaste at internecine rapine is one theme.

Ancient distaste at internecine rapine was something confined to certain of your cited elites, whom you say we should not only study. It was either accepted as a fact of life by the commonfolk, or was damn popular as a way of enrichening themselves. It may not be within reasonable living memory in the west which is all the world you know, but in some parts of the world, that attitude was within living memory. I've spoken to Hong Kongers whose previous generation had fought tribal wars over territory and influence, until the British shut down all the fun post-WWII. Ancient distaste at internecine rapine? Internecine rapine was a current thing in Hong Kong well into the 20th century. You probably didn't know that though, as mainstream history as taught in 21st century school is all you know of history.

[Husar]

Well, this is debatable. Did they think there was a better way of doing things? The British simply went somewhere, contested with the natives and took over, which is what everyone did everywhere at the time, including the Indians.

The EIC conquest of India was essentially completed by 1800 with the remaining local rulers reduced to vassal status. That's decades before the First Great Reform Act in 1832 - concepts like "democracy" are not, as Pan said, "really a thing" yet.

Well, the French had a revolution in 1789, Germany had peasant rebellions during the reformation, there were plenty of other peasant rebellions here and there, England had the bill of rights and that other important bill from medieval times. So I think it is quite silly to say that the nobility of England in 1800 was not aware that humans don't like to be subjugated. I don't know about Indian rulers, but they probably had similar knowledge and just because they were also good at ignoring the problems of their subjects that doesn't mean anyone else was a good person.



This is actually an important historical question, it can be applied to 9/11, revolution in Cuba, the Holocaust, the massacre at Agincourt, the murder of Jesus Christ, the Persian Invasions...

In each case the answer depends on how the actions were seen at the time AND the intention behind them.

Yes, and the fact that quite a few of the ten commandments are still encoded in law today mmight be a hint that certain morals haven't changed a whole lot over time, there were just times when the ruling class found workable excuses to ignore them. Such as declaring foreign people chattel or animals. You can't tell me that noble families tried to trace their ancestry back to Adam and Eve but were oblivious to the thought that forcing others to do things was not a nice thing to do. Possible that they developed some forms of collective delusion, but I'm pretty sure that they knew deep inside that it was wrong or at least saw plenty of signs that could have led them to that conclusion and chose to ignore them for their own benefit. This still happens today as well, it hasn't really changed, just like the morals that this behavior ignores.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I agree that the settee and Thugeeism were bad practices, and that British colonization had nothing to do with suppressing them.

Sorry, "nothing to do with" looks like a grammatical mistake here.

In any case, the British are responsible for suppressing those practices, there's no way to know if or when they would have been suppressed otherwise.

The British would also ultimately be responsible for abolishing slavery throughout their Empire, though this was slow to come to India.


British rule was often worse; it shouldn't be whitewashed.

This is the sort of thing people say without any actual empirical evidence, and also - worse that what? British rule in Ireland? American rule then vs American rule now?


Both are done in parallel.

I disagree, you first have to understand the past (or try to) and only then can you ask questions such as whether the past was better or worse.


We can read about their intentions, and moreover their actions and the results of those actions are on the historical record. We can deduce colonialism was bad because we have learned that historical record, not merely as a prior commitment.

But why is Colonialism bad?


This is the absurdity I was referring to. Taken to its logical conclusion, it becomes impossible to give an account of anything because everything subject to evaluation is past, and all process of evaluation follows from "current" perspective. Who would you then be to second-guess British Hong Kong diplomacy or EU politics then? That was then, and this is now.

"Hitler did nothing wrong" is an easy statement to reject if one knows what is right and what is wrong.

Let's leave Hitler aside, he's a bit too recent.

Let's consider the Protestant Reformation when both sides fiercely suppressed each other up to and including burning at the stake. Today we consider this wrong because we consider the free flow of ideas to be pretty much paramount - except when we don't. In fact, today we lock people up, fine them, sack them from their jobs and exclude them from public life if they don't toe a particular line, we just don't torture or kill them.

During the Reformation ideas, heretical ideas, were considered more dangerous than anything else because those people valued their souls more than their bodies or their property. In that context, absolute suppression of heresy by all methods becomes a moral imperative.

The point is precisely that their morals, their concept of Right and Wrong, was different from ours.

Now, you can, if you wish, judge them as evil for believing differently to you, or you can judge them as misguided.

I take the second view, which means that British Imperialism was misguided, but I will not apply words like "brutal" or "evil" unless the actual acts at the time were evil or brutal.

[Montmorency]

Ancient distaste at internecine rapine was something confined to certain of your cited elites, whom you say we should not only study. It was either accepted as a fact of life by the commonfolk, or was damn popular as a way of enrichening themselves. It may not be within reasonable living memory in the west which is all the world you know, but in some parts of the world, that attitude was within living memory. I've spoken to Hong Kongers whose previous generation had fought tribal wars over territory and influence, until the British shut down all the fun post-WWII. Ancient distaste at internecine rapine? Internecine rapine was a current thing in Hong Kong well into the 20th century. You probably didn't know that though, as mainstream history as taught in 21st century school is all you know of history.

So you're on to anthropology? I can't say I'm impressed by your alleged (undocumented) knowledge of the mindset of the average Athenian on the street or the bulk of the population of Hong Kong. Civil strife and elite competition is not something invented in post-war Hong Kong, by the way; lol @ "tribal wars." We had those in American cities throughout the same time period, waged by swarthy migrant tribes from Europa called "Mafia." Something outside the bounds of a history class might be that millions of Westerners to this day are thirsty for the blood of foreigners (and impure countrymen). As it turns out societies, like individuals, are permeated with multiple attitudes and belief systems.


Sorry, "nothing to do with" looks like a grammatical mistake here.

?? (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/have-nothing-to-do-with)



This is the sort of thing people say without any actual empirical evidence

Defenders of colonialism don't seem too bothered about advancing empirical evidence of benefits. There's quite a lot of evidence for negative

Late Victorian Holocausts (https://www.amazon.com/Late-Victorian-Holocausts-Famines-Making/dp/1784786624)
Resource drain (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0971523118782755)
Colonial economy (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-asian-studies/article/studying-a-colonial-economywithout-perceiving-colonialism/5A4AA6A1A73FAC4399B2FFC957B560A6)
Long-term consequences (https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1162/REST_a_00023)

You know how the history of the WWII Holocaust is sufficiently documented that we can denounce "denialism" and the fabrication of history excusing atrocity?


I disagree, you first have to understand the past (or try to) and only then can you ask questions such as whether the past was better or worse.

First of all, why? Second of all, how does this impinge on what I said? Assigning moral valence to a historical practice or event is different than comparing how good life was in the past versus the present, which I am utterly uninterested in doing here (I'm pretty sure we're better off nowadays FWIW, reactionary mileage may vary).


But why is Colonialism bad?

See above. Murdering and exploiting people to steal their resources and labor is also bad in itself regardless of its guise. Like when the French maintained slavery by proxy in Mali (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/05/this-day-in-labor-history-may-15-1905) well into the Belle Epoque. It is disconcerting that I should need to explain this. It's like having me respond to "Why is it wrong for me to eat you alive?" Like, OK Mr. Lecter, but the cops are on the way.


Let's leave Hitler aside, he's a bit too recent.

Why? The history of living memory is not subject to any qualitatively different conditions than the study of history beyond it, just the availability of materials. Ultimately the methods of archaeology, osteology, and gathering of documentary evidence are as relevant for 2000 BC as for 2000 CE.


Let's consider the Protestant Reformation when both sides fiercely suppressed each other up to and including burning at the stake. Today we consider this wrong because we consider the free flow of ideas to be pretty much paramount - except when we don't. In fact, today we lock people up, fine them, sack them from their jobs and exclude them from public life if they don't toe a particular line, we just don't torture or kill them.

Holy shit, we consider this wrong because they murdered each other in an orgy of political violence.

If you want someone extolling the value of free press - though not on exactly the same terms as speech absolutists today - we have John Milton. Obviously the Puritans disagreed. Others did agree. Similarly today we have a variety of views among individuals, groups, and within different national legal regimes. The question is, what is the question?


During the Reformation ideas, heretical ideas, were considered more dangerous than anything else because those people valued their souls more than their bodies or their property. In that context, absolute suppression of heresy by all methods becomes a moral imperative.

As I said, that was a specific viewpoint held by a subset of certain sociopolitical groups. Other groups and subsets may held overlapping views for different (e.g. secular) reasons. They may have held them to differing intensities. Some might have opposed them but gone along out of expedience or cowardice. Various commoners may or may not have held sophisticated viewpoints on the matter, or to differing extents been swayed by elite signalling. It is possible to study all of this.


The point is precisely that their morals, their concept of Right and Wrong, was different from ours.

You're engaging in convenient anachronism, not truly study of the past. To study intellectual history you should not assign sweeping ideologies this way.


I take the second view, which means that British Imperialism was misguided, but I will not apply words like "brutal" or "evil" unless the actual acts at the time were evil or brutal.

Why would you view it as misguided? Your logic says that if you don't believe British colonizers viewed colonialism as misguided - which some did indeed, but keeping to your understanding - then you can't either. What allows you to evaluate in terms of "misguided" but not good or bad? Don't you see how thoroughgoing the absurdity is? The same limitation you impose on me would, for example, prevent you from judging the political or military efficacy of the reported decisions of statesmen and generals. All those nerds scrutinizing Waterloo must be full of shit.

Even on your own terms as regards the intellectual or cultural sphere you would have to demonstrate that no one viewed given acts as evil or brutal. In fact you couldn't. If even a single person at any point in time thought 'We should somewhat improve things' or 'Violence is bad' or 'I wish my community had more control over its affairs', the doctrine collapses on its own terms.

As I said, to apply this fairly would produce an absurd and incoherent vision of history, assigning uniform viewpoints to both past and present people and engaging in the moral relativism of refusing to evaluate concrete actions within a cultural context not intimate to one's own. But it is typically applied only selectively, in a self-serving way. I'm not sure which is worse.


There is a sense in which a historical interpreter's personal beliefs get in the way of accurately analyzing or understanding history, but this isn't what you stand opposed to. Here are some examples and how to avert them:

1. Many African, Asian, and Latin American people after WW2 embraced Marxist ideologies in the form of their national and transnational struggles of the time. A naive contemporary interpretation might be that they were all true utopians or dialectical materialists somehow. Learning the colonial histories of those continents and the process of post-war decolonization reveals that the Marxist revolutionaries were not so much persuaded by ideological exegesis as attached to a political consciousness and intellectual network that seemingly linked them to a relatable and cohesive transnational struggle to strike back at European or American influence and control, an ideology that afforded them equal status to white men. Also, the hope for Soviet sponsorship.
2. Abortion has been pretty common throughout recorded history. But if one looks through printed materials from the 19th or 18th centuries, or through diaries, letters, or medical literature of the time for the words "abortion" or "birth control", one might get the impression that these concepts did not exist at the time. But with some thought, one can figure out they used different, often euphemistic, terminology than what we recognize today.
3. A lot of neo-Medieval films portray premodern combat in strange ways. For example, the most recent Robin Hood adaptation opened with a small unit of crusaders stalking the city streets of [city] with a tactical posture like they were fighting insurgents in modern Fallujah, complete with flanking maneuvers against a machine-gun repeating crossbow nest. The neo-Medieval aesthetics of stone masonry, sword and bow, etc. were all there, but the modernization was reckless. There's modernization of an old story, and then there's grafting on modern tropes and iconography.
4. The idea of Afghanistan as a graveyard of empires and locus of irregular resistance unfamiliar to civilized Europeans is often assumed to be accurate and timeless, one stretching back to the invasion of Alexander the Great. However, in ancient times the people in what is modern Afghanistan practiced fairly conventional warfare, such as would have been recognizable to Alexander the Great from his campaigns against Thracians. This elaborate interpretation entered British academic and popular consciousness following the Victorian-era defeat of the British in the First Anglo-Afghan war, sort of constructed to rationalize the imperial setback. We can discover this first by studying the available primary histories of Alexander's campaigns, and second by comparing how pre-Victorian and later classical histories narrated the same events. The meme endured for generations and lately was reactivated/repurposed by the Americans after 9/11 to slot into their counter-insurgency doctrine, a similar sort of rationalization.
[I actually learned the last specifically from one (https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004284739/B9789004284739_007.xml?lang=en) excellent essay.]

It is absolutely correct to caution that events distant or current cannot be completely understood solely through the parochial lens of personal context or semiotics, and that ideas and modes of living have differed across time and place. If your caution were such, we would have no disagreement...

[Pannonian]

So you're on to anthropology? I can't say I'm impressed by your alleged (undocumented) knowledge of the mindset of the average Athenian on the street or the bulk of the population of Hong Kong. Civil strife and elite competition is not something invented in post-war Hong Kong, by the way; lol @ "tribal wars." We had those in American cities throughout the same time period, waged by swarthy migrant tribes from Europa called "Mafia." Something outside the bounds of a history class might be that millions of Westerners to this day are thirsty for the blood of foreigners (and impure countrymen). As it turns out societies, like individuals, are permeated with multiple attitudes and belief systems.

Look up Ping Shan. It, and other villages in the New Territories, was involved in a war against the British in 1899 (I bet you didn't know that). What was notable about that conflict is that, in one short war, more villagers were killed than in a century of inter-village warfare. Was this oppression of native villagers by the British? Not for the villages themselves, for whom this was an ill-advised fight against professional soldiers. But what is relevant about the above point is that there were centuries of inter-village warfare before this, and decades of inter-village warfare after this. The Hong Kong-British war is documented in published histories, while the inter-village warfare is present in folk histories (such as records of alliances between different villages, and celebrations of these alliances), and referenced in these published histories.

What do you know of Hong Kong, that you feel confident in dismissing the above?

PS. If you have difficulty getting your head around small-scale inter-village warfare, read about the early history of Rome.

[Husar]

Look up Ping Shan. It, and other villages in the New Territories, was involved in a war against the British in 1899 (I bet you didn't know that). What was notable about that conflict is that, in one short war, more villagers were killed than in a century of inter-village warfare. Was this oppression of native villagers by the British? Not for the villages themselves, for whom this was an ill-advised fight against professional soldiers. But what is relevant about the above point is that there were centuries of inter-village warfare before this, and decades of inter-village warfare after this. The Hong Kong-British war is documented in published histories, while the inter-village warfare is present in folk histories (such as records of alliances between different villages, and celebrations of these alliances), and referenced in these published histories.

The stupidity of one is no excuse for the stupidity of another. You keep trying to lower the moral bar by pointing out how other people did bad things, too. If you murder someone tomorrow, you can't convince the judge (maybe the jury, but I wouldn't bet on it) to set you free by arguing that Hitler killed many millions and wasn't jailed for it. That people were killing one another does not excuse you going in there and killing even more of them. And their opinion of it doesn't matter in the slightest. Otherwise the opinion of some "Uncle Toms" makes slavery okay as well. What is so hard to understand?

[Pannonian]

The stupidity of one is no excuse for the stupidity of another. You keep trying to lower the moral bar by pointing out how other people did bad things, too. If you murder someone tomorrow, you can't convince the judge (maybe the jury, but I wouldn't bet on it) to set you free by arguing that Hitler killed many millions and wasn't jailed for it. That people were killing one another does not excuse you going in there and killing even more of them. And their opinion of it doesn't matter in the slightest. Otherwise the opinion of some "Uncle Toms" makes slavery okay as well. What is so hard to understand?

Montmorency was making the (exceptional) argument that history can be judged by modern ethics. I raised the point of war and spoils, which is completely alien to modern western societies, but which was an integral part of society in the past. Montmorency tried to argue that it was abhorrent to ancient societies, when most evidence (barring that of the philosophical elite) indicates otherwise.

If you don't want to talk about war and spoils, how about religion, as PFH has raised? What do you think of the importance of the soul in pre-modern history? Should you try and understand this subject and via that view history through that perspective? Or do you stick with Montmorency's argument that we should view history through the modern perspective?

[CrossLOPER]

As a British citizen I am ashamed, and until the people of Hong Kong are free I will never again claim to be "Proud to be British".

I would just like to interject that I find it hilarious that this particular situation is what made you go ahead and make this proclamation. It's not the relatively high level of poverty, the fact that many young people who feel disenfranchised are turning to the far right, not the legacy of strife left by the empire, not the level of chaos in the wake of Brexit, not the damage done to the environment through overzealous "maintenance" policies, certainly not the fact that LGBT communities are seeing increases in violence.

The thing that is most disconcerting is autonomy status of a former colony acquired through forced arbitration following a drug war that involved flooding a country with an extremely destructive and addictive substance.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I would just like to interject that I find it hilarious that this particular situation is what made you go ahead and make this proclamation. It's not the relatively high level of poverty, the fact that many young people who feel disenfranchised are turning to the far right, not the legacy of strife left by the empire, not the level of chaos in the wake of Brexit, not the damage done to the environment through overzealous "maintenance" policies, certainly not the fact that LGBT communities are seeing increases in violence.

The thing that is most disconcerting is autonomy status of a former colony acquired through forced arbitration following a drug war that involved flooding a country with an extremely destructive and addictive substance.

No, it's the 7 million people we knowingly handed over to a repressive dictatorship.

[CrossLOPER]

No, it's the 7 million people we knowingly handed over to a repressive dictatorship.
So what makes the other things I mentioned so far less disconcerting?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So what makes the other things I mentioned so far less disconcerting?

Most of the other things you mention aren't exactly within government control - government can try to mitigate poverty but poverty is caused by the economy.

Our elected representatives handing over 7 million fellow citizens (who are denied the right to vote?

How is that NOT astronomically worse?

For starters - you have the disenfranchised citizens who are also basically the victims of overt state racism (non-Chinese Hong-Kongers were given the option to emigrate to Britain far more readily). Then you have the shear number, about 11% of Britain's entire population when you include overseas territories. Then you have where we sent them, and when, and in what context. The Joint Sino-British Declaration was signed in 1984, two years after the Falklands Conflict established that Britain would protect the right of its citizens to be British.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Now, you can, if you wish, judge them as evil for believing differently to you, or you can judge them as misguided.

I take the second view, which means that British Imperialism was misguided, but I will not apply words like "brutal" or "evil" unless the actual acts at the time were evil or brutal.

What's that term Socrates used basically saying that no one willingly goes towards the bad?
Problem I have with that notion is that you are basically saying that previous humans were somehow more deficient in their reasoning that they couldn't figure out slavery is wrong OR they lacked the imagination of all possible scenarios and they somehow couldn't even conceive of a world where slavery is removed. Apply this to any morally questionable choice from the past and it seems like bending over backwards to not hurt the feelings of dead people.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What's that term Socrates used basically saying that no one willingly goes towards the bad?
Problem I have with that notion is that you are basically saying that previous humans were somehow more deficient in their reasoning that they couldn't figure out slavery is wrong OR they lacked the imagination of all possible scenarios and they somehow couldn't even conceive of a world where slavery is removed. Apply this to any morally questionable choice from the past and it seems like bending over backwards to not hurt the feelings of dead people.

You assume we are not deficient in our reasoning, as did they.

Slavery is often a proxy for this notion that we are overall "better" than our ancestors but the notion of slavery people have is of the transatlantic slave trade which is really a "special case." You see, slavery had already been illegal in much of Europe for several centuries and people DID believe that it was wrong. In England it was outlawed by Wulfstan of York under King Knut (though I believe it made a bit of a comeback under the Normans and they also had serfs).

So, how to justify enslaving Sub-Saharan Africans?

Well, basically you declare them sub-human, and then enslaving them isn't wrong. Modern ideas of "racial purity" are a direct result of the slave-trade and the "scientific racism" used to justify it. Can you think of anything we do today which isn't immoral or self-destructive? How about our over-use of natural resources and electricity? The whole point is to recognise that we are NOT necessarily ethically superior to those in other historical periods, that's the real value in history - to see and understand things freom another perspective and then question your own assumptions.

How does this relate to Hong Kong?

Well, it relates because it is not an "historical" event that belongs to another period, it happened a couple of decades ago, under our current ethical system. The reason what is happening in Hong Kong is so bad and in a way worse than the 19th Century depredations of the British Empire is that it wasn't done by an historical "them" but by the present "us", with full knowledge of the consequences.

At the time of the handover Hong Kong's population represented more than a tenth of the total British citizenry. What we did is roughly equivalent to the US handing about 35 million people to Russia - possibly the equivalent of giving them California.

[Don Corleone]

Rather interesting thread, thank you all for the read. In truth, I found myself swayed by arguments presented from all sides. I found it fascinating that (to me) what began as a debate between British Idealism and British Pragmatism morphed into a debate between unified British defenders versus the rest of the world, picking up the tools of deconstructionsim and universalism.

I remember we had a Chinese national engineer on one of my development teams at my first job in the mid-90's. Since we were in Rhode Island, outside of work and imbibing quantities of alcohol, the members of my team and I, Chinese engineer included, were able to speak freely. An American Conservative (Large C by design) was poking the Chinese engineer, 7 years on from Tianmen, about China's record on human rights.

I'll never forget the answer the Chinese engineer gave... he smiled softlly, puffing on one of the cigars I had offered to the group, and asked him "Isn't not starving to death a human right? Isn't that more important than who the Mayor of Beijing currently is, even to the average citizen of Beijing?"

I raise this because it started a trend in me to begin to see morality in politics and history as a question of framing. In what context are you making your judgment?

Philip's core assertion... that the government of the UK was in error to hand over sovereignty of Hong Kong without input from the affected population stands on it's own. Self-determination and autonomy are about as close to unversal truths as we get in this life. But they do raise some interesting wrinkles...

-Why should PRC be obliged to provide fresh water or any other supplies to a newly formed sovereign nation of Hong Kong & Kowloon?

-Is it moral to turn Hong Kong loose for it's own sovereignty if it cannot sustain it's own needs?

-Somebody raised the question of the US and its relationship to Taiwan... I would suggest, strongly, that is a different situation entirely and the parallels are limited. But the core reason for it's inclusion... that at the end of the day, like it or not, Might Does Make Right is probably more correct than any of us would ever care to admit.

[Pannonian]

Rather interesting thread, thank you all for the read. In truth, I found myself swayed by arguments presented from all sides. I found it fascinating that (to me) what began as a debate between British Idealism and British Pragmatism morphed into a debate between unified British defenders versus the rest of the world, picking up the tools of deconstructionsim and universalism.

I remember we had a Chinese national engineer on one of my development teams at my first job in the mid-90's. Since we were in Rhode Island, outside of work and imbibing quantities of alcohol, the members of my team and I, Chinese engineer included, were able to speak freely. An American Conservative (Large C by design) was poking the Chinese engineer, 7 years on from Tianmen, about China's record on human rights.

I'll never forget the answer the Chinese engineer gave... he smiled softlly, puffing on one of the cigars I had offered to the group, and asked him "Isn't not starving to death a human right? Isn't that more important than who the Mayor of Beijing currently is, even to the average citizen of Beijing?"

I raise this because it started a trend in me to begin to see morality in politics and history as a question of framing. In what context are you making your judgment?

Philip's core assertion... that the government of the UK was in error to hand over sovereignty of Hong Kong without input from the affected population stands on it's own. Self-determination and autonomy are about as close to unversal truths as we get in this life. But they do raise some interesting wrinkles...

-Why should PRC be obliged to provide fresh water or any other supplies to a newly formed sovereign nation of Hong Kong & Kowloon?

-Is it moral to turn Hong Kong loose for it's own sovereignty if it cannot sustain it's own needs?

-Somebody raised the question of the US and its relationship to Taiwan... I would suggest, strongly, that is a different situation entirely and the parallels are limited. But the core reason for it's inclusion... that at the end of the day, like it or not, Might Does Make Right is probably more correct than any of us would ever care to admit.

There's an entry in the Hong Kong Museum referencing an episode in the 1960s (when Mao was the PRC leader) when the mainland provided Hong Kong with fresh water supplies during a time of drought. In case anyone may think this is bias towards the current Chinese overlords, there is another entry referencing an episode in the early 20th century when the Qing government demanded the hand over of republican agitators, which the British government of HK ignored. The lesson I'm trying to drive is that maybe people shouldn't pontificate about generalised principles from afar, but should learn something about the subject being discussed, or at least listen to those who know more about it. Whatever your political orientation, relevant knowledge and good historiography should be something to aspire to.

[Don Corleone]

Totally agree. I feel completely unqualified to take a side one way or the other. I've learned that there tends to be so much nuance in each and every situation, it's hard to apply general priciniples in anything but the most superficial way. If I came off as pontificating, my apologies, that wasn't my intent.

[Pannonian]

You assume we are not deficient in our reasoning, as did they.

Slavery is often a proxy for this notion that we are overall "better" than our ancestors but the notion of slavery people have is of the transatlantic slave trade which is really a "special case." You see, slavery had already been illegal in much of Europe for several centuries and people DID believe that it was wrong. In England it was outlawed by Wulfstan of York under King Knut (though I believe it made a bit of a comeback under the Normans and they also had serfs).

So, how to justify enslaving Sub-Saharan Africans?

Well, basically you declare them sub-human, and then enslaving them isn't wrong. Modern ideas of "racial purity" are a direct result of the slave-trade and the "scientific racism" used to justify it. Can you think of anything we do today which isn't immoral or self-destructive? How about our over-use of natural resources and electricity? The whole point is to recognise that we are NOT necessarily ethically superior to those in other historical periods, that's the real value in history - to see and understand things freom another perspective and then question your own assumptions.

How does this relate to Hong Kong?

Well, it relates because it is not an "historical" event that belongs to another period, it happened a couple of decades ago, under our current ethical system. The reason what is happening in Hong Kong is so bad and in a way worse than the 19th Century depredations of the British Empire is that it wasn't done by an historical "them" but by the present "us", with full knowledge of the consequences.

At the time of the handover Hong Kong's population represented more than a tenth of the total British citizenry. What we did is roughly equivalent to the US handing about 35 million people to Russia - possibly the equivalent of giving them California.

Some of that attitude was present in Anglos, even into the late 20th century, as represented by the FILTH. Many Brits in Hong Kong still regarded the Chinese as an inferior people, with Hong Kong being a last holdout of the Raj. Of course, this wasn't unique to the Brits, as the Hong Kong Chinese in turn viewed the mainland Chinese as an inferior people, holding a similar position to their mainland cousins as the Brits did to them. While the Brits' attitude to the Hong Kongers may be described as racism, how would you describe the Hong Kongers' same attitude to the mainlanders? Caste may be a better description, and this hierarchy held until the handover and possibly even beyond. Whites at the top, locals next level down, mainlanders at the bottom. This was why Patten was seen as exceptional, a big name Westminster politician who treated all inhabitants of Hong Kong as his constituents.

I have no idea what the right thing to do in the case of Hong Kong may be. But it irks me when Hong Kong is set up as something it is not, to put forward an argument of general principles, whatever they may be.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Some of that attitude was present in Anglos, even into the late 20th century, as represented by the FILTH. Many Brits in Hong Kong still regarded the Chinese as an inferior people, with Hong Kong being a last holdout of the Raj. Of course, this wasn't unique to the Brits, as the Hong Kong Chinese in turn viewed the mainland Chinese as an inferior people, holding a similar position to their mainland cousins as the Brits did to them. While the Brits' attitude to the Hong Kongers may be described as racism, how would you describe the Hong Kongers' same attitude to the mainlanders? Caste may be a better description, and this hierarchy held until the handover and possibly even beyond. Whites at the top, locals next level down, mainlanders at the bottom. This was why Patten was seen as exceptional, a big name Westminster politician who treated all inhabitants of Hong Kong as his constituents.

I have no idea what the right thing to do in the case of Hong Kong may be. But it irks me when Hong Kong is set up as something it is not, to put forward an argument of general principles, whatever they may be.

Many Brits overseas still regard non-Anglos as inferior - but we as a society have reached a point where we no longer consider that remotely acceptable, and we had reached that point AT LEAST by 1990, if not before.

Despite which, Parliament STILL has not granted British citizens born in Overseas Territories the same rights as those in Mainland Britain and Ireland.

As to how Hong Kongers viewed mainland Chinese, I'd just call that racism the same as I'd call the antipathy between the British and French racism.

[rory_20_uk]

And thus "racism" gets devalued to the point where people's instinctive dislike and fear of "other" is labelled as "racism". Even if everyone is the same race. Better use Xenophobia since at least that is accurate.

Most people are at least to an extent xenophobic. Most lie about this of course since it is not PC. Everyone loves everyone. As long as they do not encroach on our lives.

~:smoking:

[Don Corleone]

Xenophobia, bigotry sure...

But to me (and I'm open to being wrong on this) Racism implies power structures that enable one group to permanently relegate said other to a permanent underclass.

If you can't lynch or disenfranchise somebody, can you truly be racist? Bigoted and hateful, certainly... but racism requires power and instutionalized control.

[rory_20_uk]

Nothing has changed:

https://youtu.be/CgASBVMyVFI

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Look up Ping Shan. It, and other villages in the New Territories, was involved in a war against the British in 1899 (I bet you didn't know that). What was notable about that conflict is that, in one short war, more villagers were killed than in a century of inter-village warfare. Was this oppression of native villagers by the British? Not for the villages themselves, for whom this was an ill-advised fight against professional soldiers. But what is relevant about the above point is that there were centuries of inter-village warfare before this, and decades of inter-village warfare after this. The Hong Kong-British war is documented in published histories, while the inter-village warfare is present in folk histories (such as records of alliances between different villages, and celebrations of these alliances), and referenced in these published histories.

What do you know of Hong Kong, that you feel confident in dismissing the above?

PS. If you have difficulty getting your head around small-scale inter-village warfare, read about the early history of Rome.

Pannonian, what are you talking about? Do you really read me as contesting that violence and warfare exist?


Montmorency was making the (exceptional) argument that history can be judged by modern ethics. I raised the point of war and spoils, which is completely alien to modern western societies, but which was an integral part of society in the past. Montmorency tried to argue that it was abhorrent to ancient societies, when most evidence (barring that of the philosophical elite) indicates otherwise.

No, I didn't. I pointed out that such practices did not go unquestioned, that there is no such thing as a universal attitude or philosophy of time and place, and that to assign one is a form of bias. And my larger (unexceptional) point is that the ethics of the observer can be applied to any event at any point in time to some extent, unless one is an absolute moral relativist, which no one is.


If you don't want to talk about war and spoils, how about religion, as PFH has raised? What do you think of the importance of the soul in pre-modern history? Should you try and understand this subject and via that view history through that perspective? Or do you stick with Montmorency's argument that we should view history through the modern perspective?

Again, two quite distinct questions:

1. What was a specific historical viewpoint, what were its antecedents, what was its milieu, what functions did it serve...?
2. What do I personally make of this viewpoint?

For example, people have believed in thousands of different gods and deities across time and place. What do I make of these gods? Well, I'm an atheist, and I'm just as much of an atheist with respect to Ba'al as to "God". I don't suddenly stop being an atheist just because some gods were worshiped long ago. And I don't suddenly have to respect scientific concepts like humours, nor do I lack standing to accept, reject, or modify any philosophy or theology I come across in deference to age. It too would be absurd to hold one to agnosticism or against criticism of the myriad contradictory worldviews that have existed - yet most are far older than we are. They were believed by different humans in a different time and place - but you don't have to.




What's that term Socrates used basically saying that no one willingly goes towards the bad?
Problem I have with that notion is that you are basically saying that previous humans were somehow more deficient in their reasoning that they couldn't figure out slavery is wrong OR they lacked the imagination of all possible scenarios and they somehow couldn't even conceive of a world where slavery is removed. Apply this to any morally questionable choice from the past and it seems like bending over backwards to not hurt the feelings of dead people.

The reservation advanced in thread is so obviously extreme and illogical, I think it's more about flattering the feelings of present people. To me it is a very telling juxtaposition when we see in this thread the perfunctory condemnation of the Indian settee practice, but colonialism is set above criticism because it was part of a different cultural context, how very dare you sir (with non-British colonialism having less enjoyment of this buffer somehow).

It's a put-on.




You assume we are not deficient in our reasoning, as did they.

The whole point is to recognise that we are NOT necessarily ethically superior to those in other historical periods

The presence of deficiencies in ourselves does not preclude comparison, whether hold to our (individual) own standard or some other. One of the things anyone should quickly realize when reading history is that many of us today, for whatever reason, simply are better people in many regards than most of those that have come before - to the extent we know anything about most of that lot. There is nothing impossible in this observation, only discomfiting for some perhaps. To observe difference is not to say that we are New Man or ubermensch or the apex of history.


Well, it relates because it is not an "historical" event that belongs to another period, it happened a couple of decades ago, under our current ethical system. The reason what is happening in Hong Kong is so bad and in a way worse than the 19th Century depredations of the British Empire is that it wasn't done by an historical "them" but by the present "us", with full knowledge of the consequences.

Don't you think that's too elitist, too presentist? What happened a year ago or yesterday has merged into the realm of history. History does not start or begin at a fixed point, and it does not reach its limits with our consciousness. Don't be like the French labeling everything after 1789 as "contemporary." Drawing breath doesn't qualitatively rupture intellectual space, as opposed to the phenomenological aspect.



-Why should PRC be obliged to provide fresh water or any other supplies to a newly formed sovereign nation of Hong Kong & Kowloon?

-Is it moral to turn Hong Kong loose for it's own sovereignty if it cannot sustain it's own needs?

-Somebody raised the question of the US and its relationship to Taiwan... I would suggest, strongly, that is a different situation entirely and the parallels are limited. But the core reason for it's inclusion... that at the end of the day, like it or not, Might Does Make Right is probably more correct than any of us would ever care to admit.

Here's a kind of rhetorical problem, namely that some moral quandaries are difficult in a given moral framework - but others are very easy.

1. From either a human rights or utilitarian perspective, yes. [easy]
2. Depends on who the sovereign is. If Hong Kong were a syndicalist commune - maybe. [harder]
3. Unclear what the proposition is [can't compute]

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And thus "racism" gets devalued to the point where people's instinctive dislike and fear of "other" is labelled as "racism". Even if everyone is the same race. Better use Xenophobia since at least that is accurate.

Most people are at least to an extent xenophobic. Most lie about this of course since it is not PC. Everyone loves everyone. As long as they do not encroach on our lives.

~:smoking:


Xenophobia, bigotry sure...

But to me (and I'm open to being wrong on this) Racism implies power structures that enable one group to permanently relegate said other to a permanent underclass.

If you can't lynch or disenfranchise somebody, can you truly be racist? Bigoted and hateful, certainly... but racism requires power and instutionalized control.

Or we could just distinguish between "racism" and "institutional racism". Race is a construct, it's the human equivalent of different dog breeds, and if you think that sounds silly look at how obsessive people get over specific types of Collie sheepdog - court colour, ear shape...

Rory thinks that the English and the French are "the same race" but if we look at "Scientific" racism we see the French classified as Galles or Celts and the English as "Arian". Both are white but the French are, unlike the Germans, somewhat suspect, they are perhaps not "as white". After all, France borders Italy and the Italians have been worthless since the end of the Roman Empire.

Racism is not special, it is common and it is vulgar and the same thought pattern which allows the French and the English to sneer at each other also allowed one group of Germans to enthusiastically slaughter another group of Germans as a matter of principle because they might be Jewish.

Every human being has the capacity for bottomless evil and the ones you should be most worried about are the ones who believe that isn't true.

[Montmorency]

Or we could just distinguish between "racism" and "institutional racism". Race is a construct, it's the human equivalent of different dog breeds, and if you think that sounds silly look at how obsessive people get over specific types of Collie sheepdog - court colour, ear shape...

This is a problematic analogy because dog breeds are demonstrably very physically and behaviorally divergent.


Racism is not special, it is common and it is vulgar and the same thought pattern which allows the French and the English to sneer at each other also allowed one group of Germans to enthusiastically slaughter another group of Germans as a matter of principle because they might be Jewish.

This sense of racism might have been applicable in the 18th century, but different modes of thinking are current as to the relationship between English and French people.


Every human being has the capacity for bottomless evil and the ones you should be most worried about are the ones who believe that isn't true.

This isn't meaningful though, if you care about measuring or predicting behavior. Every human has the capacity to go to space; most won't for a variety of reasons, even projecting future space-based technologies or economies.

Similarly, we have to hone in on the evils we should be worried about today, not the whole universe of possible evils. (I have a feeling I'm devolving into reflexive captiousness :sweatdrop: )

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is a problematic analogy because dog breeds are demonstrably very physically and behaviorally divergent.

True, but Collies are not - which was the point.


This sense of racism might have been applicable in the 18th century, but different modes of thinking are current as to the relationship between English and French people.

Are you sure? Are we abandoning the "banality of Evil" then?


This isn't meaningful though, if you care about measuring or predicting behavior. Every human has the capacity to go to space; most won't for a variety of reasons, even projecting future space-based technologies or economies.

Similarly, we have to hone in on the evils we should be worried about today, not the whole universe of possible evils. (I have a feeling I'm devolving into reflexive captiousness :sweatdrop: )

You miss the point - evil is not really very special except when special people are evil. Imagine if Adolf Hitler had known and loved his Jewish Grandmother and been an ardent democrat? In that circumstance World War II might have started because Hitler was outraged by Soviet encroachment in Eastern Europe.

Worse, evil is a matter of perception. Today we would consider burning heretics evil but 500 years ago our direct ancestors would have considered giving them a platform to spread their poisonous lies over the Internet much more evil.

The point is to learn from history and the thing to learn is that you will be judged centuries from now and you might be wrong.

In the case of Hong Kong we can look back 22-years and say that a lot of people, including the Hong Kong Legislature at the time, considered what was done - denial of citizenship to Hong Kongers - was wrong.

Some of the people who made that decision are still in Parliament, almost all of them are still alive and are public figures in the UK.

[Montmorency]

Are you sure? Are we abandoning the "banality of Evil" then?

What do you mean?


Jewish Grandmother

Err...


In that circumstance World War II might have started because Hitler was outraged by Soviet encroachment in Eastern Europe.

If WW2-era Germany incorporated Jews toward the project of subjugating Europe, exterminating Slavs and colonizing their land, that would still be about as evil.


The point is to learn from history and the thing to learn is that you will be judged centuries from now and you might be wrong.

Do you think I disagree?


In the case of Hong Kong we can look back 22-years and say that a lot of people, including the Hong Kong Legislature at the time, considered what was done - denial of citizenship to Hong Kongers - was wrong.

I haven't yet in thread rendered an opinion on this OP subject, but if it makes you feel better at first glance I would be inclined to agree.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What do you mean?

You are trying to elevate racism and make it special from other forms of xenophobia (fear of people from other races).


Err...

Sorry, I meant grandfather - and that's never been proved either way.


If WW2-era Germany incorporated Jews toward the project of subjugating Europe, exterminating Slavs and colonizing their land, that would still be about as evil.

You ignored the part about Hitler being a democrat and not a tyrant - I'm asking you to imagine a world where Hitler is basically and angrier, shoutier version of Churchill. Point being, Adolf Hitler had certain special gifts - he used those gifts in pursuit of evil ends and so his evil killed six million people.

However, many other Germans also participated enthusiastically - are they all equally evil? Only a little bit? Are they still evil if they have fallen for "Nazi lies" and believe Jews are actually the evil ones?

Difficult, complex, and uncomfortable questions.


Do you think I disagree?

I think that you have not considered all the ramifications.

Try another one - 1066, the Normans invade England, confiscate 100% of the land, enserf the entire peasant population who were previously free.

Are the Normans "evil"?

Within a generation the economy had collapsed due to miss-management and the introduction of Feudalism basically sopped the development of English civil society. The administration was so poor that the late-Anglo-Saxon system of county division was ossified for 1008 years.

On the other hand, the Norman invasion paved the way for real democracy with Magna Carta, it re-orientated England towards the European mainland instead of Scandinavia and it jump-started the modern English Middle-Class, eventually.

Now compare this to the British Raj - definitely some downsides but the British are just doing what everyone does in this period, and they're generally better at it and better about it than a lot of other people. Sure, there's some short-term harm done to India, and it's not trivial, but there's also the groundwork layed for "The World's Largest Democracy."

So, were the British "evil"?

A lot of people in this thread are confusing a refusal to outright condemn or apply moralistic language to the past as condoning past actions.

[Montmorency]

You are trying to elevate racism and make it special from other forms of xenophobia (fear of people from other races).

I think you're being too reductive with the concept.


You ignored the part about Hitler being a democrat and not a tyrant - I'm asking you to imagine a world where Hitler is basically and angrier, shoutier version of Churchill. Point being, Adolf Hitler had certain special gifts - he used those gifts in pursuit of evil ends and so his evil killed six million people.

More than six million.

Sounds like something from Turtledove's Southern Victory series. Amusing fantasy, but alternate worlds are not ontologically meaningful.


However, many other Germans also participated enthusiastically - are they all equally evil? Only a little bit? Are they still evil if they have fallen for "Nazi lies" and believe Jews are actually the evil ones?

Difficult, complex, and uncomfortable questions.

Not really. I'm with:


Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but because out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed.

That word is “Nazi”.

No-one cares about their motives anymore.

Though I think it is useful to study their motives (as historians have in fact been doing for generations) to build theories of how and why societies turn fascist. Very timely.




I think that you have not considered all the ramifications.

Try another one - 1066, the Normans invade England, confiscate 100% of the land, enserf the entire peasant population who were previously free.

Are the Normans "evil"?

Within a generation the economy had collapsed due to miss-management and the introduction of Feudalism basically sopped the development of English civil society. The administration was so poor that the late-Anglo-Saxon system of county division was ossified for 1008 years.

On the other hand, the Norman invasion paved the way for real democracy with Magna Carta, it re-orientated England towards the European mainland instead of Scandinavia and it jump-started the modern English Middle-Class, eventually.

Now compare this to the British Raj - definitely some downsides but the British are just doing what everyone does in this period, and they're generally better at it and better about it than a lot of other people. Sure, there's some short-term harm done to India, and it's not trivial, but there's also the groundwork layed for "The World's Largest Democracy."

So, were the British "evil"?

A lot of people in this thread are confusing a refusal to outright condemn or apply moralistic language to the past as condoning past actions.


If something can be condemned in its own right, it should be condemned.

You're introducing a conflation here. In this sense it is impossible to assess anything that happens anywhere, because who knows what the ultimate causal chain looks like. Wasn't WW2 pretty good? Maybe when Hitler set up the General Government in Poland he disrupted a lot of criminal activity, prevented a lot of harm by moving people around. Maybe experiencing the war prevented Nikita Khrushchev from becoming the next Hitler. The outcome of the war encouraged European cooperation. Maybe it will turn out to have been key to world peace by 2100. Maybe if a time traveler went back and killed Hitler as an infant, every human would be dead today. Who knows, right? Maybe you should visit my home and smother me in my sleep, just in case all's well that ends well? I can't say how the ultimate balance of things lies, so is it really reasonable not to kill me?!

Again, ontologically meaningless speculation. It's just not a valid means to understanding the world.

And you're whitewashing British colonialism again. "Definitely some downsides" is partial and moralistic language. Why is this sort of evaluation intrinsically acceptable but the opposite, that it was particularly bad in scope, scale, and intensity, that the prevalence of imperialism is not exculpatory, and that there were long-term costs not acceptable, even on the basis of evidence? The problem is you don't speak on principle, a bad principle which as I have established is logically incoherent, but out of nostalgia or identity-based legitimation. Our disagreement lies not in whether it is possible to judge colonialism, but in how harshly or leniently it ought to be judged.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Xenophobia, bigotry sure...

But to me (and I'm open to being wrong on this) Racism implies power structures that enable one group to permanently relegate said other to a permanent underclass.

If you can't lynch or disenfranchise somebody, can you truly be racist? Bigoted and hateful, certainly... but racism requires power and instutionalized control.

Interesting parsing of those terms. By your definitions, I conflate bigotry and racism. To be sure, the power to effect subjugation of one race by another through laws, terror, etc. is the real sticking point.

[Pannonian]

Pannonian, what are you talking about? Do you really read me as contesting that violence and warfare exist?


I read you as contesting that good historiography consists of reading events and actions in the context of the time and then current background, that bad historiography consists of reading events and actions in your current time and context.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think you're being too reductive with the concept.

I think you're being too narrow.


More than six million.

Sounds like something from Turtledove's Southern Victory series. Amusing fantasy, but alternate worlds are not ontologically meaningful.

You are correct, six million Jews, ten million people overall. As a thought experiment the point is to not simply see Afolf Hitler as Satan, but to see him as a human being (not a popular idea in the West) who made certain choices for certain reasons.


Not really. I'm with:

Again, we come back to burning heretics. At the time all Christians were inducted at birth and had no real choice about their membership, do we therefore "not care" about why they were members. Julius Goat omits to consider "fear for ones self and ones family" as a reason for joining.


Though I think it is useful to study their motives (as historians have in fact been doing for generations) to build theories of how and why societies turn fascist. Very timely.

If something can be condemned in its own right, it should be condemned.

You're introducing a conflation here. In this sense it is impossible to assess anything that happens anywhere, because who knows what the ultimate causal chain looks like. Wasn't WW2 pretty good? Maybe when Hitler set up the General Government in Poland he disrupted a lot of criminal activity, prevented a lot of harm by moving people around. Maybe experiencing the war prevented Nikita Khrushchev from becoming the next Hitler. The outcome of the war encouraged European cooperation. Maybe it will turn out to have been key to world peace by 2100. Maybe if a time traveler went back and killed Hitler as an infant, every human would be dead today. Who knows, right? Maybe you should visit my home and smother me in my sleep, just in case all's well that ends well? I can't say how the ultimate balance of things lies, so is it really reasonable not to kill me?!

Again, ontologically meaningless speculation. It's just not a valid means to understanding the world.

And you're whitewashing British colonialism again. "Definitely some downsides" is partial and moralistic language. Why is this sort of evaluation intrinsically acceptable but the opposite, that it was particularly bad in scope, scale, and intensity, that the prevalence of imperialism is not exculpatory, and that there were long-term costs not acceptable, even on the basis of evidence? The problem is you don't speak on principle, a bad principle which as I have established is logically incoherent, but out of nostalgia or identity-based legitimation. Our disagreement lies not in whether it is possible to judge colonialism, but in how harshly or leniently it ought to be judged.

No, I'm just pointing out that if the EIC's annexation of India was evil and makes the subsequent British Rag evil then the Norman invasion was also evil and so was the subsequent development of English democracy was also evil.

For about a century and a half all of India was under British rule, and for about a century of that this was the "British Raj" as distinct from the "Company Raj". As extraordinary as it sounds the annexation of India was a private undertaking which the British government ultimately took over when the private contractor demonstrated itself to be incompetent and unable to govern to the benefit of the Crown or the local population.

Ultimately, after World War I Britain increasingly democratised the government of India, a process which continued up to Independence. We even built the Parliament in New Delhi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Legislative_Assembly

At what point did the Raj stop being evil? Or was it through its nature only capable of evil? If that is the case was granting independence and the asked for partition evil?

[Montmorency]

I read you as contesting that good historiography consists of reading events and actions in the context of the time and then current background, that bad historiography consists of reading events and actions in your current time and context.

You will find answers to your questions in my posts, which establish that your principle is necessarily a hypocritical one that you can't and don't adhere to. It is right to be critical of history tailored to a self-interested agenda. It is wrong to dismiss the honest ascertainment of facts about history and pretend they bear no relevance to the present day or vice versa.


As a thought experiment the point is to not simply see Afolf Hitler as Satan, but to see him as a human being (not a popular idea in the West) who made certain choices for certain reasons.

You're confusing popular culture with routine historical practice; we don't disagree. Unless it's with the insinuation that "choice" of any configuration is omnipresent.


Again, we come back to burning heretics. At the time all Christians were inducted at birth and had no real choice about their membership, do we therefore "not care" about why they were members. Julius Goat omits to consider "fear for ones self and ones family" as a reason for joining.

I don't know what heretics and Christians have to do with it, but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRDq7aneXnk.

The demographic of people who actively participated in atrocities out of fear is smaller than either the demographics of the indifferent and accepting or of the actively sadistic. Anyway, we can condemn cowardice where we see it, while being cognizant of contextual differences between German clerk working paper at a munitions factory in 1940, a lawyer whistling past renditions of his neighbors in 1934, and a Wehrmacht soldier looting and burning a peasant hut in 1941. A Pole in 1943 refusing to shelter a Jew at pain of death is not bad the same way as a Pole joining the local paramilitary in 1943 to hunt down Jews and Resistance with SS assistance. (And if I turn out to be a coward, that's not good either.)


No, I'm just pointing out that if the EIC's annexation of India was evil and makes the subsequent British Rag evil then the Norman invasion was also evil and so was the subsequent development of English democracy was also evil.

Why the latter? The problem is refusal to accounting.


At what point did the Raj stop being evil? Or was it through its nature only capable of evil? If that is the case was granting independence and the asked for partition evil?

I've only recently begun to accept use of the word "evil" and don't really have a sophisticated conception of capital-Evil as compared to Bad or Wrong (which two we may or may not philosophically distinguish themselves depending on your thinking). Suffice to say at the point of committing to a transition out of a colonial regime, the important thing is the process of doing it, how well you set up the decolonized people for self-rule. It's a different subject from the characteristics of colonial rule as a system, though arguably "truth and reconciliation" for the latter ought to play a prominent role in the former (though it pretty much never has).

[Pannonian]

You will find answers to your questions in my posts, which establish that your principle is necessarily a hypocritical one that you can't and don't adhere to. It is right to be critical of history tailored to a self-interested agenda. It is wrong to dismiss the honest ascertainment of facts about history and pretend they bear no relevance to the present day or vice versa.

There is no hypocrisy in my point, nor is it something that I can't and won't adhere to. It is one of the first principles of history study as I was taught. You do not assess the past by the standards of the present. You will never have a perfect understanding of the past. But you pursue that anyway, for it improves your understanding of what the evidence tells you. While perfection may never be reached, there is one perspective that is definitively wrong. That is to do as you say should be done, which is to assess the past by the standards of the present. Just about every other mistake can be forgiven, as an error in detail. What you suggest is a fundamental error in principle.

Why did people in the past put so much resources into building places of worship? Can you explain this from the standards of the present?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't know what heretics and Christians have to do with it, but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRDq7aneXnk.

The demographic of people who actively participated in atrocities out of fear is smaller than either the demographics of the indifferent and accepting or of the actively sadistic. Anyway, we can condemn cowardice where we see it, while being cognizant of contextual differences between German clerk working paper at a munitions factory in 1940, a lawyer whistling past renditions of his neighbors in 1934, and a Wehrmacht soldier looting and burning a peasant hut in 1941. A Pole in 1943 refusing to shelter a Jew at pain of death is not bad the same way as a Pole joining the local paramilitary in 1943 to hunt down Jews and Resistance with SS assistance. (And if I turn out to be a coward, that's not good either.)

Nazis hunted down Jews for a number of reasons, but often because they believed Jews were evil.

Now we hunt Nazis because we believe they are evil, we put them on trial even when they are old and infirm octogenarians.

The parallel with Christian heretics is apt - once we denounced them as evil and executed them, now we denounce those who take their faith to a logical extreme as evil. Earlier Husar referred to the 9/11 bombers and asked if they were evil if they believed in what they were doing - it's an apt question, and it has two answers. Basically, over the last hundred years or so we've gradually inverted our moral system, whereas we used to value moral purity we now value moral flexibility. This may be progress, or it may be an aberration that future generations will look at as a mystifying and shameful stain on human history.

Nazis are a proxy for this, the Crusades are another, and religion in general is often said to be "the only thing that can make good men do evil things" when that's patently nonsense.


Why the latter? The problem is refusal to accounting.

Sentences require subjects and objects, and verbs. I'm going to have to ask you to re-frame this because I literally can't tell to what it it you are referring here.


I've only recently begun to accept use of the word "evil" and don't really have a sophisticated conception of capital-Evil as compared to Bad or Wrong (which two we may or may not philosophically distinguish themselves depending on your thinking). Suffice to say at the point of committing to a transition out of a colonial regime, the important thing is the process of doing it, how well you set up the decolonized people for self-rule. It's a different subject from the characteristics of colonial rule as a system, though arguably "truth and reconciliation" for the latter ought to play a prominent role in the former (though it pretty much never has).

So, is it more evil to prolong Colonial rule to put in place the machinery of self-government to to end Colonial rule sooner when that machinery may not be functional? If Colonisation happened centuries ago what is the nature of the current Colonial Government?

We could consider the US occupation of Hawaii and Puerto Rico here - is one more evil than the other because one has been granted Statehood?

[Montmorency]

There is no hypocrisy in my point, nor is it something that I can't and won't adhere to. It is one of the first principles of history study as I was taught. You do not assess the past by the standards of the present. You will never have a perfect understanding of the past. But you pursue that anyway, for it improves your understanding of what the evidence tells you. While perfection may never be reached, there is one perspective that is definitively wrong. That is to do as you say should be done, which is to assess the past by the standards of the present. Just about every other mistake can be forgiven, as an error in detail. What you suggest is a fundamental error in principle.

Why did people in the past put so much resources into building places of worship? Can you explain this from the standards of the present?

You keep using wrong and misleading terminology and refusing to address what I have said. I have explained what it is you are doing. Address my posts for once.


Basically, over the last hundred years or so we've gradually inverted our moral system, whereas we used to value moral purity we now value moral flexibility. This may be progress, or it may be an aberration that future generations will look at as a mystifying and shameful stain on human history.

I don't agree with this reading of history at all.

The general principle you seem to be drawing from 'moral beliefs differ' is not one about the study of history but about your moral system in particular being superior - which would be unsupported. I hope that's not where you're going.

My own belief is that to the extent I have moral beliefs I can apply them to my reasoning. It's pretty straightforward. Whether I'm wrong to hold some moral beliefs is neither here nor there.


Sentences require subjects and objects, and verbs. I'm going to have to ask you to re-frame this because I literally can't tell to what it it you are referring here.

You can't discern the antecedent? Colonial governments are accountable for the harms they perpetrate, because in general people or groups should be accountable for harms; failing to be subjected to an accounting of harms is/was wrong.


So, is it more evil to prolong Colonial rule to put in place the machinery of self-government to to end Colonial rule sooner when that machinery may not be functional? If Colonisation happened centuries ago what is the nature of the current Colonial Government?

If the government isn't imposing sacrifices on the home population in order to expedite this process, then it isn't upholding its duty.


We could consider the US occupation of Hawaii and Puerto Rico here - is one more evil than the other because one has been granted Statehood?

I mentioned earlier in thread that the USA is built on conquest too; that's bad. But Americans today overwhelmingly identify with the country, so there's no real revanchist sensibility. Naturally they should have representation in the conduct of national politics.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't agree with this reading of history at all.

The general principle you seem to be drawing from 'moral beliefs differ' is not one about the study of history but about your moral system in particular being superior - which would be unsupported. I hope that's not where you're going.

My own belief is that to the extent I have moral beliefs I can apply them to my reasoning. It's pretty straightforward. Whether I'm wrong to hold some moral beliefs is neither here nor there.

Obviously I believe my moral system is correct, otherwise it wouldn't be a moral system, would it?

However, part of that system is not automatically condemning others in case I am wrong.

Or, to put it another way, I may be fallible but my moral system should not be.


You can't discern the antecedent? Colonial governments are accountable for the harms they perpetrate, because in general people or groups should be accountable for harms; failing to be subjected to an accounting of harms is/was wrong.

No, I can't, accounting of what to what?

Is this accounting of harm vs the accounting of benefit to what you term the "home populace".

If we are accounting the harm done to the Indians by the British we must also account for the harm done to the British by the Company. One specific example is the driving of people involved in the manufacture of wool cloth to destitution by the Company's import of cheap cotton.


If the government isn't imposing sacrifices on the home population in order to expedite this process, then it isn't upholding its duty.

The majority of the home population in the UK were poor farm belabours and destitute factory workers in the 19th Century, after World War II they were a shell-shocked, traumatised mass living in burned out cities. You propose to impose more hardship on them?

We actually did that when we banned slavery - in order to Pass the Act the Government had to buy the freedom of every slave in the colonies, via money raised through taxes.


I mentioned earlier in thread that the USA is built on conquest too; that's bad. But Americans today overwhelmingly identify with the country, so there's no real revanchist sensibility. Naturally they should have representation in the conduct of national politics.

Are you sure about that? The descendants of American Colonists feel that way, sure, but the colonised don't. A major difference for you in the New World is that Old World diseases killed most of the natives, so the Colonisation process is less visible today. However, India is where many of the nastiest Old World diseases came from and they frequently felled the European Colonists, no the natives.

You still haven't addressed the issue of the Norman Colonisation of England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Sicily or the Holy Land. Indeed, the English "Colonial Spirit" and all it's trappings, good and bad, go back to Norman expansionism coupled with Norman exceptionalism.

Were the Normans evil? Given they still hold 25% (the actual figure) of England are they still evil?

Your arguments ultimately give credence to the "Free Wessex" movement and other nationalist crypto-racist tripe like the SNP.

[Montmorency]

Obviously I believe my moral system is correct, otherwise it wouldn't be a moral system, would it?

However, part of that system is not automatically condemning others in case I am wrong.

Or, to put it another way, I may be fallible but my moral system should not be.

OK, maybe you're wrong in your view of the British government's recent liability in Oriental foreign policy. :shrug:


If we are accounting the harm done to the Indians by the British we must also account for the harm done to the British by the Company. One specific example is the driving of people involved in the manufacture of wool cloth to destitution by the Company's import of cheap cotton.

Yes, British elites oppressed British folk too.


The majority of the home population in the UK were poor farm belabours and destitute factory workers in the 19th Century, after World War II they were a shell-shocked, traumatised mass living in burned out cities. You propose to impose more hardship on them?

The country overall benefited, but the place to start would be at the top. For example, one way to go about this - just as an example - might be to expropriate the wealth of the British commercial and aristocratic class, adopt a socialist economy, and settle an agreement with India on reparations, close economic bilateralism, and freedom of movement. :P


We actually did that when we banned slavery - in order to Pass the Act the Government had to buy the freedom of every slave in the colonies, via money raised through taxes.

A good start.


Are you sure about that? The descendants of American Colonists feel that way, sure, but the colonised don't.

Ask 'em.


A major difference for you in the New World is that Old World diseases killed most of the natives, so the Colonisation process is less visible today.

The world is the way it is. Why are you so interested in alternate universes as a springboard for reasoning?


You still haven't addressed the issue of the Norman Colonisation of England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Sicily or the Holy Land. Indeed, the English "Colonial Spirit" and all it's trappings, good and bad, go back to Norman expansionism coupled with Norman exceptionalism.

Acts in themselves may be evil. We have literally no way of assessing ultimate causal impact, and to predicate evaluation on an impossibility would, on paper, prevent it from ever arising. Since the standard is impossible, it's not controlling, and no one who advocates it can escape definitional hypocrisy by acting in a contradictory way (which is inevitable). Sound very Christian come to think of it.


Were the Normans evil? Given they still hold 25% (the actual figure) of England are they still evil?

Modern aristocrats would presumably be criticized under standard leftist tropes of wealth accumulation, not for descent from a long-dispersed ethnic group.


Your arguments ultimately give credence to the "Free Wessex" movement and other nationalist crypto-racist tripe like the SNP.

No, they support arguments for wealth redistribution.

[Pannonian]

You keep using wrong and misleading terminology and refusing to address what I have said. I have explained what it is you are doing. Address my posts for once.

Here is the post that summarises what is wrong with your reading of history.


Of course modern perspectives must be applied to the study of history, or all we could ever study would be the biographies of kings, generals, and philosophers. Because those were the perspectives afforded respect throughout history; other perspectives of course always existed, but your doctrine is one more excuse to ignore them. But I'm not even referring to historical analysis, but to the application of moral reasoning to facts. If we observe the fact that a serial killer has brutally slain a dozen indigents, it is a simple judgement to say it was a bad thing for the killer to kill a dozen indigents. The doings of a serial killer, or mercenary or whoever, at any point in history or prehistory, could similarly be labeled a Bad Thing by us for a similar set of acts. That many in the past, depending on circumstances, may not have seen the "serial kiler" the same way is useful for understanding past societies, but has no bearing on what we should think today.

How do you read the British conquest of northern India? Was it the unjustified conquest of a native people by outsiders who suppressed Indian nationhood with their colonial overlordship?

"Of course modern perspectives must be applied to the study of history". These are your quoted words.

[Strike For The South]

Hong Kong is a colonial uniqueness that maintains that uniqueness under Chinese rule. It is hardly what I would use a template.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

OK, maybe you're wrong in your view of the British government's recent liability in Oriental foreign policy.

I'm sure the current President of China thinks I'm wrong.

Does that make one of us evil?


Yes, British elites oppressed British folk too.

The country overall benefited, but the place to start would be at the top. For example, one way to go about this - just as an example - might be to expropriate the wealth of the British commercial and aristocratic class, adopt a socialist economy, and settle an agreement with India on reparations, close economic bilateralism, and freedom of movement. :P

Well, we had close economic bilateralism and freedom of movement, India decided it didn't really want that. Also, we had to give those things up to join the EEC.


A good start.

Despite which some people think the British people today should pay reparations.

As we know, any diversion of tax money hurts the poorest in society.


Ask 'em.

I remain unconvinced.


The world is the way it is. Why are you so interested in alternate universes as a springboard for reasoning?

Firstly - Plato.

Secondly - this is what actually happened, I'm not making it up.


Acts in themselves may be evil. We have literally no way of assessing ultimate causal impact, and to predicate evaluation on an impossibility would, on paper, prevent it from ever arising. Since the standard is impossible, it's not controlling, and no one who advocates it can escape definitional hypocrisy by acting in a contradictory way (which is inevitable). Sound very Christian come to think of it.

I'm honestly having trouble with you this week, there's a lot of purple prose.

Firstly, it appears you are saying acts can be evil and intention doesn't matter - this is the import of your first sentence. This seems problematic to me, and contrary to the basic legal principle that you need a guilty mind to go with the guilty act.

Secondly, you seem to link "evil" to the moment, but not to its long-term impact, intended or otherwise. Again, you're ignoring the issue of intention which surely has to be your primary differentiating factor which divides "bad" from "evil". This is especially true as you can have someone do something "good" like provide full employment as part of their "evil" plan to become a Tyrant.

Your third point appears to be trying to apply the principle of scientific enquiry to ethics and history, which doesn't really work because you can only construct a theoretical model and test it speculatively - such speculation is not repeatable ergo not scientific. In any case, you rejected the speculative "democratic Hitler" out of hand.


Modern aristocrats would presumably be criticized under standard leftist tropes of wealth accumulation, not for descent from a long-dispersed ethnic group.

Not so long-dispersed, really. In any case, you're asking me to accept an essentially Marxist critique of history. I have read Marx's history, it's reductive and sees the social order as necessarily a repeating wheel, which can only be broken by Communism.


No, they support arguments for wealth redistribution.

I think the same argument can by applied to support ethno-nationalism, because your argument de-legitimises rule by the "other" and seems to admit no point at which the "other" can be integrated.

[Tuuvi]

So a couple of days ago I was reading God and the State by Mikhail Bakunin, which was written in 1871 when British imperialism was still in force, and I came across the following passage:


It is well known that the Protestant propagandism, especially in England and America, is very intimately connected with the propagandism of the material, commercial interests of those two great nations; and it is known also that the objects of the latter propagandism is not at all the enrichment and material prosperity of the countries into which it penetrates in company with the Word of God, but rather the exploitation of those countries with a view to the enrichment and material prosperity of certain classes, which in their own country are very covetous and very pious at the same time.

Bakunin's attitude towards imperialism was basically the same as my own, and he was writing just a few years before the British began conquering Zululand.

[Montmorency]

Here is the post that summarises what is wrong with your reading of history.

How do you read the British conquest of northern India? Was it the unjustified conquest of a native people by outsiders who suppressed Indian nationhood with their colonial overlordship?

"Of course modern perspectives must be applied to the study of history". These are your quoted words.

You asked that exact question many posts ago. I'm not going to rewrite them for you, but as I urge to take the trouble to read them I'll assist by offering a condensed variant:


You repeat two formulas: "Do not assess the past by the standards of the present" and "read events and actions by the standards of the time." You conveniently do not define what this means, and you apply it to rule that it is inappropriate to assign moral judgement to British colonial practices.

The formulas you repeat do not actually entail this and have a different meaning that I discussed, which you fall afoul of, and the way you use them in practice in this thread - to say that moral judgement of something in the past is unavailable to us - is logically incoherent and therefore inevitably hypocritical. Ironically, you thus fall into the practice of assessing history by your personal standards. Besides that you (unlike PVC) have not attempted to build an independent ethical theory, I point out that you and everyone else makes judgments about historical facts all the time, in particular their aesthetic, intellectual, and indeed moral value to oneself. For example, I doubt you believe in Aristotelian medicine or the existence of Apollo. If you do not, you have so judged history and the practices of historical cultures. If you do, well, do you believe in every god, every doctrine, even the mutually exclusive ones? Of course you cannot. Next, is a general's breakfast as worthy of your consideration as terrain or as the contemporary aristocratic hierarchy - or vice versa? Do you consider every historical fact, every event as important as the next? If not - and to do so would clearly be impossible - you have again applied your personal, modern perspective to sort history and evaluate it. Concretely with the subject of colonialism in this thread, it should be unavailable to evaluate supposed benefits of colonialism - such as suppressing slavery or the settee - without assuming that these practices were bad; indeed this translates to motivated cherry-picking.

Because the principle you would apply is illogical and incoherent, and you only invoke it and elaborate it with respect to a historical practice that you otherwise defend, it gives the impression that you are laundering your personal political and moral commitments through the name of historiography, ironically just what you claimed you were warning against.




I'm sure the current President of China thinks I'm wrong.

Does that make one of us evil?

What is it with someone always having to be evil? But it wouldn't be challenging for most to interpret a career like Xi's as evil, if you must use the term.


Despite which some people think the British people today should pay reparations.

As we know, any diversion of tax money hurts the poorest in society.

Sounds like the standard dodge - 'you don't want us to spend this money on Indians, or else it can't go to you, dear peasants.' Not that it was going to in the first place.

The discomfort the question of reparations may cause shouldn't interfere with consideration of whether it is technically merited, which one can't do without a fundamental acceptance of colonialism as calamity. Anyway, perhaps India would like to try some freedom of movement today; not all reparations need be monetary.


I remain unconvinced.

You're convinced your opinion holds great sway among Maoli and Puerto Ricans? Sounds like an instance of the observer's standards overriding accurate representation of cultural context.


Secondly - this is what actually happened, I'm not making it up.

Correct. You were saying that India is literally not America. I agree, in the trivial sense...


I'm honestly having trouble with you this week, there's a lot of purple prose.

Flowery literary devices and heavy use of adjectives? That's not characteristic of this thread. Maybe the number of clauses I was connecting was too high.


Firstly, it appears you are saying acts can be evil and intention doesn't matter - this is the import of your first sentence. This seems problematic to me, and contrary to the basic legal principle that you need a guilty mind to go with the guilty act

For specific crimes as statutorily constructed. Not all crimes need a specific mens rea, and I'm not limiting myself to statutory crimes anyway. Legality is not morality. If I drop a lump of dog feces in someone's drink when they aren't looking, few would have trouble agreeing that the act I did was a bad one. My intent is irrelevant to the quality of badness of the act - I could have wanted to do it to hurt the person, I could have thought I was helping them, I could somehow have accomplished it by accident. Which is not to say that intent can't be relevant with respect to anything at all. It can be relevant in conditioning how others will react to me in the aftermath, and I in turn.


Secondly, you seem to link "evil" to the moment, but not to its long-term impact, intended or otherwise.

I mean, you're the one who introduced the term "evil", but that's not quite right. Without engaging in the philosophical distinctions between bad vs. good and right vs. wrong, the moral valence of an act is typically discernible immediately or even essentially. When a thief burglarizes a home we can debate just how bad it is (e.g. what was stolen, from whom, by whom, why), but even a consequentialist who affirms the possibility that the theft could be not-bad or even good ('Austin Powers stole the nuclear launch codes from Dr. Evil'), even that person could agree that stealing in itself is bad. And yes, technically I'm introducing confusion with the parenthetical because the semantics of theft in that circumstance are debatable, but the concept should be clear.

We can try to assess long-term impact, though it is very difficult (because all of the past is inextricable from all of the present). For example, we can estimate the physical and epidemiological consequences of US deployment of Agent Orange in Vietnam, but we can also try to measure those consequences up to the present day. It is however impossible to assess ultimate impact, which is beyond the present day and well beyond human history (existence).


Again, you're ignoring the issue of intention which surely has to be your primary differentiating factor which divides "bad" from "evil". This is especially true as you can have someone do something "good" like provide full employment as part of their "evil" plan to become a Tyrant.

Sure, like I said I don't doubt the Nazis accomplished many good things. Person A died in a concentration camp, thus saving Person B from being swindled or murdered. A German couple's ailing marriage was rescued in the excitement of Kristallnacht. A camp inmate found God. Movies and videogames about WW2 exist. Or orthogonally, we know that defeating the Nazis is causally tied in our reality with 9/11 and the Rwandan genocide, so maybe we should be disappointed that America didn't join up with Germany to conquer the world and usher in 10,000 Years of Peace. Who knows. It's chump change.

I might as well allege that the manner of Britain's exchange of Hong Kong can't be bad because the long-term impact will make up for it. It's a type of baseless and unverifiable assertion - Pannonian might recognize its form in assurances that Brexit will deliver in 50 years, no kidding - and it really just serves to evade pretty much every conceivable component of ethics. Unless subverting ethics was your intent in the first place, but as a conservative Christian you're probably not going in that direction.


Your third point appears to be trying to apply the principle of scientific enquiry to ethics and history

...N-no? I have no idea what you mean.


In any case, you rejected the speculative "democratic Hitler" out of hand.

I'm unfavorable on the metaphysics of counterfactuals, and moreover their utility in reasoning about history. "Democratic Hitler" can't tell us anything about the world. Either go to the trouble of making up a hypothetical future figure, or develop a person's reasonable expectation about a given moment in time after establishing what the available facts would have been (e.g. in 1930 Germany, would it make sense to believe that Hitler is a secret democrat?).


Not so long-dispersed, really. In any case, you're asking me to accept an essentially Marxist critique of history. I have read Marx's history, it's reductive and sees the social order as necessarily a repeating wheel, which can only be broken by Communism.

Marx? Not really, you just don't have to like the aristocracy.


I think the same argument can by applied to support ethno-nationalism, because your argument de-legitimises rule by the "other" and seems to admit no point at which the "other" can be integrated.

I can't reconstruct your logic other than that you're implying the Normans have not integrated, which they certainly have. Ethnic groups may or may not maintain continuity through time, there is no primordial assertiveness of bloodline in some Lovecraftian sense - and if there were there couldn't be Normans in the first place, they would just be something even older.

[Pannonian]

You asked that exact question many posts ago. I'm not going to rewrite them for you, but as I urge to take the trouble to read them I'll assist by offering a condensed variant:

You repeat two formulas: "Do not assess the past by the standards of the present" and "read events and actions by the standards of the time." You conveniently do not define what this means, and you apply it to rule that it is inappropriate to assign moral judgement to British colonial practices.

The formulas you repeat do not actually entail this and have a different meaning that I discussed, which you fall afoul of, and the way you use them in practice in this thread - to say that moral judgement of something in the past is unavailable to us - is logically incoherent and therefore inevitably hypocritical. Ironically, you thus fall into the practice of assessing history by your personal standards. Besides that you (unlike PVC) have not attempted to build an independent ethical theory, I point out that you and everyone else makes judgments about historical facts all the time, in particular their aesthetic, intellectual, and indeed moral value to oneself. For example, I doubt you believe in Aristotelian medicine or the existence of Apollo. If you do not, you have so judged history and the practices of historical cultures. If you do, well, do you believe in every god, every doctrine, even the mutually exclusive ones? Of course you cannot. Next, is a general's breakfast as worthy of your consideration as terrain or as the contemporary aristocratic hierarchy - or vice versa? Do you consider every historical fact, every event as important as the next? If not - and to do so would clearly be impossible - you have again applied your personal, modern perspective to sort history and evaluate it. Concretely with the subject of colonialism in this thread, it should be unavailable to evaluate supposed benefits of colonialism - such as suppressing slavery or the settee - without assuming that these practices were bad; indeed this translates to motivated cherry-picking.

Because the principle you would apply is illogical and incoherent, and you only invoke it and elaborate it with respect to a historical practice that you otherwise defend, it gives the impression that you are laundering your personal political and moral commitments through the name of historiography, ironically just what you claimed you were warning against.

A lot of rhetoric without any examples, let alone relevant ones. Let me demonstrate to you what I mean by judging using standards of the times, using a relevant example.

You criticise the British presence in India, using the post-colonialist argument of an unwanted foreign power lording it over natives. So I pointed you to the British conquest of northern India, which was Britain's first military conquest in the subcontinent. The British were fighting against the Mogul empire. The Moguls were, as their name indicates, a foreign ruler non-native to India, being a Mongo-Turkish dynasty descended from Timur (now there's someone who was considered bloodthirsty even for his times, and deliberately so). So contrary to British outsiders imposing themselves on the natives, it was one foreign ruler replacing another. And even that is arguably taking post-colonialism a bit far, as whether a ruler was foreign or not was less of an issue than in our era of nation states, eg. you never see post-colonialist critiques of the Mogul empire in India.

So there is an example of me applying my historiography, with constant reference to a relevant example, contained in a single paragraph, with the summary bolded in a single sentence. Can you apply your historiography similarly to said example, so we can see what it looks like in practice? Try not to use reams of philosophical rhetoric in lieu of historical discussion. Using examples is a good thing; try it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What is it with someone always having to be evil? But it wouldn't be challenging for most to interpret a career like Xi's as evil, if you must use the term.

It's about perspective.

We think Nazis are evil because Nazis killed Jews, Gypsies, Gays etc. as a matter of policy, so we hunt and imprison Nazis. Nazis killed those because they believed they were evil.

So who is evil - you for stopping the Nazi from killing the evil Jew or the evil Nazi for killing the evil Jew?

The answer comes from whether or not you believe the Jew is evil, as to any character trait you or Nazi posses. It doesn't matter if the Nazi loves his wife and children, goes to Church, gives to charity, or if you're a womanising slob fuelled by cigarettes and whisky.

Likewise Xi, he's a Tyrant, but he's also brought China unprecedented wealth, massively increased standards of living and virtually ended the One Child policy.

YOUR perspective defines what YOU believe to be Good and Evil - this does not make you automatically right.


Sounds like the standard dodge - 'you don't want us to spend this money on Indians, or else it can't go to you, dear peasants.' Not that it was going to in the first place.

The discomfort the question of reparations may cause shouldn't interfere with consideration of whether it is technically merited, which one can't do without a fundamental acceptance of colonialism as calamity. Anyway, perhaps India would like to try some freedom of movement today; not all reparations need be monetary.

We are not allowed to give anyone from the Commonwealth Freedom of Movement - the EU said so. As regards india specifically, they've actually told us they don't really care for our aid any more - they're doing fine, thanks. CAn't remember if they still take the money, though.

As regards reparations generally - as far as I'm concerned everyone involved is dead and I consider it immoral to inflict harm of those no living for the sake of those long gone.


You're convinced your opinion holds great sway among Maoli and Puerto Ricans? Sounds like an instance of the observer's standards overriding accurate representation of cultural context.

By all means, show me some polls. Native Americans on the Mainland still refuse to participate in American Civil Society for the most part and still live on reservations. I'm not suggesting natives in the Americas want "independence" I'm challenging your blith dismissal of any dissatisfaction they might feel.


Correct. You were saying that India is literally not America. I agree, in the trivial sense...

Then why refer to "alternate histories"?


Flowery literary devices and heavy use of adjectives? That's not characteristic of this thread. Maybe the number of clauses I was connecting was too high.

Subject - verb - object in the first sentence of a paragraph with everything clearly identified by name - that's all I want. If two clauses are separated by a full stop they are separate sentences and require their own SVB. Period.


For specific crimes as statutorily constructed. Not all crimes need a specific mens rea, and I'm not limiting myself to statutory crimes anyway. Legality is not morality. If I drop a lump of dog feces in someone's drink when they aren't looking, few would have trouble agreeing that the act I did was a bad one. My intent is irrelevant to the quality of badness of the act - I could have wanted to do it to hurt the person, I could have thought I was helping them, I could somehow have accomplished it by accident. Which is not to say that intent can't be relevant with respect to anything at all. It can be relevant in conditioning how others will react to me in the aftermath, and I in turn.

The basic legal principles are based on the idea that the law is just. You can't be guilty without mens rea in Common Law because someone cannot be held accountable for something they did not intend or could not reasonably foresee. This is not always the case in Statute Law, of course, but that's a separate point.


I mean, you're the one who introduced the term "evil"

I referred to the "evils" of the British government in the modern day against its own citizens - chiefly in unilaterally stripping millions of citizen of the right of abode even before their home countries were independent. Tuuvi Is the one who introduced the idea that Colonialism as a system was "evil", not me.


Without engaging in the philosophical distinctions between bad vs. good and right vs. wrong, the moral valence of an act is typically discernible immediately or even essentially.

Only within a given moral framework - if one does not need to debate that framework the morality of the act is usually immediately apparent. When one is presented with two competing moral systems one first has to choose between them.


When a thief burglarizes a home we can debate just how bad it is (e.g. what was stolen, from whom, by whom, why), but even a consequentialist who affirms the possibility that the theft could be not-bad or even good ('Austin Powers stole the nuclear launch codes from Dr. Evil'), even that person could agree that stealing in itself is bad. And yes, technically I'm introducing confusion with the parenthetical because the semantics of theft in that circumstance are debatable, but the concept should be clear.

Stealing from Dr Evil is good, stealing from evil Hitler is good so long as the theft is not banal (you're not just stealing their ready cash to spend on booze.) The act of theft presupposes theat the person being stolen from has the right to the thing being stolen. If someone steals my bike and I take it back it might look like stealing to an outsider - but it's my bike.


We can try to assess long-term impact, though it is very difficult (because all of the past is inextricable from all of the present). For example, we can estimate the physical and epidemiological consequences of US deployment of Agent Orange in Vietnam, but we can also try to measure those consequences up to the present day. It is however impossible to assess ultimate impact, which is beyond the present day and well beyond human history (existence).

You are correct, we cannot asses longterm impact beyond the current time in a way that is useful for assigning a value for reparations. Although, we can asses the intended long-term impact. Stealing a nuclear scientist from the Nazis will stop the Nazis getting the bomb first.

More later, sleep now.

[Montmorency]

A lot of rhetoric without any examples, let alone relevant ones.

Now, I don't think you're dishonest, just lazy. I gave examples.


You criticise the British presence in India, using the post-colonialist argument of an unwanted foreign power lording it over natives. So I pointed you to the British conquest of northern India, which was Britain's first military conquest in the subcontinent. The British were fighting against the Mogul empire. The Moguls were, as their name indicates, a foreign ruler non-native to India, being a Mongo-Turkish dynasty descended from Timur (now there's someone who was considered bloodthirsty even for his times, and deliberately so). So contrary to British outsiders imposing themselves on the natives, it was one foreign ruler replacing another.

I addressed this, if you would read my posts. You never explained why the prior existence of empires is relevant.


And even that is arguably taking post-colonialism a bit far, as whether a ruler was foreign or not was less of an issue than in our era of nation states, eg. you never see post-colonialist critiques of the Mogul empire in India.

The Mughals are long gone, the British aren't.


So there is an example of me applying my historiography, with constant reference to a relevant example, contained in a single paragraph, with the summary bolded in a single sentence. Can you apply your historiography similarly to said example, so we can see what it looks like in practice?

I want you to explain what you think my disagreement with you is.



YOUR perspective defines what YOU believe to be Good and Evil - this does not make you automatically right.

Yes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx52--WmLQs&t=2m36s). Did we need a thread to establish that people have differing perspectives (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37Q0fx5r-H8)?


We are not allowed to give anyone from the Commonwealth Freedom of Movement - the EU said so.

What convenient timing.


As regards reparations generally - as far as I'm concerned everyone involved is dead and I consider it immoral to inflict harm of those no living for the sake of those long gone.

Perhaps the most important component to an argument for/implementation of reparations is, after all, the moral one. There is no discussion if the parties aren't on the same page as to the nature or existence of wrongdoing.


By all means, show me some polls. Native Americans on the Mainland still refuse to participate in American Civil Society for the most part and still live on reservations. I'm not suggesting natives in the Americas want "independence" I'm challenging your blith dismissal of any dissatisfaction they might feel.

I didn't dismiss dissatisfaction, I said "Americans today overwhelmingly identify with the country, so there's no real revanchist sensibility." There is great dissatisfaction with the federal government, but nowhere near as much sentiment for separatism. If you disagree, you need to show your basis.

Fun fact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States): There are about as many Americans of Puerto Rican descent as there are recorded Native Americans and Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders.

About a fifth (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/04/native-americans-stories-california) of Native Americans live on reservations. (Probably in part because they're a really shitty place to live.) They're also highly overrepresented (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/american-indians-serve-in-the-us-military_b_7417854) in the armed forces. So are Puerto Ricans (https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/974518/puerto-ricans-represented-throughout-us-military-history/) it appears. (According to this (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/voices-too-many-puerto-rico-s-veterans-are-moving-away-n764676), "Puerto Ricans are the only Latino group over-represented in the military.")

Puerto Ricans have tended to overwhelmingly identify (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/000312240707200604?journalCode=asra) as white (whereas in a place like Brazil the racial classification system is designed to divvy up people of American admixture).

Vast majorities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statehood_movement_in_Puerto_Rico) of Puerto Ricans over time have been distributed among wanting to achieve statehood or else maintaining the current territorial status.

As for Hawaii, the state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#Demographics) is now highly multi-ethnic (1/4 white, 1/4 multiracial, 2/5 Asian), so we probably want to hone in on the attitudes of maoli themselves, not the whites or Asians who can be expected to fully identify with the USA. Unlike other aboriginal demographics Hawaiians don't really have much measure of recognized sovereignty or nationhood at the federal level, so the main political activist movements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_sovereignty_movement) - alongside ones more focused on provision/securing of services or maintaining cultural integrity* - are ones debating and advocating for one of native Hawaiian tribehood, independence, or increased sovereignty, which are not necessarily the same. Since there is internal controversy among sovereigntists between the paths of federal recognition and independence, we might expect a particularly high proportion of native Hawaiians to oppose the status quo, but I can't find evidence (https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/2014/06/star-advertiser-poll-indicates-a-lack-of-enthusiasm-for-a-native-hawaiian-nation/) more than a minority reject the status quo.

At any rate, I have no opinions on Hawaiian federal recognition but if 1% of the entire population of the state of Hawaii (which per above is 10% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander) want independence I wouldn't take that very seriously. I bet you could find that many Cornish who want to join Wales or Brittany - each.

*An example would be the currently ongoing protests (https://www.apnews.com/7701220de51a43c38ce659350a213d3b) against building an observatory on holy Mauna Kea.

[spmetla]

The Hawaiian community is struggling to define what it wants. Some want full independence, some would be happy with tribal like recognition (which the Office of Hawaiian Affairs or OHA was supposed to be), some just want prosperity. But they being such a minority within their own land will be ignored for the most part apart from things like the TMT project when a few hundred to thousand can make a difference even if they disagree about what outcome they want.

[Shaka_Khan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hK8xjhwd-I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woQV_61iSqQ

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It should be noted that the flag they displayed in LegCo is the old Colonial flag.

That symbol of the greats evils of Colonialism is the thing people are turning to.

[Gilrandir]

A different point of view:
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/hong-kong-protest-movement-hurting-city-future-by-andrew-sheng-and-xiao-geng-2019-07

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So, whilst we in the West wring our hands over just how guilty we should feel the situation continues to deteriorate.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49148762?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c95yz8vxvy8t/hong-kong-anti-government-protests&link_location=live-reporting-story

How long now?

[rory_20_uk]

I think they'll let it run its course. It is not a threat to the rule of the Communist Party and being heavy handed is only going to damage Brand China. They're already giving their version of events to all their citizens and it seems most are against the riots and causing disruption.

By not intervening they can claim the high ground that this is people causing disharmony and damage over what was merely a law and a theoretical risk - probably all caused by the West trying to cause problems. Sending in the army might create martyrs, and imposing Martial Law could destroy the very thing that Hong Kong continues to give - access to the Financial markets.

~:smoking:

[Gilrandir]

So, whilst we in the West wring our hands over just how guilty we should feel the situation continues to deteriorate.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49148762?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c95yz8vxvy8t/hong-kong-anti-government-protests&link_location=live-reporting-story

How long now?

As long as it takes China to make their control complete.

[Pannonian]

I think they'll let it run its course. It is not a threat to the rule of the Communist Party and being heavy handed is only going to damage Brand China. They're already giving their version of events to all their citizens and it seems most are against the riots and causing disruption.

By not intervening they can claim the high ground that this is people causing disharmony and damage over what was merely a law and a theoretical risk - probably all caused by the West trying to cause problems. Sending in the army might create martyrs, and imposing Martial Law could destroy the very thing that Hong Kong continues to give - access to the Financial markets.

~:smoking:

That's what a Beijing mouthpiece in the SCMP says.

[Montmorency]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUIDL4SB60g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7yRDOLCy4Y

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

For those who like some context with their youtube:

This is a new song that was conposed online - it extolls Freedom for Hong Kong. Something I fully support.

However, the original Bill that sparked these protests has been withdrawn and the protests continue. More pointedly - the protesters have begun to demand the UK and/or US take action.

We must hope that Beijing declines to flatten Hong Kong, but I am not optimistic. The situation is moving towards open (albeit non-violent) insurrection.

[Pannonian]

For those who like some context with their youtube:

This is a new song that was conposed online - it extolls Freedom for Hong Kong. Something I fully support.

However, the original Bill that sparked these protests has been withdrawn and the protests continue. More pointedly - the protesters have begun to demand the UK and/or US take action.

We must hope that Beijing declines to flatten Hong Kong, but I am not optimistic. The situation is moving towards open (albeit non-violent) insurrection.

What would be notable is what the people of Yuen Long think about the continued protests. Any news on that?

[Montmorency]

https://i.imgur.com/8Cz1HUf.jpg


[Permanent withdrawal of the extradition bill (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49317695)]
Withdrawal of the "riot" description used about the protests
Amnesty for all arrested protesters
An independent inquiry into alleged police brutality
Universal suffrage for the elections of the chief executive and Legislative Council, Hong Kong's parliament.

I don't think most Hong Kongers are interested in a foreign intervention (though Chinese military suppression would merit international sanctions).

[Greyblades]

Hong kong police have shot a protestor with a live round. On the anivaersary of communist china's founding.

http://https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49891403 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49891403)

It begins.

[Montmorency]

Hong kong police have shot a protestor with a live round. On the anivaersary of communist china's founding.

http://https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49891403 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49891403)

It begins.

The scene is incredible in its composition, almost cinematic. The gunman keeping the gun up high as the protester recoils in shock and finally collapses (technically trips on another protester being beat down behind him). My cursed mediatized brain can't help but associate Fallout New Vegas iconography.
ACIN


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWmGgwpFLgQ
https://i.imgur.com/shJdxRS.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Mx68yFF.jpg

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hong kong police have shot a protestor with a live round. On the anivaersary of communist china's founding.

http://https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49891403 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49891403)

It begins.

Or it ends, depending on your perspective. Odd that Policeman is in Green as opposed to Black - I wonder if they've been quietly bussing in Police from Mainland China.

Why is he pointing a revolver at people to begin with?

[Pannonian]

Or it ends, depending on your perspective. Odd that Policeman is in Green as opposed to Black - I wonder if they've been quietly bussing in Police from Mainland China.

Why is he pointing a revolver at people to begin with?

If you want to know why he's pointing it at people, then goodness knows. If you want to know why he's armed, all police in Hong Kong are armed.

[Montmorency]

Or it ends, depending on your perspective. Odd that Policeman is in Green as opposed to Black - I wonder if they've been quietly bussing in Police from Mainland China.

Why is he pointing a revolver at people to begin with?

According to the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/world/asia/hong-kong-protestor-shot.html) the protester had just been involved in beating a fallen officer with a group, and in the videos you can see him swinging a pipe or some other object at the officer before the officer fires.

Gotta love reciprocal escalation.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I will never understand the concept of Police carrying guns.

[Pannonian]

According to the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/world/asia/hong-kong-protestor-shot.html) the protester had just been involved in beating a fallen officer with a group, and in the videos you can see him swinging a pipe or some other object at the officer before the officer fires.

Gotta love reciprocal escalation.

If the description in the article is accurate, and I can confirm that last bit from seeing the video, then I doubt the officer will be in much trouble.

[CrossLOPER]

I will never understand the concept of Police carrying guns.

In the US, at least in Atlanta where i live, it is not uncommon in cases of crime for criminals to smash open windows for spare change or shoot people before trying to mug them. Back in December, a young police officer was killed chasing a suspect, after he turned around and fired into a group of officers trying to arrest him. I think they ended up unloading into him.

Basically, it's really easy to buy a gun and enough ammunition to depopulate a state.

[Beskar]

I will never understand the concept of Police carrying guns.

An old but interesting article about the Free Syrian Police being unarmed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39458062

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Fear? Anger in the moment? Standing in the middle of a riot as the visible agent of the "oppressor" cannot be a low-stress undertaking.

Possible it was done methodically as a calculated scare tactic, but I think that unlikely. A single pistoling cannot have the quelling effect of Napoleon's "whiff of grapeshot."

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I will never understand the concept of Police carrying guns.

Depends where you live. In the USA, without one, they'd be bringing a club to a gunfight.

[Pannonian]

Fear? Anger in the moment? Standing in the middle of a riot as the visible agent of the "oppressor" cannot be a low-stress undertaking.

Possible it was done methodically as a calculated scare tactic, but I think that unlikely. A single pistoling cannot have the quelling effect of Napoleon's "whiff of grapeshot."

According to the article, in that particular case, an officer was being beaten by a mob, with the gunman going in gun drawn, possibly to break it up and let the other officer go. One of said mob aimed a bar at the gunman (this bit I've seen), and the gunman shot him. There may well have been police brutality elsewhere, but in this particular case, I wouldn't describe it as that. Idiocy, bordering on attempted suicide by cop, possibly not expecting a police officer to actually open fire if there was any thought at all. A firebomb was thrown shortly afterwards, and the shot protester was wearing a mask, so given the HK populace isn't generally armed, I'd say the protesters were as prepared as they could be for a violent demonstration (peaceful demonstrators don't tend to carry or prepare firebombs).

[Montmorency]

Fear? Anger in the moment? Standing in the middle of a riot as the visible agent of the "oppressor" cannot be a low-stress undertaking.

Possible it was done methodically as a calculated scare tactic, but I think that unlikely. A single pistoling cannot have the quelling effect of Napoleon's "whiff of grapeshot."

If you watch the video, it's plausible that it could be just that. Of course police in other countries are more deliberate with gun fire than the American Rambo wannabes, so the single targeted discharge is not dispositive, but without studying the Hong Kong situation or the usual operations of the Hong Kong police more carefully I could easily believe that police leadership either wanted someone, anyone, made an example of, or else authorized the brandishing of firearms to the point that it was inevitable someone would be shot. (Shooter wasn't the only cop with sidearm out that day).

[Pannonian]

If you watch the video, it's plausible that it could be just that. Of course police in other countries are more deliberate with gun fire than the American Rambo wannabes, so the single targeted discharge is not dispositive, but without studying the Hong Kong situation or the usual operations of the Hong Kong police more carefully I could easily believe that police leadership either wanted someone, anyone, made an example of, or else authorized the brandishing of firearms to the point that it was inevitable someone would be shot. (Shooter wasn't the only cop with sidearm out that day).

All police in HK are armed. They even carry them home. Even if the gun wasn't drawn, anyone swinging a bar at a police officer is an idiot.

[Beskar]

I miss Frags. He would be say something (paraphrased) like: "NBA, Apple, Blizzard and others kowtowing to the Chinese Pooh Bear."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He would - then I think he'd say something totally OTT about the Chinese "street warriors".

:cry:

It's worth noting that the backlash caused Blizzard to partially if not mostly back-track.

This raises an important point - as limp as the West's Governments are being people are still aghast - we aren't "getting used" to seeing Hong-Kongers brutalised.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-50428704

A 70-year old cleaner on his lunch break died after being his with a missile in the crossfire.

[Montmorency]

Update on new rules (https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1266342501415301120) for Hongkongers seeking to live/work in UK: Home Office appears to confirm that if China presses on with security law, *all* 2.9m 'British nationals (overseas)' in Hong Kong will be allowed to come to UK whether or not they *currently* hold a BN(O) passport.

Now THAT would be a pretty good start. But what about the people born since handover?

[Furunculus]

if they are dependents of BNO passport holders, sure.