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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Be careful pan-man, or you might begin expressing some form of national pride....maybe even.....[gasp!]....nationalism.

---

I wouldn't go ra-ra about whatever good things we might have done in the past as long as others don't drag up the bad things and point to them exclusively, especially on this particular subject where 19th century Britain had made it a point of pride to end that practice. Rather than the nationalist pride about empire that we've been accused of, modern Brits generally think of empire as something in the distant history that has little to do with our present day situation which we'd rather deal with. But if people are going to drag up our past, we can also point to the context of worldwide imperialism by everyone who could, and that we were by no means the worst of the bunch.

In any case, as you identified, and as Husar confirmed in saying that we've never been invaded, all of this is rooted in the desire to see us get the kicking that we deserve and that we've never received in our continental wars, but which we've dealt out to the French and Germans.

I saw this conversation quoted somewhere, about the readiness of Nigeria for independence.

Prime Minister: Are Nigeria ready for independence?
Colonial Minister: No, it'll take another twenty to thirty years.
PM: What do you recommend we do?
CM: Give them independence now. If we don't, the Nigerian intellectuals will turn against us and become rebels, and we'll be delaying what will happen anyway.

Since the moralists are determined to give us a kicking anyway, I'd rather we did nothing and let them accuse us of all sorts. We're going to be found guilty anyway, and it'll be cheaper to do nothing.

What I get from this thread: the Portuguese and Spanish did it right. Import the most, but make sure the fatality rates are as close to 100% as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

No - I want these countries to go after the the people whose ancestors were paid to release the slaves. I'm not a fan of taxes or ANY involvement with the British State.

---

Th British State was involved in all of it though as Rhyf mentioned

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

How am I responsible for that?

I was not alive, nor have I ever condoned it. I am being victimised for nothing but the country I was born into - that is immoral, even more so in this case.

If we are being forced to make monetary reparations for the current state of these countries, we should obviously cancel internal aid - because it has meant nothing to them all these decades.

---

Why did I have to py for V2s shot at London? I never even saw one of them. And neither did my generation sign any contracts that said we nee to pay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The perpetrators are dead - most of their descendants probably aren't even aware of the slaving connection.

My great-great-grandfather beat his wife. I am his acknowledged descendant - he was so vile his father disinherited him. Should I be sent to prison? Or perhaps I should pay my wealthy cousins reparations?

---

Weren't you and your granddad already indirectly and directly punished by the disinheritance? Also don't forget that this is completely different because while corporations are people, nations are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

As Husar says, we shouldn't point to what our "glorious ancestors" did in ending slavery, developing the infrastructure of overseas territories, etc. We don't get a cookie for all that. But we should point to what our "inglorious ancestors" did in using slavery. We do get a deserved kicking for that. If we point to the fact that slavery was the norm back then, that has nothing to do with our own doings and how we're going to get a kicking for it. The rules will be revised in such a way that Britain, and by that I mean modern Britain and British citizens today, will get the lion's share of the kicking, while other major slaving states from back then will be excused one way or another. By our very nature, as Seamus has alluded to and as Husar has explicitly stated, we are wrong and we deserve to be punished like we've never been punished.

Moralist: What have the British done so far other than laugh at their former victims and tell them they got a few roads as net benefit?
Brit: Erm, we ended slavery around the world?
Moralist: You don't get a cookie for that, and besides you deserve punishment for imposing yourself on the trade of other nations.

Thus we get our deserved double kicking. Once for not doing enough to end slavery, once for doing too much to end slavery. And a century of anti-slavery campaigning around the world is dismissed as "we don't get a cookie for it".

---

This was great comedy, but had nothing to do with what I actually said as I have explained numerous times now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

What I get from this thread: the Portuguese and Spanish did it right. Import the most, but make sure the fatality rates are as close to 100% as possible.

---

The Spanish and Portuguese have had their share of fighting on their land, so they don't attract the resentment that the British do. We have the nearly unique sins of being successful, being stable and being uninvaded. The only other country with this combination of deadly sins is the US, and they attract the same kind of resentment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The Spanish and Portuguese have had their share of fighting on their land, so they don't attract the resentment that the British do. We have the nearly unique sins of being successful, being stable and being uninvaded. The only other country with this combination of deadly sins is the US, and they attract the same kind of resentment.

---

Yeah, plus we catch a little extra excrement for still being actively churched.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

We have the nearly unique sins of being successful, being stable and being uninvaded.

---

Hmm... Kinda sorta, Britain 1701 onwards was stable but the preceding states were quite prone to civil wars and failed invasions, usually against each other, with the odd joint Scottish+French armies running around the isles and the dutch invasion, though that one gets iffy, due to some of the country joining the invaders and the invaders not actually annexing anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Th British State was involved in all of it though as Rhyf mentioned

---

Not really - the State was very small, the fact that the government of India was actually a Private Enterprise should tell you something about how "small government" Britain was at the time. Fact is - people at acting as though the British Government of 1833 was the same monolithic entity as today. In this case, it certainly wasn't - as evidenced by the fact that the government had to pay for the slaves it emancipated, rather than simply forcing the issue by writ.

Quote:

---

Why did I have to py for V2s shot at London? I never even saw one of them. And neither did my generation sign any contracts that said we nee to pay.

---

You shouldn't have - but your petty vengeance is no reason to beggar my children now - and in any case the British, French And Americans about the same amount of money rebuilding your infrastructure and bedding in democracy. In your case you were liable for a contract you inherited - in this case there is no contract.

Anyway - I have read up on this - and the claim being made is that Britain is responsible for the current situation in the Caribbean, and should pay for the development of these nations. Some of these nations are wealthy tax havens with a budget surplus.

What is being asked now is patently immoral - the beggared being asked to pay the walthy for the sins of their great-great-great-grandfathers.

Quote:

---

Weren't you and your granddad already indirectly and directly punished by the disinheritance? Also don't forget that this is completely different because while corporations are people, nations are not.

---

They are suing the State, not the "nation", and the State is to all intents and purposes a limited company whose shareholders are the citizens. That is why you can sue a State, but not a nation.

In any case - the British Government already paid to emancipate the slaves, paid to develop infrastructure in former slave colonies, and continues to pay into a development fund.

Now we are being asked to may for a fourth​ time.

Brit: Erm, we ended slavery around the world?
Moralist: No, you didn't and even if you would have, you want a cookie because you stop what you shouldn’t have done and profit from.

I am a serial killer but I stopped all by myself. I want the Peace Nobel Price as I am really a good man… Kind of logic...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

I am a serial killer but I stopped all by myself. I want the Peace Nobel Price as I am really a good man… Kind of logic...

---

You obviously have not watched Dexter.

I recommend skipping the finale though, it was bad... or just the last season entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

In any case - the British Government already paid to emancipate the slaves, paid to develop infrastructure in former slave colonies, and continues to pay into a development fund.

Now we are being asked to may for a fourth​ time.

---

And there's the country of Sierra Leone which was created from the slaves that we liberated from slavers. We patrolled the seas, stopped the slavers from transporting the captives across the Atlantic, then brought them to somewhere where the continental slavers couldn't reach them, and IIRC developed some infrastructure in this new colony as well. And in the 00s, we were asked again for additional help in further developing this liberated slave colony, and we obliged (having already stepped in to stop a civil war there, for no other reason than we felt obliged to a former colony). And none of this counts, as apparently we're former serial killers who did nothing more than stop serial killing.

All the rules are set up with the purpose of giving Britain the kicking which we've never got thanks to our Channel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Brit: Erm, we ended slavery around the world?
Moralist: No, you didn't and even if you would have, you want a cookie because you stop what you shouldn’t have done and profit from.

I am a serial killer but I stopped all by myself. I want the Peace Nobel Price as I am really a good man… Kind of logic...

---

Eh. That doesn't really work. It's more like "the entire world were serial killers, we were the first to stop and we made huge effort to make everyone else stop. So could the rest of the ex serial killers stop giving me crap?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

And there's the country of Sierra Leone which was created from the slaves that we liberated from slavers. We patrolled the seas, stopped the slavers from transporting the captives across the Atlantic, then brought them to somewhere where the continental slavers couldn't reach them, and IIRC developed some infrastructure in this new colony as well. And in the 00s, we were asked again for additional help in further developing this liberated slave colony, and we obliged (having already stepped in to stop a civil war there, for no other reason than we felt obliged to a former colony). And none of this counts, as apparently we're former serial killers who did nothing more than stop serial killing.

---

It counts, but it doesn't excuse. That's the point. The scale is what is important here. Brenus' example of a serial killer is a good one. If a serial killer kills 50 people and saves one life, that one life save doesn't excuse his previous actions.

Britain liberated 150 thousand slaved. It transported 5 millions.
British state earned huge amounts of money from it and returned only a fraction of it.

No one is disputing that British actions at stopping slavery should be taken into account, it just doesn't absolves Britain of blame.

It gives them a better position than other countries involved, that's true.

Quote:

---

All the rules are set up with the purpose of giving Britain the kicking which we've never got thanks to our Channel.

---

What rules? Let's face it, there's no chance of UK and other nations involved being forced to pay anything, ever. This entire discussion is purely academic.

And please stop playing the victim and try to go back to serious discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Not really - the State was very small, the fact that the government of India was actually a Private Enterprise should tell you something about how "small government" Britain was at the time. Fact is - people at acting as though the British Government of 1833 was the same monolithic entity as today. In this case, it certainly wasn't - as evidenced by the fact that the government had to pay for the slaves it emancipated, rather than simply forcing the issue by writ.

---

That doesn't excuse UK in the slightest.

Quote:

---

What is being asked now is patently immoral - the beggared being asked to pay the walthy for the sins of their great-great-great-grandfathers.

They are suing the State, not the "nation", and the State is to all intents and purposes a limited company whose shareholders are the citizens. That is why you can sue a State, but not a nation.

In any case - the British Government already paid to emancipate the slaves, paid to develop infrastructure in former slave colonies, and continues to pay into a development fund.

Now we are being asked to may for a fourth​ time.

---

States are responsible for their actions and they can get sued. If found guilty, they face some kind of sanctions, which 99,99% of times involves monetary reparations. Just because you weren't in the country then, or weren't born yet, or weren't involved in it or you voted for the other party doesn't affect whether the state is guilty or not.

Surely the Caribbean is a mix of former masters and slaves. They can pay themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

It counts, but it doesn't excuse. That's the point. The scale is what is important here. Brenus' example of a serial killer is a good one. If a serial killer kills 50 people and saves one life, that one life save doesn't excuse his previous actions.

Britain liberated 150 thousand slaved. It transported 5 millions.
British state earned huge amounts of money from it and returned only a fraction of it.

No one is disputing that British actions at stopping slavery should be taken into account, it just doesn't absolves Britain of blame.

It gives them a better position than other countries involved, that's true.


What rules? Let's face it, there's no chance of UK and other nations involved being forced to pay anything, ever. This entire discussion is purely academic.

And please stop playing the victim and try to go back to serious discussion.



That doesn't excuse UK in the slightest.





States are responsible for their actions and they can get sued. If found guilty, they face some kind of sanctions, which 99,99% of times involves monetary reparations. Just because you weren't in the country then, or weren't born yet, or weren't involved in it or you voted for the other party doesn't affect whether the state is guilty or not.

---

Nobody is saying Britain should be "excused" for past actions on the basis of past actions, and again the case is not being argued on those grounds.

The case is being argued on the grounds that Britain alive today should be on the hook for the state of the Caribbean today.

Honestly, if we are held accountable for the actions of our ancestors we ALL deserve the death penalty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Nobody is saying Britain should be "excused" for past actions on the basis of past actions, and again the case is not being argued on those grounds.

The case is being argued on the grounds that Britain alive today should be on the hook for the state of the Caribbean today.

Honestly, if we are held accountable for the actions of our ancestors we ALL deserve the death penalty.

---

The fact that we're alive today is proof enough that we deserve punishment, as the security of our ancestors was only ensured by violence or the threat of violence towards others. If we live in a country that's any bigger than a village, that's another reason for punishing us, as it was only achieved through subjugating others. I now understand why those former public schoolboys go to dominatrixes to get their bottoms spanked. They're not being kinky, they're merely atoning for the sins of our fathers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The fact that we're alive today is proof enough that we deserve punishment, as the security of our ancestors was only ensured by violence or the threat of violence towards others. If we live in a country that's any bigger than a village, that's another reason for punishing us, as it was only achieved through subjugating others. I now understand why those former public schoolboys go to dominatrixes to get their bottoms spanked. They're not being kinky, they're merely atoning for the sins of our fathers.

---

You united and decided to work together, completely different situation.
A contract was signed that you have to adhere to now.

This is not about Britain enriching itself or about these greedy people asking for your money now. What it is about is that you took other peoples' freedom and you knew it was wrong. And the French and the Dutch and everybody else also knew it was wrong. And now we all need to pay for it somehow to make up for these wrongs.

As for myself, I think ten pages of discussing over the channel against the tidal waves of nationalism, patriotism and self-victimization in favor of the wronged should count for something...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

It counts, but it doesn't excuse. That's the point. The scale is what is important here. Brenus' example of a serial killer is a good one. If a serial killer kills 50 people and saves one life, that one life save doesn't excuse his previous actions.

Britain liberated 150 thousand slaved. It transported 5 millions.
British state earned huge amounts of money from it and returned only a fraction of it.

No one is disputing that British actions at stopping slavery should be taken into account, it just doesn't absolves Britain of blame.

It gives them a better position than other countries involved, that's true.


What rules? Let's face it, there's no chance of UK and other nations involved being forced to pay anything, ever. This entire discussion is purely academic.

And please stop playing the victim and try to go back to serious discussion.



That doesn't excuse UK in the slightest.





States are responsible for their actions and they can get sued. If found guilty, they face some kind of sanctions, which 99,99% of times involves monetary reparations. Just because you weren't in the country then, or weren't born yet, or weren't involved in it or you voted for the other party doesn't affect whether the state is guilty or not.

---

So the sins of the past are to be held against our current accounts forever?

Have you lot paid the Turks an indemnity for Obilic's treachery?

Aside from all the moralization on both sides, which means nothing to me, I have not seen anyone address the issues of repose and limitation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Aside from all the moralization on both sides, which means nothing to me, I have not seen anyone address the issues of repose and limitation.

---

Leave the plane of materialism please. Money means nothing here, what we need to talk about are feelings that were hurt.
That's part of the reason why sending money did not and will never make up for it. And they keep demanding more because the money cannot fill the holes in their souls.

It's absolutely no wonder that you materialism-fixated capitalists are utterly unable to fix a simple issue here!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

You united and decided to work together, completely different situation.
A contract was signed that you have to adhere to now.

This is not about Britain enriching itself or about these greedy people asking for your money now. What it is about is that you took other peoples' freedom and you knew it was wrong. And the French and the Dutch and everybody else also knew it was wrong. And now we all need to pay for it somehow to make up for these wrongs.

As for myself, I think ten pages of discussing over the channel against the tidal waves of nationalism, patriotism and self-victimization in favor of the wronged should count for something...

---

Oh dear, by going on with your moralising, you've missed the greatest shame of our chapter on slavery. We did far worse than doing something we knew to be wrong. What we did hasn't been touched on in all the anti-British arguments here, but it was worse than anything that we've been accused of in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Oh dear, by going on with your moralising, you've missed the greatest shame of our chapter on slavery. We did far worse than doing something we knew to be wrong. What we did hasn't been touched on in all the anti-British arguments here, but it was worse than anything that we've been accused of in this thread.

---

You mean letting millions of Indians starve pretty much on purpose?

I didn't forget that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

You mean letting millions of Indians starve pretty much on purpose?

I didn't forget that.

---

Hah, trust you to come up with all sorts to end with the conclusion that the British are wrong and to find arguments that fit that conclusion. I was talking about the topic of this thread, but that matters not as the object is to find the Brits guilty, and it's just a matter of thinking up something to result in that verdict.

Quote:

---

Leave the plane of materialism please. Money means nothing here, what we need to talk about are feelings that were hurt.
That's part of the reason why sending money did not and will never make up for it. And they keep demanding more because the money cannot fill the holes in their souls.

It's absolutely no wonder that you materialism-fixated capitalists are utterly unable to fix a simple issue here!!!

---

Even that way, they can't force others to love them! They must find love on their own - the love that resides within them. :on_adore:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Hah, trust you to come up with all sorts to end with the conclusion that the British are wrong and to find arguments that fit that conclusion. I was talking about the topic of this thread, but that matters not as the object is to find the Brits guilty, and it's just a matter of thinking up something to result in that verdict.

---

Again, you're wrong.

The Dutch did horrible things in Indonesia but before I ever got to discuss this the thread got swarmed by British nationalists who wanted to propagate how their nation never did anything wrong and any and all claims that it has any guilt whatsoever are null and void. So I was trying to be polite and go with the flow in the sense that we only discussed the British part since I didn't see any Dutchies or French claiming that their countries never did anything wrong or made up for everything.

And now you try to turn it all around and victimize yourselves when it was you who made this thread all about discussing Britain's "glory"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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

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

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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

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

---

So you are suggesting that Western nations give a steady, long term injection into the private sector of former colonies instead of handing money directly to the local government.

Or in other words, we should do what the free market is already doing for us. If I am not mistaken, what you previously called "the stupidest argument you have ever heard" is actually your own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

This is not about Britain enriching itself or about these greedy people asking for your money now. What it is about is that you took other peoples' freedom and you knew it was wrong. And the French and the Dutch and everybody else also knew it was wrong. And now we all need to pay for it somehow to make up for these wrongs.

---

Absurdity bolded.

1. I took nobody's freedom, contemporaries of my ancestors did, possibly one or two of my ancestors, but unlikely.

2. They didn't know it was wrong - once they realised it was wrong, they moved to stop it.

3. No - we don't. I did not commit the crime, I should not have to suffer the punishment.

You want to punish me for something?

Punish me for voting Tory if you deem that morally wrong, but not for slavery which ended almost 200 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

1. I took nobody's freedom, contemporaries of my ancestors did, possibly one or two of my ancestors, but unlikely.

---

We've discussed this, it's irrelevant since the Royal Navy was not a private organization AFAIK and both enabled and protected these practices at first. Plus they paid taxes/blood money to the state which gladly accepted it. Noone holds you personally responsible, it's a state thingy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

2. They didn't know it was wrong - once they realised it was wrong, they moved to stop it.

---

Give me a break! The Israelites knew it was wrong when they moved out of Egypt, Spartacus knew it was wrong when he tried to break free but the 17th century Europeans never had a clue... Trying to pass off medieval people as naive and dumb doesn't always work and these weren't even medieval anymore...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

3. No - we don't. I did not commit the crime, I should not have to suffer the punishment.

---

I did not throw any bombs at Britain and I didn't sign any contracts, give me my money back already!
In other words, irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

You mean letting millions of Indians starve pretty much on purpose?

I didn't forget that.

---

Or the Irish.

As a rule of thumb, if your nationality starts with an I, you should expect genocide from the brits sooner or later....

Also, I still note that the Brits are playing the victim-card like there's no tomorrow. Interestingly they've been joined by an american, who is keen to add his own card to the pile... Must be tough living in those countries.

I know the brits can be explained by a lack of quality women on that isle, but there's no excuse for the yanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

We've discussed this, it's irrelevant since the Royal Navy was not a private organization AFAIK and both enabled and protected these practices at first. Plus they paid taxes/blood money to the state which gladly accepted it. Noone holds you personally responsible, it's a state thingy.

---

A "State" thingy you want me to pay for - you want to close hospital wards, or not re-surface roads, or raise taxes for this "thing".

Sorry, not buying it.

Quote:

---

Give me a break! The Israelites knew it was wrong when they moved out of Egypt, Spartacus knew it was wrong when he tried to break free but the 17th century Europeans never had a clue... Trying to pass off medieval people as naive and dumb doesn't always work and these weren't even medieval anymore...

---

EPIC FAIL.

I'm a medieavalist, stupid, I'm the last person to be claiming people in the past were mentally deficient - your own faculties are in doubt as you've forgotten that, though.

Did the Israelites know it was wrong when they left Egypt? No - they left under a Divine mandate. Spartacus - Spartacus believed he and his followers deserved their freedom, which is not to say he was anti-slavery. He just didn't believe HE should be a slave. As to Renaissance Europeans - they considered Sub-Saharans to be animals, which is the only way they could conceive of slavery.

Quote:

---

I did not throw any bombs at Britain and I didn't sign any contracts, give me my money back already!
In other words, irrelevant.

---

Yeah - sure - I already said it was immoral for you to have to pay reparations. On the other hand, there IS a difference because you DID inherit a legal obligations. There was no legal obligations to recompense slaves, and you cannot retroactively create one.

Quote:

---

As a rule of thumb, if your nationality starts with an I, you should expect genocide from the brits sooner or later....

---

I thought the North African/Mediterranean campaign was one of the cleaner ones. :wacko: