Org Mobile Site
Answers on the back of a postcard please....
Well they are all going to be sued for implementing slavery in the West Indies. We've been here before havn't we?
As my RL name is of Norman extraction, I'm going to sue France of my bit of Normandy. Then the Romans. I wonder if I could get something on Nebuchadrezzar.
Discuss....
Well they are all going to be sued for implementing slavery in the West Indies. We've been here before havn't we?
As my RL name is of Norman extraction, I'm going to sue France of my bit of Normandy. Then the Romans. I wonder if I could get something on Nebuchadrezzar.
Discuss....
I think you should pay because it's important to be tough on crime.
It happened, but a person who has any dignity wouldn't ask for money.
Originally Posted by Husar:
I think you should pay because it's important to be tough on crime.
Tough on crime only applies when it's someone else doing the crime.I think you should pay because it's important to be tough on crime.
Funny thing is, my step-mum used to think that only blacks were enslaved. That was until I educated her about the Barbary pirates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
Answers on the back of a postcard please....
Well they are all going to be sued for implementing slavery in the West Indies. We've been here before havn't we?
As my RL name is of Norman extraction, I'm going to sue France of my bit of Normandy. Then the Romans. I wonder if I could get something on Nebuchadrezzar.
Discuss....
If we get sued for implementing slavery in the West Indies, do we get to bill them back for the costs of enforcing the abolition of slavery? The costs of running the Royal Navy, by far the biggest navy in the world, for nearly century has to amount to a fair bit.Answers on the back of a postcard please....
Well they are all going to be sued for implementing slavery in the West Indies. We've been here before havn't we?
As my RL name is of Norman extraction, I'm going to sue France of my bit of Normandy. Then the Romans. I wonder if I could get something on Nebuchadrezzar.
Discuss....
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
Funny thing is, my step-mum used to think that only blacks were enslaved. That was until I educated her about the Barbary pirates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade
Not enough! go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery..._British_IslesFunny thing is, my step-mum used to think that only blacks were enslaved. That was until I educated her about the Barbary pirates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-iri...e-slaves/31076
HoreTore's kin invaded my lands. I require compensation in the form of large amounts of oil money so I can sleep at night.
Originally Posted by Tiaexz:
HoreTore's kin invaded my lands. I require compensation in the form of large amounts of oil money so I can sleep at night.
One of those vikings was a cnut.HoreTore's kin invaded my lands. I require compensation in the form of large amounts of oil money so I can sleep at night.
You're gonna paaaay, you're gonna paaay, you're gonna paaay.... La-la-la-la... you're gonna paaaay...
Disregarding the moral point you guys are trying to make when you compare Viking raids to colonial exploitation, legally they have a much better case, since there is a legal link from British Empire and modern UK, which does not exist between Viking tribes and modern Norway...
On the other hand, international courts and organizations are funded and controlled precisely by those former colonial powers. So, it's kind of like suing a guy because he took something from you and finding out he's the judge presiding over the case.
Disregarding the moral point you guys are trying to make when you compare Viking raids to colonial exploitation, legally they have a much better case, since there is a legal link from British Empire and modern UK, which does not exist between Viking tribes and modern Norway...
On the other hand, international courts and organizations are funded and controlled precisely by those former colonial powers. So, it's kind of like suing a guy because he took something from you and finding out he's the judge presiding over the case.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
On the other hand, international courts and organizations are funded and controlled precisely by those former colonial powers. So, it's kind of like suing a guy because he took something from you and finding out he's the judge presiding over the case.
Except if you consider the point Fragony makes in every post about Europeans and self-flaggelation.On the other hand, international courts and organizations are funded and controlled precisely by those former colonial powers. So, it's kind of like suing a guy because he took something from you and finding out he's the judge presiding over the case.
If the British don't want to pay for the West Indies I say they can start by giving us all the reparations back that we paid them since WW1 or they could get used to being called imperialist opportunists and hypocrites.
Originally Posted by Husar:
Except if you consider the point Fragony makes in every post about Europeans and self-flaggelation.
If the British don't want to pay for the West Indies I say they can start by giving us all the reparations back that we paid them since WW1 or they could get used to being called imperialist opportunists and hypocrites.
Self-flagelation is strictly verbal.Except if you consider the point Fragony makes in every post about Europeans and self-flaggelation.
If the British don't want to pay for the West Indies I say they can start by giving us all the reparations back that we paid them since WW1 or they could get used to being called imperialist opportunists and hypocrites.
"Oh, we're so very, very sorry for that. It was ghastly of us, we apologize. I'm personally ashamed of my ancestors. I wish there was something we could do... What did you say? Reparations? Well... Oh, I'm sorry, is that the time... We have to go. How time flies when you're having fun. Ta-ta."
Originally Posted by Husar:
Except if you consider the point Fragony makes in every post about Europeans and self-flaggelation.
If the British don't want to pay for the West Indies I say they can start by giving us all the reparations back that we paid them since WW1 or they could get used to being called imperialist opportunists and hypocrites.
Erm, it's part of the school curriculum, under History. Also, I wouldn't mind us being billed for slavery, as long as we get to bill them back for enforcing the end of slavery.Except if you consider the point Fragony makes in every post about Europeans and self-flaggelation.
If the British don't want to pay for the West Indies I say they can start by giving us all the reparations back that we paid them since WW1 or they could get used to being called imperialist opportunists and hypocrites.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Such a payment would come from taxes, nobody alive today who pays taxes is responsible for slavery, ergo this is stupid.
Stupid though the claim is, I still wouldn't mind the claimants paying us for the cost of maintaining the Royal Navy for a century, scaled to 2013 levels.Such a payment would come from taxes, nobody alive today who pays taxes is responsible for slavery, ergo this is stupid.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Such a payment would come from taxes, nobody alive today who pays taxes is responsible for slavery, ergo this is stupid.
Nobody alive today who pays taxes was responsible for ww2, yet current German taxpayers still pay for it.Such a payment would come from taxes, nobody alive today who pays taxes is responsible for slavery, ergo this is stupid.
Countries are entities in foreign policy and international law. Just because there's a new generation doesn't mean international treaties and international law doesn't apply.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Stupid though the claim is, I still wouldn't mind the claimants paying us for the cost of maintaining the Royal Navy for a century, scaled to 2013 levels.
First you'd have to prove that the sole purpose of the Royal Navy for a century was to enforce abolition of slavery.Stupid though the claim is, I still wouldn't mind the claimants paying us for the cost of maintaining the Royal Navy for a century, scaled to 2013 levels.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Erm, it's part of the school curriculum, under History. Also, I wouldn't mind us being billed for slavery, as long as we get to bill them back for enforcing the end of slavery.
That was already weird the first time you mentioned it.Erm, it's part of the school curriculum, under History. Also, I wouldn't mind us being billed for slavery, as long as we get to bill them back for enforcing the end of slavery.
Do you also offer thieves payment if they stop stealing stuff? You didn't maintain the Royal Navy for altruistic reasons, that's just laughable.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
This "reparations" isn't something that could actually happen could it? Holding modern people responsible for their ignorant and conquering ancestors is the height of stupid.
If they're prepared to pursue that logic, I'd be happy to follow it as long as they follow the subsequent course of that logic as well. The UK pays for each slave that we'd been involved in transporting, paying their descendants wages for their work and compensation for work-related injuries and deaths. They in turn, since their logic is based on the immorality of slavery, pay for the upkeep of the Royal Navy that enforced the stoppage of slavery on the high seas, paying for the building and maintenance of the warships that made it feasible, and the training and wages of crews that did the enforcement, including compensation for work-related injuries and deaths. I'd wager the second lot of costs is many times that of the first.This "reparations" isn't something that could actually happen could it? Holding modern people responsible for their ignorant and conquering ancestors is the height of stupid.
Originally Posted by :
You didn't maintain the Royal Navy for altruistic reasons, that's just laughable.
I dunno, it was pretty altruistic because it pissed off the French.You didn't maintain the Royal Navy for altruistic reasons, that's just laughable.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Common sense has to enter in somewhere. Modern Germans paying for WW2 is just as dumb.
UK held on to Hong Kong until a few decades ago. Did modern generations had something to do with that?Common sense has to enter in somewhere. Modern Germans paying for WW2 is just as dumb.
You can't pull a "common sense" just where it suits you.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
If they're prepared to pursue that logic, I'd be happy to follow it as long as they follow the subsequent course of that logic as well. The UK pays for each slave that we'd been involved in transporting, paying their descendants wages for their work and compensation for work-related injuries and deaths. They in turn, since their logic is based on the immorality of slavery, pay for the upkeep of the Royal Navy that enforced the stoppage of slavery on the high seas, paying for the building and maintenance of the warships that made it feasible, and the training and wages of crews that did the enforcement, including compensation for work-related injuries and deaths. I'd wager the second lot of costs is many times that of the first.
I've seen that kind of reasoning with modern Serbian tycoons. They bought huge companies for peanuts, sold off anything they could, fired 90% of the workforce and now claim we should all be thanking them since they employ 100,000 people.If they're prepared to pursue that logic, I'd be happy to follow it as long as they follow the subsequent course of that logic as well. The UK pays for each slave that we'd been involved in transporting, paying their descendants wages for their work and compensation for work-related injuries and deaths. They in turn, since their logic is based on the immorality of slavery, pay for the upkeep of the Royal Navy that enforced the stoppage of slavery on the high seas, paying for the building and maintenance of the warships that made it feasible, and the training and wages of crews that did the enforcement, including compensation for work-related injuries and deaths. I'd wager the second lot of costs is many times that of the first.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
UK held on to Hong Kong until a few decades ago. Did modern generations had something to do with that?
You can't pull a "common sense" just where it suits you.
We'd have been able to hold on to it a while longer if modern standards of self-determination had been applied. Modern Hong Kong is rather fonder of London than of Beijing.UK held on to Hong Kong until a few decades ago. Did modern generations had something to do with that?
You can't pull a "common sense" just where it suits you.
Sow how far back do you draw the line? Suing the NL for the cost incurred to Spain with their disobedience? Suing the Mongols for wages lost when they beheaded iranian peasants? Suing the Visigoths for books lost when they looted France? Or Charles Martel for the arab horses he killed in Rousillon? I say get them all. Since we have proved time and again that money is just a number, we might as well put some zeroes behind it. I for one will buy government debt with El Cid's face on it. Or Frederic Barbarrossa's. Or Totanka's if it comes to that.
Edit: Ah, shouldn't then the formerly-colonised countries pay back the cost of the buildings they inherited from their suzerains? I know Ireland has a bunch of buildings built by the British, should they claim the costs back? Should they claim the cost for building up Jamaica, or Hong Kong? Should Spain for Buenos Aires or Havana, or France for Casablanca or Pondicherry?
Edit: Ah, shouldn't then the formerly-colonised countries pay back the cost of the buildings they inherited from their suzerains? I know Ireland has a bunch of buildings built by the British, should they claim the costs back? Should they claim the cost for building up Jamaica, or Hong Kong? Should Spain for Buenos Aires or Havana, or France for Casablanca or Pondicherry?
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
I dunno, it was pretty altruistic because it pissed off the French.
I could give you a snappy reply but then I'd have to ask @Andres to ban me* since jokes about German crimes are generally viewed as disgusting unlike British crimes which are apparently really just misunderstood charity efforts. So you'll just have to do with giving us our World War reparations back which you never seem to have questioned in 60 years while every attempt to make Britain pay for anything is apparently just laughable and an affront to the British imperial spirit.I dunno, it was pretty altruistic because it pissed off the French.
*I'm sure he's just waiting for his chance...
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
@Sarmation I think the people of Hong Kong had more to do with that than anything. There was a huge scare when they finally had to go back to China.
People of Hong Kong were worried they would lose their special status. When they saw that the day after was just business as usual, they went about their business.@Sarmation I think the people of Hong Kong had more to do with that than anything. There was a huge scare when they finally had to go back to China.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
People of Hong Kong were worried they would lose their special status. When they saw that the day after was just business as usual, they went about their business.
And yet, despite having seen the results, they still think more highly of London than of Beijing.People of Hong Kong were worried they would lose their special status. When they saw that the day after was just business as usual, they went about their business.
Originally Posted by SwordsMaster:
Sow how far back do you draw the line? Suing the NL for the cost incurred to Spain with their disobedience? Suing the Mongols for wages lost when they beheaded iranian peasants? Suing the Visigoths for books lost when they looted France? Or Charles Martel for the arab horses he killed in Rousillon? I say get them all. Since we have proved time and again that money is just a number, we might as well put some zeroes behind it. I for one will buy government debt with El Cid's face on it. Or Frederic Barbarrossa's. Or Totanka's if it comes to that.
Edit: Ah, shouldn't then the formerly-colonised countries pay back the cost of the buildings they inherited from their suzerains? I know Ireland has a bunch of buildings built by the British, should they claim the costs back? Should they claim the cost for building up Jamaica, or Hong Kong? Should Spain for Buenos Aires or Havana, or France for Casablanca or Pondicherry?
Or Germany for London? Oh woops, we actually did pay for that over a period of 60+ years...Sow how far back do you draw the line? Suing the NL for the cost incurred to Spain with their disobedience? Suing the Mongols for wages lost when they beheaded iranian peasants? Suing the Visigoths for books lost when they looted France? Or Charles Martel for the arab horses he killed in Rousillon? I say get them all. Since we have proved time and again that money is just a number, we might as well put some zeroes behind it. I for one will buy government debt with El Cid's face on it. Or Frederic Barbarrossa's. Or Totanka's if it comes to that.
Edit: Ah, shouldn't then the formerly-colonised countries pay back the cost of the buildings they inherited from their suzerains? I know Ireland has a bunch of buildings built by the British, should they claim the costs back? Should they claim the cost for building up Jamaica, or Hong Kong? Should Spain for Buenos Aires or Havana, or France for Casablanca or Pondicherry?
Also if anything, Spain should pay the Netherlands for the occupation. The revolt was the beginning of the European spring and the Dutch just rid themselves of the Spanish dictators and created one of the first if not the first republic.
Originally Posted by SwordsMaster:
I know Ireland has a bunch of buildings built by the British, should they claim the costs back? Should they claim the cost for building up Jamaica, or Hong Kong? Should Spain for Buenos Aires or Havana, or France for Casablanca or Pondicherry?
I know Ireland has a bunch of buildings built by the British, should they claim the costs back? Should they claim the cost for building up Jamaica, or Hong Kong? Should Spain for Buenos Aires or Havana, or France for Casablanca or Pondicherry?
Technically any Irish buildings from before the union were paid with Irish money, it might have be stolen but you could argue we were repaid for them by taking them over on independence.
Anything after Act of Union was actually paid for in the treaty and ordinary people were of course still paying rents to the british for various land reforms until the 30s.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
And yet, despite having seen the results, they still think more highly of London than of Beijing.
That's kind of like kidnapping a baby and getting caught three years later - telling the court the kid now likes you more than its parents isn't gonna work.And yet, despite having seen the results, they still think more highly of London than of Beijing.
And anyway, it's been a few decades. Let's ask them after it's been part of China for 150 years.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Stupid though the claim is, I still wouldn't mind the claimants paying us for the cost of maintaining the Royal Navy for a century, scaled to 2013 levels.
I thought the RN was being downsized into oblivion as an anachronism?Stupid though the claim is, I still wouldn't mind the claimants paying us for the cost of maintaining the Royal Navy for a century, scaled to 2013 levels.
Actually, Greenpeace should lodge a climate-change lawsuit against Tanzania.
Grounds: A lack of effective population management allowed an incredibly dangerous species to propagate beyond the Olduvai Gorge, eventually establishing itself on all seven continents and cranking up the greenhouse gasses through overpopulation and excessive terrain modification.
THEN, the various "they invaded us" and "they enslaved us" lawsuits could be rolled into one class action and combined with the above so that we are truly bringing suit against the point of origin for the problem.
Force them to pay damages or accept the return of the species at the center of the problem.
Grounds: A lack of effective population management allowed an incredibly dangerous species to propagate beyond the Olduvai Gorge, eventually establishing itself on all seven continents and cranking up the greenhouse gasses through overpopulation and excessive terrain modification.
THEN, the various "they invaded us" and "they enslaved us" lawsuits could be rolled into one class action and combined with the above so that we are truly bringing suit against the point of origin for the problem.
Force them to pay damages or accept the return of the species at the center of the problem.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
That's kind of like kidnapping a baby and getting caught three years later - telling the court the kid now likes you more than its parents isn't gonna work.
And anyway, it's been a few decades. Let's ask them after it's been part of China for 150 years.
How chauvinistic of you, the territories that experienced European colonization have the legal agency of underaged dependents? That's kind of like kidnapping a baby and getting caught three years later - telling the court the kid now likes you more than its parents isn't gonna work.
And anyway, it's been a few decades. Let's ask them after it's been part of China for 150 years.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO