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

[Pannonian]

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

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

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

[Sarmatian]

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

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

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

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

Sarkozy visit marks 70th year of de Gaulle’s radio broadcast

“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.

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

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

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

[Brenus]

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

[Tellos Athenaios]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Husar]

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

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

[Tellos Athenaios]

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

Take up the White Man's burden.

[Husar]

Take up the White Man's burden.

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

[Greyblades]

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

[InsaneApache]

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

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

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

[Slyspy]

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

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

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

[Husar]

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

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

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

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

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

[Slyspy]

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

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

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

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

[HoreTore]

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

Get over yourselves, Brits.

[Greyblades]

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

[Husar]

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

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

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

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

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

[Husar]

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

[Husar]

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

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

[Montmorency]

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

Moral improvements? Stuff that hooey.

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Moral improvements? Stuff that hooey.

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

Our squid overlords apparently prefer things to remain sub rosa.

[Kadagar_AV]

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

Good neighbors

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

Good neighbors

Kad':

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

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

[Pannonian]

Kad':

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

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

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

[Husar]

Moral improvements? Stuff that hooey.

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

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

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

[Slyspy]

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

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

[Tellos Athenaios]

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

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

[HoreTore]

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

Nationalistic dreams of a bygone era.

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

[HoreTore]

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

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