Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Yeah, but now they are free to be oppressed!
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Yeah, but now they are free to be oppressed!
As I've said, it's nice to know that colonial mindset is still alive and well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
So...what's your point?
Re: the museums, I doubt Britain has had much influence on what they show, besides providing them with material for them to pick and choose from. Museum displays aren't limited by the structures they're hosted in, but are whatever their organisers see fit to put up. It's been 16 years since we last had any influence on who the organisers would be, and the displays were put up after Beijing's takeover.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
As for the British influencing the rise of Communism in China, I don't think so. Have a look at the blokes they supplanted, their record in mainland China, and their record after they were exiled to Taiwan. Hell, Hong Kong under Britain was a haven for freedom lovers long pre-dating Communism, with Sun Yatsen and his cronies sheltering there from the Qing officials hunting them. Except for the Japanese occupation, Hong Kong was seen as a stable territory that protected free speech and liberal politics.
His point has always been pretty consistent. To wit:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The West gets on its high horse as though it were somehow superior, but in practice they are just as selfish, just as often murderous bastards and no better in any way than the rest of humanity -- just luckier because their technology advantages snapped in before most of the rest of the world so they had the opportunity to be greedy, arrogant jerks on a global scale rather than more locally. He views anything vaguely resembling a sense of moral/spiritual/intellectual superiority on the part of the West (Western Europe and USA in partic) as the height of hubris.
...Quote:
The West gets on its high horse as though it were somehow superior, but in practice they are just as selfish, just as often murderous bastards and no better in any way than the rest of humanity -- just luckier because their technology advantages snapped in before most of the rest of the world so they had the opportunity to be greedy, arrogant jerks on a global scale rather than more locally. He views anything vaguely resembling a sense of moral/spiritual/intellectual superiority on the part of the West (Western Europe and USA in partic) as the height of hubris.
That's it? I don't see why there even needs to be a thread going on about it.
Next I suppose we'll have a debate over whether Classical Athens was the apotheosis of art and literature...
British hubris.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Britain only invaded everyone who couldn't resist like Mordor. There is no complaint about how you left stuff, just about your meddling and invading everywhere in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Possibly, but two wrongs still don't make a right. You're just trying to whitewash British crimes with the benefit of hindsight and after having spent the better part of a century or even longer trying to correct past mistakes. It's all about the benefits but that thousands of people had to die so british aristocrats could sip their tea or that India was left starving because they weren't important enough to British gentlemen is not really important. And the conflicts in Africa and the Middle East that are a direct consequence of colonial line drawing on maps and antagonism caused by colonial slave trade are apparently not part of the "net benefits" either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Very simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Even if you don't agree with the sentiment by former colonial nations, dismissing it out of hand and justifying it with "if it weren't us, it would have been someone else so it doesn't matter",or something along that line of thought, is quite reminiscent of old colonial mindset.
If that is your position, then discussion about this subject with you is pointless, like discussing slavery with a slave owner or crime with a mobster.
With more subtlety and less eloquence, but that doesn't have much to do with this particular discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I am neither whitewashing anything nor attempting a cost-benefit analysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
So, if one SS kills a Jew, it's not insightful or informative to decry his individual crime; plenty more SS where he came from. Yeah, he's a bad man - so what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
(Leaving aside that this analogy is pretty poor...)Quote:
If that is your position, then discussion about this subject with you is pointless, like discussing slavery with a slave owner or crime with a mobster.
Discussion? But you aren't discussing anything! You're just flatly stating that Imperial Britain oppressed a bunch of people, and that this is bad. If you have no point beyond this, then I'm afraid there is nothing of substance to discuss here.
I generally agree, but in the face of Godwin's law and everybody mentioning my nation as the poster boy of a criminal nation I find it quite arrogant of the British to whitewash their own crimes and present them as though they were actually always a generous nation and never really did anything wrong. Your own forefathers found the british rule bad enough to start a war for independence over it and they were better off than most other colonies. Or would you say that whole war was just fun and games because they really liked the British but were even more fond of going to war?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Oh and saying that everyone did it at the time so it was kinda okay is a bad excuse given that war and killing have not been seen as glorious everywhere and at any time. Read some accounts from the 30 years war for example, people weren't really fond of or neutral towards what was going on. To declar people from 300 years ago as some kind of dumb barbarians without morals who were not really responsible for their actions seems quite naive. Maybe they weren't quite where we are today but they still colonized and conquered because of greed and they knew that this greed wasn't right or morally correct.
It's not about guilt, I do not feel guilty, but I recognize what happened as evil and as a big mistake. The British seem to say they would repeat colonialism since it was really great...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
What do you mean "nothing to discuss". There's plenty:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
1) Do former colonies have a moral right to demand compensation?
Is it different than any other conquest in history? We have a different world order set up by western powers, supposedly based on different moral values than "conquer thy neighbour" of old. Today, it is accepted both by political elite and scholars that colonialism was about exploitation. Do former colonies have a right to material compensation rather than just verbal they've received so far.
2) Do they have a legal case?
Separate from moral argument, the question of legality is a different topic. Is there a legal case? Which court, if any, should rule on it? Do they have a chance...
Surely Japan-centrism is even more hilariously misplaced. At least an alien invading the Earth might have had intelligence from a hundred years ago and have the mistaken impression that London is the centre of the most powerful faction on the planet. But why do aliens and monsters keep invading Japan?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
London is where some of the world's most powerful and most evil banks plot their evil capitalist schemes, conquer the money, conquer the world.
Doctor Who is great though, Anglos generally seemt to do very well with fiction if they put in some effort.
I also watch Torchwood, although that is more like a drama about human feelings than actual Sci-Fi.
In which case you're using that position to raise questions, rather than just pushing it apropos of nothing. That's what I was looking for.Quote:
What do you mean "nothing to discuss". There's plenty:
Heck no! Get off my lawn! No solicitors!Quote:
1) Do former colonies have a moral right to demand compensation?
Is it different than any other conquest in history? We have a different world order set up by western powers, supposedly based on different moral values than "conquer thy neighbour" of old. Today, it is accepted both by political elite and scholars that colonialism was about exploitation. Do former colonies have a right to material compensation rather than just verbal they've received so far.
Beats me, but new (ex-post facto) laws to make it explicitly legal probably wouldn't fly. Anyway, to evaluate suitable compensation one would need to estimate the psychological, cultural, economic, and environmental costs directly attributable to colonization, and I suppose even those of imperial-clientilistic subordination (of territories that never endured direct colonial administration or heavy European settlement). That's impossible, to put it lightly.Quote:
2) Do they have a legal case?
Separate from moral argument, the question of legality is a different topic. Is there a legal case? Which court, if any, should rule on it? Do they have a chance...
Oh, I just saw something very relevant: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...ael-fassbender
Skip to 4:30 if you're impatient.
Payment should be based on the delta between there lifestyle now and that of the nations they came from.
Since a lot of them would be worse off in Africa then WI, the Indies owe UK.
Or how about payment should be based on the goods they produced while they were enslaved and the market value these good had plus interest.
How do you calculate that?Quote:
the goods
All goods everywhere? I don't suppose every worker during the colonial era was bent toward the advancement of colonial economic goals...Quote:
they produced
Whose market value? When? Where?Quote:
market value these good had
1%? 10%? 1000000%?Quote:
plus interest.
Shipping lists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The exported goods which the locals produced with slave labor. Since the colonial powers could make a huge profit selling them elsewhere while not paying the locals for producing them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/commodity/cottonQuote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
http://www.crestmontresearch.com/interest-rates/Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
If you don't trust a single provider or don't have exact historical values, I'm sure there are methods of calculation that both sides can agree on such as averages.
You might enjoy a little-known BBC comedy/drama series called Sleepers, about a couple of Soviet agents sent to Britain who are reactivated 25 years later, but who have become so thoroughly embedded in their new lives and have no desire to return. That's the premise, but IMHO the most enjoyable parts are the various spy agencies who are investigating the matter, who are portrayed as national stereotypes. The Americans are powerful and have all the resources they want at their disposal, but have preconceptions that drive them to erroneous conclusions. The British are broke and are trying to run their operation on what small change they can scrape together, and only ever get something done when they call in favours from old schoolfriends who've used their greater competence to get themselves better paid jobs in the private sector. The Russians are more interested in their western lives and feathering their own nests than doing their jobs. None of them have any clue, although to be fair to the Russians they don't care and are only going through the motions because Moscow is giving them orders. The only competent spymaster in all of this is the one Moscow sends to fetch the agents back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
What does this tell us, for example, about the market value of cotton in Calcutta in 1770?
You really think so? :inquisitive:Quote:
I'm sure there are methods of calculation that both sides can agree on such as averages.
This site in particular not much, but there is certainly historical data available. If not about the market prices, then probably about the total exported value or volume. Not everything can always be calculated 100%, even in today's businesses. To demand that it is as a prerequisite for reparations is quite weird. One could also add money for the emotional damages but I left that out for now since Anglos don't have emotions anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I wouldn't mind forming an independent commision under the ECHR to find a fair and balanced sum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I'm not confident that it could be gotten to within several orders of magnitude...Quote:
To demand that it is as a prerequisite for reparations is quite weird.
China and Japan would need to pay as well, btw.
It's not a good idea to siphon billions - who knows, maybe trillions - from the richest and give to the poorest, especially when the ultimate cost might leave the former indebted for centuries at least.
At the minimum, any countries awarded reparations should have a share of the settlement awarded directly to each adult citizen, and nothing at all to the national government itself.
Anyway, let's invoke statute of limitations.
Calculating the actual amount would be the hardest part. Modern day USA, Canada and Australia were sparsely populated with almost non-existent economies, except some barter and practically no concept of ownership. Some parts of Africa were similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
India or Dutch colonies in southeast Asia on the other hand had functioning states and economies. If it were to be calculated on the value on actual goods, adjusted for inflation, just the worth of salt from India, a tax that went directly to the British crown would be enough to bankrupt UK several times over. If we try to add other, direct and indirect profits, we would probably come to some unimaginable figures.
Bankrupting those nations and throwing world's economy in a turmoil obviously isn't the solution.
What I think is fair is actually a compromise - we couldn't really take the price of pepper in 15th and 16th century when 1kg of pepper = 1kg of gold as a starting point. Likewise, it wouldn't be fair to base the calculations on the 21st century price of pepper. Some middle ground would have to be found.
It also wouldn't be fair to expect former colonial masters to "pay up" immediately. Maybe former colonial countries could set up very long term funds for development of their former colonies. Money from those funds would be used to build infrastructure, highways, railways, ports, airports, schools, university, hospital, housing etc... in former colonies and companies from the former colony and former colonial country would have preferential status to be picked. So, for example, in the case of India, British and Indian companies would have "first option" to build a highway in India. If they can't do it or don't want to do it under allotted budget for whatever reason, only then are other international companies offered to do it.
That way there would be less corruption than with cash payments, former colonial countries could bear it relatively painlessly, former colonies get infrastructure developed for free and the money is injected, at least partially, into the former colonial country economy.
Don't think you're gonna see that anytime soon, Sarmatian. I suspect the more likely sentiment will parallel Hayakawa's regarding the Panama Canal.
"We should keep [it]. After all, we stole it fair and square."
And in cases like Hong Kong where the former colonial masters developed the infrastructure far, far beyond what the original inhabitants had ever dreamed of, and left them with a society, economy and everything else that they're vocally happy with, the achievements of said former masters should be dismissed by morallists living thousands of miles away, who ignore the natives' opinions as irrelevant whilst condemning the British for seizing the colony in the first place. As always, cherry pick the bad bits of Britain's history and ignore the good bits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
The lasting legacy of the British empire is to leave the world with someone to blame for all the evils of the world for the next few centuries. I wonder if the Gauls and Iberians ever pursued the Romans for compensation for forcibly incorporating them into their empire. Going by Julius Caesar's figures, 1 million dead and 1 million enslaved should come to a hefty sum when calculated over 2000 years of interest.
I am reminded of the "what've the Romans ever done for us" scene from Life of Brain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Sarkozy visit marks 70th year of de Gaulle’s radio broadcast
“We come as friends, and friends who remember the past and what France owes you,” Sarkozy told an audience of 1,500 veterans and dignitaries at London’s Royal Hospital Chelsea, a hospital and retirement centre for former soldiers.
We remember indeed. The French invaders kept pretty good records of the assets they seized when they enslaved the English, so we should be able to equitably work out just what they owe us plus 947 years of interest.
The french have killed their monarchistic leaders and distanced themselves from their practices while the British keep claiming that their nation and government have continued since and are based on the one formed in 1066. Of course this matters in terms of responsibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
If they pay something anyway, it might help you with paying the former colonies.