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

[Greyblades]

How is any of that my fault? Just the fact that people don't care ain't make it any more fair.

It money, its not supposed to be fair. We dont care taht your father's friends, uncle's, tennis partner was part of the nazis, or whatever. We see an estate taht owes us money for services rendered and expenses entailed, that your inheritance is not of your fault is beside the point.

They also still talk about the Empire which is laughable

Hmm, complaining that someone's bragging about conquests you find embarrassing and ultimately worthless. Kettle, old chum, I do believe Pot just called you black.

[Husar]

It money, its not supposed to be fair. We dont care taht your father's friends, uncle's, tennis partner was part of the nazis, or whatever. We see an estate taht owes us money for services rendered and expenses entailed, that your inheritance is not of your fault is beside the point.

That was exactly the argument I made why Britin should pay, so what's your point? Just pay already, we see an estate that owes people money for crimes committed and damages done, that your inheritance is not your fault is beside the point.

[Greyblades]

That was exactly the argument I made why Britin should pay, so what's your point? Just pay already, we see an estate that owes people money for crimes committed and damages done, that your inheritance is not your fault is beside the point.

Except your debt was agreed to in print and enforced by war, whereas our "debt" is pure speculation, dubious in validity, asked for by neither involved sides and demanded by outside parties powerless to enforce it. Unfortunately your ancestors signed the dotted line to a sum to be paid over time, ours signed to cessation of land ownership and we are 4-7 decades too late to do anything about it.

[Husar]

Except your debt was agreed to in print and enforced by war, whereas our "debt" is pure speculation, dubious in validity, asked for by neither involved sides and demanded by outside parties powerless to enforce it. Unfortunately your ancestors signed the dotted line to a sum to be paid over time, ours signed to cessation of land ownership and we are 4-7 decades too late to do anything about it.

So you basically say you got away with it in both cases because you won the respective wars.
That's exactly what I meant when I said you show some arrogance and lack of actual regret.

All the arguments brought up are really just a cover for "might makes right, nanana, suck it up!"
The Americans are a lot more honest about it.

[Greyblades]

So you basically say you got away with it in both cases because you won the respective wars.

No, I'm saying that we dont have any debt beyond what you think we do. Any debt we did have, we paid by leaving quietly and not breaking or taking back the stuff we left behind.

1 billion taxpayers, billions of tonnes of untapped resources, trillions in yet unclaimed relics and we still left it all behind, willingly, without much incident or sour feeling during the transition on either side. How many times in history has that happened that? Add that to the millions we've spent on aid over the years and I think the debt's been sufficiently settled.

[Husar]

No, I'm saying that we dont have any debt beyond what you think we do. Any debt we did have, we paid by leaving quietly and not breaking or taking back the stuff we left behind.

1 billion taxpayers, billions of tonnes of untapped resources, trillions in yet unclaimed relics and we still left it all behind, willingly, without much incident or sour feeling during the transition on either side. How many times in history has that happened that? Add that to the millions we've spent on aid over the years and I think the debt's been sufficiently settled.

All of which you acquired through crime and wasn't yours to begin with.
And now you think you get bonus points for giving it back...

The aid is a good point however and does indeed speak in your favor.

[Greyblades]

All of which you acquired through crime and wasn't yours to begin with.
And now you think you get bonus points for giving it back...

Well it took you having Russian troops sacking Berlin to give your criminal possessions back, so really leaving and not fighting yet another costly war when we stood to loose 50 times more than you did should count as a plus in comparison to the rest of the thieves.

[Husar]

Well it took you having Russian troops sacking Berlin to give your criminal possessions back, so really leaving and not fighting yet another costly war when we stood to loose 50 times more than you did should count as a plus in comparison to the rest of the thieves.

Well, you forget the real motives again, such as your economic situation after the World Wars, which made it too expensive to hold on to the colonies by force, that the colonies had become more of a drain than an actual surplus for your economy (contrary to what "1 billion of taxpayers" insinuates) and the revolutions wthat sprung up such as the one by Gandhi etc. It's like you stole a credit card and gave it back once it was locked, and now expect a reward for giving it back.

[Pannonian]

You're talking about a colonial empire that covered quarter of the globe and exploited more than a billion people and dismiss it because of a few insignificant cases? Really?

I'm referring to the example that you cited as an example of Britain's wrongdoing. Subsequent arguing to put Britain in the wrong regarding that example was symptomatic of the whole blame Britain tendency, which is to start with the conclusion of blaming Britain, then working backwards to find the argument, ignoring all evidence that might argue against it, even if the evidence might originate from more reliable sources than the philosophical arguments of someone who lives far away from the area being discussed. The worst part of that argument was the dismissal of primary sources from people on the spot, which were deemed insignificant against a theoretical argument that would take years to play out if it does at all. There are lots of arguments against the British in Hong Kong, using primary sources and on location. But the argument in this thread missed all of them completely, as it never had any interest in examining the subject matter, but only in finding an philosophical argument using scant sources that would result in the desired conclusion of finding the British in the wrong.

Here's an argument against the British in Hong Kong: the British colonials were racist and regarded the natives as inferiors. If you knew anything about that colony, you'd be able to make this argument. And if you knew anything more, you'd know there are further colours to that argument, and the British don't come out the worst from an examination of this argument.

[a completely inoffensive name]

For all the Opium Wars and spheres of influence that the West imparted on China, the West has more than repaid them with rampant consumerism and outsourcing driving China's 7% GDP growth year after year for two decades now.

You can generalize this argument to all of East Asia in fact to some degree. And throw in India as well. Sounds like the West is already cleaned most of the blood off their hands.


Now as for Africa.....that might be a bit more problematic.

[Kadagar_AV]

Hmm, complaining that someone's bragging about conquests you find embarrassing and ultimately worthless. Kettle, old chum, I do believe Pot just called you black.

That made my day

[Sarmatian]

For all the Opium Wars and spheres of influence that the West imparted on China, the West has more than repaid them with rampant consumerism and outsourcing driving China's 7% GDP growth year after year for two decades now.

You can generalize this argument to all of East Asia in fact to some degree. And throw in India as well. Sounds like the West is already cleaned most of the blood off their hands.
Now as for Africa.....that might be a bit more problematic.

That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard, and I've heard a lot, so... Congratulations.

I'm referring to the example that you cited as an example of Britain's wrongdoing. Subsequent arguing to put Britain in the wrong regarding that example was symptomatic of the whole blame Britain tendency, which is to start with the conclusion of blaming Britain, then working backwards to find the argument, ignoring all evidence that might argue against it, even if the evidence might originate from more reliable sources than the philosophical arguments of someone who lives far away from the area being discussed. The worst part of that argument was the dismissal of primary sources from people on the spot, which were deemed insignificant against a theoretical argument that would take years to play out if it does at all. There are lots of arguments against the British in Hong Kong, using primary sources and on location. But the argument in this thread missed all of them completely, as it never had any interest in examining the subject matter, but only in finding an philosophical argument using scant sources that would result in the desired conclusion of finding the British in the wrong.

Here's an argument against the British in Hong Kong: the British colonials were racist and regarded the natives as inferiors. If you knew anything about that colony, you'd be able to make this argument. And if you knew anything more, you'd know there are further colours to that argument, and the British don't come out the worst from an examination of this argument.

For the third (and last) time, Hong Kong wasn't an example of British wrongdoings, it was an example that countries must respect international treaties even if those treaties weren't made by the current generation. Capisce?

[a completely inoffensive name]

That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard, and I've heard a lot, so... Congratulations.

Well, my job here is finished then. It's what happens when this argument broke out where one side is clearly wrong in defending imperialistic policies, and the other side is just plain unreasonable in what the correct solution is in regards to reparations. If Kadagar is the ignorant outsider on USAnian threads, then I shall be the Kadagar of European threads.

[Sarmatian]

Well, my job here is finished then. It's what happens when this argument broke out where one side is clearly wrong in defending imperialistic policies, and the other side is just plain unreasonable in what the correct solution is in regards to reparations.

Trying to take the high road and failing utterly.

If you have read the thread you would have noticed that there are indeed two sides, but we haven't actually reached possible reparations. The side you labeled "unreasonable in what correct solution is in regards to reparations" is still stuck trying to convince the other side that something bad did happen and that there is a need for some kind, any kind, of reparations.

When we get past that, then we can talk about what the actual reparations should be.

[Kadagar_AV]

Well, my job here is finished then. It's what happens when this argument broke out where one side is clearly wrong in defending imperialistic policies, and the other side is just plain unreasonable in what the correct solution is in regards to reparations. If Kadagar is the ignorant outsider on USAnian threads, then I shall be the Kadagar of European threads.

Hmpfh, I see myself as your friendly neighborhood poker and joker on USAnian exceptionalism

[Husar]

Hmm, complaining that someone's bragging about conquests you find embarrassing and ultimately worthless. Kettle, old chum, I do believe Pot just called you black.

I don't think you used that saying correctly because the person complaining wasn't bragging about any worthless conquests himself.

I also notice a completely monetary fixation in this thread, everything is about money and net sums o money and goods and more money and money as compensation. Noone even acknowledges the human suffering which cannot and should not be weighed up with money. Maybe we can come to an agreement where the British won't have to give away their precious money that their banks steal from all the world's taxpayers and instead go on a journey once a year where they travel around the world and give hugs and kisses to former colonials whose parents were slaves.

[Greyblades]

I don't think you used that saying correctly because the person complaining wasn't bragging about any worthless conquests himself.

Its a joke refering to his earlier years, ask him about being a ski instructor some time.

I also notice a completely monetary fixation in this thread, everything is about money and net sums o money and goods and more money and money as compensation. Noone even acknowledges the human suffering which cannot and should not be weighed up with money.

Well you keep telling us to "pay pay pay" and money's the only thing we really see as something we can give that they would want in reparations, except land, which we've given away all but the stuff we started out with, and them some.

Maybe we can come to an agreement where the British won't have to give away their precious money that their banks steal from all the world's taxpayers and instead go on a journey once a year where they travel around the world and give hugs and kisses to former colonials whose parents were slaves.

I think we already do that, teenagers and college students volunteer to be aid workers and because they're basically unskilled workers giving guilt laden hugs and kisses is the only thing they do that the locals cant do themselves.

Well, you forget the real motives again, such as your economic situation after the World Wars, which made it too expensive to hold on to the colonies by force, that the colonies had become more of a drain than an actual surplus for your economy (contrary to what "1 billion of taxpayers" insinuates) and the revolutions wthat sprung up such as the one by Gandhi etc. It's like you stole a credit card and gave it back once it was locked, and now expect a reward for giving it back.

When the rest of history is full of nations that had a habit of fighting over much less, regardless of the practicality of the attempts, are you really going to say that sparing the colonies yet another series of bloody revolutionary wars is not a point in Britain's favor?

[Pannonian]

For the third (and last) time, Hong Kong wasn't an example of British wrongdoings, it was an example that countries must respect international treaties even if those treaties weren't made by the current generation. Capisce?

If that's the standard you want to use, then I fail to see how Britain are remotely in the wrong regarding slavery. When we practiced it, it was the human norm, and anyone who could used slaves. Then we stopped based on a humanistic argument that is now being used to bash us with, and when we stopped we were one of a very small minority of countries to do so. Note that slavery was still the norm around the world when we stopped. Slavery gradually became the exception by way of multilateral treaties, treaties that were signed only because we pushed hard for them, and provided muscle to enforce them.

It's a bit like bashing the US for not respecting self-determination prior to WW1. While that's the philosophical norm now, they were the ones who pushed the ideal in the first place, and have been more consistent than most in promoting it and in providing muscle to enable it. If they're not perfect, that's reality for you, and I'm certainly not going to hold them to task for not living up to that ideal prior to voicing it.

[Pannonian]

I think we already do that, teenagers and college students volunteer to be aid workers and because they're basically unskilled workers giving guilt laden hugs and kisses is the only thing they do that the locals cant do themselves.

And former colonies who need help and are willing to work with us to improve their infrastructure are given help. Sierra Leone, the colony created from liberated slaves that our slaver patrols captured, imported a British administrative strata in the 00s, and are presumably given preferential status in various economic links. Somaliland, the unofficial state situated in former British Somaliland that's best known for being the stable part of Somalia, is seeking British aid in gaining diplomatic recognition and has already been given some help in moving towards a viable statehood. That's a couple of former colonies that immediately come to mind.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...When the rest of history is full of nations that had a habit of fighting over much less, regardless of the practicality of the attempts, are you really going to say that sparing the colonies yet another series of bloody revolutionary wars is not a point in Britain's favor?

Having read this thread as a spectator, mostly, I wonder if the subtext of all of this isn't a rather Catholic need for penance in the expiation of guilt.

England, alone among Europe, has not suffered for their "crimes." France, Germany, Russia, Poland, Belgium, Italy -- virtually the rest of Europe -- have all, as a consequence of their direct or indirect actions, been invaded, conquered, destroyed, ethnically cleansed, partitioned, bankrupted, etc. In contrast, the UK has been largely secure from physical harm perpetrated against them by the rest of Europe (though not against internal strife) for a nearly a millennium.

So does the anger stem, I wonder, from a sense that the UK -- particularly England -- has not done it's fair share of penance for sins perpetrated in much the same manner and to much the same degree as the rest of Europe?

Again, I am an outsider to this, operating from limited data on an internet forum....centered on games that revel in Europeans killing one another....I might have it all wrong.

[Husar]

Interesting observation Seamus, but I think the the fact England hasn't been conquered for a while has affected their self-image far more than it has affected the image others have of England. As has been brought up in this thread, it's always the English/British who bring up their exceptionalism and their unique position and so on whenever the rest of Europe invites them to be just Europeans like the rest of us.

Even in this thread it's the English arguing the whole time about how they are/were better than everyone else and how noone can touch them anyway. As Gelatinous Cube phrased it, British exceptionalism is even stronger than the American kind.

[Pannonian]

Interesting observation Seamus, but I think the the fact England hasn't been conquered for a while has affected their self-image far more than it has affected the image others have of England. As has been brought up in this thread, it's always the English/British who bring up their exceptionalism and their unique position and so on whenever the rest of Europe invites them to be just Europeans like the rest of us.

Even in this thread it's the English arguing the whole time about how they are/were better than everyone else and how noone can touch them anyway. As Gelatinous Cube phrased it, British exceptionalism is even stronger than the American kind.

On the subject of slavery, which is the topic of this thread, it's hard to see the British as anything but exceptional.

[Kadagar_AV]

On the subject of slavery, which is the topic of this thread, it's hard to see the British as anything but exceptional.

Why?

Arabic countries have continued the trade into this millenium...

[InsaneApache]

I think he means that the British abolished slavery and used the Royal Navy to back that up. But I think you made his point for him. Inadvertently.

[Husar]

I think he means that the British abolished slavery and used the Royal Navy to back that up. But I think you made his point for him. Inadvertently.

I think he meant that the Royal Navy was apparently not very successful at abolishing slavery, slavery is still around everwhere in the world, even former British colonies.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think he meant that the Royal Navy was apparently not very successful at abolishing slavery, slavery is still around everwhere in the world, even former British colonies.

There is a market for it. Until people refuse to own slaves, someone will find a way to provide for the market. My country declared a war on drugs. Nothing can stop drugs from being brought to market save for the absence of that market. The war on drugs is, at best, a quixotic effort. At worst, a farce.

While it must be noted that France took the very first measure towards abolition, they didn't follow up on it very well. England's efforts at the end of the Georgian era and the opening of the Victorian era helped inculcate a broader climate of opposition to the entire institution. It would be hard to assert that any other country has done more to change pro-slavery attitudes or more to interrupt human trafficking.

It is a source of shame that my nation did not abolish the whole thing as part of our declaration of independence, and a travesty that both the Articles and the Constitution supported it. Even after the abolition movement gained broader acceptance, Russia beat us to emancipation by two years.

[Slyspy]

I think he meant that the Royal Navy was apparently not very successful at abolishing slavery, slavery is still around everwhere in the world, even former British colonies.

Perhaps you'd like us to go back in and take over again so that we can stop anyone ever doing ill to anyone else?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Trying to take the high road and failing utterly.

If you have read the thread you would have noticed that there are indeed two sides, but we haven't actually reached possible reparations. The side you labeled "unreasonable in what correct solution is in regards to reparations" is still stuck trying to convince the other side that something bad did happen and that there is a need for some kind, any kind, of reparations.

Any reparations would be unreasonable. There is no sense in international intervention in order to correct for international intervention.

[Montmorency]

Perhaps you'd like us to go back in and take over again so that we can stop anyone ever doing ill to anyone else?

OWG

There is no sense in international intervention in order to correct for international intervention.

OWG

[Husar]

OWG



OWG

I don't know why you say Osteoporosis Working Group (http://www.abbreviations.com/OWG) but I agree that acompletelyinoffensivename raised a good point against Slyspy, who just proved once again that the British want their empire back more than anything.