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

[Montmorency]

No, I just meant that everyone is just jealous of Europeans' natural supremacy in the Olympic Winter Games.

Not our fault y'all can't luge for !

[Seamus Fermanagh]

U.S. luges can luge for [flower]....and that is about it. Some year we will finish 1st in bobsleigh....some year...

[Sarmatian]

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

Excuse me?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Excuse me?

He means "keep your hand out of my pocket."

[Sarmatian]

He means "keep your hand out of my pocket."

I know what he means, I'm interested into a rationale behind his opinion.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I know what he means, I'm interested into a rationale behind his opinion.

I don't know how European politics operates, but I am assuming that it operates in the same way that American politics does such that there are always winners and losers.

Take the example of the Native Americans living here in the United States, after centuries of genocide and conquest, our efforts at reparations have been inefficient at best, criminal at worst. After stuffing them onto the poorest and harshest land on the continent, several states and the federal government attempted at providing reparations. One of the worst policies in my opinion was the silly idea of promoting "Indian Casinos" which are not uncommon to anyone living in California or Connecticut. The idea was that by promoting such infrastructure, Native American tribes and communities can become self sufficient and build themselves up from the abject poverty they were all living under.

What instead has happened is that only the biggest and well known tribes have established casinos which are frequently the sole money making operation for the entire community in question (in a depression, people don't want to gamble their money and hence the tribe no longer has income) and meanwhile the smaller and lesser known tribes still live out there in the badlands, living in abject poverty with the highest rates of alcoholism and unemployment in the entire nation.

Now I have a question for you Sarmatian. Please elaborate on your rationale for the idea of reparations. What arguments can you give that would satisfy my demand that whatever policy you implement would not hand out winners and losers accordingly but instead raise the entire standard of living across and entire region? If you wish for the Western Europeans to help out Africa, or East Asia, or Eastern Europe, regions where national boundaries criss-coss over ethnic and tribal regions, you must accordingly desire that Western Europe exercise the power to overrule the desires of the national government and local authorities in order to prevent corruption and favoritism from muddling the process in the way that I have explained.

In which case we might as well call the Western Europeans our benevolent imperial masters once again. Hence, there is no sense in using intervention in order to cure intervention. If you want the job done right, you must give the outsiders the same amount of power they had when they went and screwed everything up in the first place.

[InsaneApache]

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.

I see. However we were talking about how hubristic and arrogant the British were for using their entire fleet to enforce a domestic law, yes?

Show me another time in history that this has been done. Moreover please furnish me with an example of any country in the world that operated for the whole of humanity.

I wont go on about the moral stance we took not so long ago that also served the whole of humanity.

Perfect? No. Not by a long stretch. Malevolent? Certainly not.

[Husar]

I see. However we were talking about how hubristic and arrogant the British were for using their entire fleet to enforce a domestic law, yes?

I wasn't but yes, sounds good.

Show me another time in history that this has been done. Moreover please furnish me with an example of any country in the world that operated for the whole of humanity.

America! Daisy Yeah! America!

Incidentally they have a very similar self-image to yours, now they seem a bit tame in comparison though since they're more willing to make up for their slavery mistakes of the past instead of talking about how they made up for it by saving us all from communist slavery.

I wont go on about the moral stance we took not so long ago that also served the whole of humanity.

Perfect? No. Not by a long stretch. Malevolent? Certainly not.

In this, our british-capitlist world, only the results matter. "We had a really good intention" isn't an excuse for utterlyfailing the goal to top slavery. The excuse has never been accepted for the Americans in Afghanistan and we shouldn't accept it for the British and their failure to stop slavery completely either. We're not in lieberal lalaland here where we tell children the only thing that matters is that they tried and had good intentions, they'll become wussies that way.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Show me another time in history that this has been done.

Various Wars on Things should convince you that it does not take too much effort to come up with a few examples.

Moreover please furnish me with an example of any country in the world that operated for the whole of humanity.

Operating for the whole of humanity is a bit of a staple motivation, even if that doesn't always translate into what we would recognise as for the benefit of humanity ... Even so, Jesuits (humanitarianism) and the French efforts to export their revolution (establishing civic liberty and much of the basis for all modern standards of fair and equitable governance) arguably qualify.

[Sarmatian]

I don't know how European politics operates, but I am assuming that it operates in the same way that American politics does such that there are always winners and losers.

Take the example of the Native Americans living here in the United States, after centuries of genocide and conquest, our efforts at reparations have been inefficient at best, criminal at worst. After stuffing them onto the poorest and harshest land on the continent, several states and the federal government attempted at providing reparations. One of the worst policies in my opinion was the silly idea of promoting "Indian Casinos" which are not uncommon to anyone living in California or Connecticut. The idea was that by promoting such infrastructure, Native American tribes and communities can become self sufficient and build themselves up from the abject poverty they were all living under.

What instead has happened is that only the biggest and well known tribes have established casinos which are frequently the sole money making operation for the entire community in question (in a depression, people don't want to gamble their money and hence the tribe no longer has income) and meanwhile the smaller and lesser known tribes still live out there in the badlands, living in abject poverty with the highest rates of alcoholism and unemployment in the entire nation.

Now I have a question for you Sarmatian. Please elaborate on your rationale for the idea of reparations. What arguments can you give that would satisfy my demand that whatever policy you implement would not hand out winners and losers accordingly but instead raise the entire standard of living across and entire region? If you wish for the Western Europeans to help out Africa, or East Asia, or Eastern Europe, regions where national boundaries criss-coss over ethnic and tribal regions, you must accordingly desire that Western Europe exercise the power to overrule the desires of the national government and local authorities in order to prevent corruption and favoritism from muddling the process in the way that I have explained.

In which case we might as well call the Western Europeans our benevolent imperial masters once again. Hence, there is no sense in using intervention in order to cure intervention. If you want the job done right, you must give the outsiders the same amount of power they had when they went and screwed everything up in the first place.

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.

[Pannonian]

In this, our british-capitlist world, only the results matter. "We had a really good intention" isn't an excuse for utterlyfailing the goal to top slavery. The excuse has never been accepted for the Americans in Afghanistan and we shouldn't accept it for the British and their failure to stop slavery completely either. We're not in lieberal lalaland here where we tell children the only thing that matters is that they tried and had good intentions, they'll become wussies that way.

Wow, we're getting blamed for the failure to stop slavery completely now.

[Husar]

Wow, we're getting blamed for the failure to stop slavery completely now.

If your sarcasm detector is completely broken, then yes, you are!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Wow, we're getting blamed for the failure to stop slavery completely now.

Must be a Saturday. I distinctly recall that on Saturdays it is always England's fault.

[InsaneApache]

I always blame the parents meself.

There's an old English saying that applies here.

Never let a good deed go unpunished.

Apt.

[Pannonian]

If your sarcasm detector is completely broken, then yes, you are!

So what's your point? That we're to blame whatever happens, either for our taking part in the slavery business in the first place, for not doing more to redress it, or whatever argument best results in the conclusion that Britain is in the wrong? We've tried all sorts of solutions, from resettling captured slaves in Sierra Leone to getting out of where we weren't wanted to helping build infrastructure in places where we were asked for help. And despite all that, we have people living far away from these places telling us we're in the wrong. Yeah, right. Show me that Germany has done more to end slavery across the world, and your arguments might have some credence. Or alternatively, set aside a special fund of German tax money, and we'll happily spend it on any worthy cause of your choice, in whatever manner you wish. We'll couple it with whatever profuse apologies of your choice as well if you want.

[Husar]

So what's your point? That we're to blame whatever happens, either for our taking part in the slavery business in the first place, for not doing more to redress it, or whatever argument best results in the conclusion that Britain is in the wrong? We've tried all sorts of solutions, from resettling captured slaves in Sierra Leone to getting out of where we weren't wanted to helping build infrastructure in places where we were asked for help. And despite all that, we have people living far away from these places telling us we're in the wrong. Yeah, right. Show me that Germany has done more to end slavery across the world, and your arguments might have some credence. Or alternatively, set aside a special fund of German tax money, and we'll happily spend it on any worthy cause of your choice, in whatever manner you wish. We'll couple it with whatever profuse apologies of your choice as well if you want.

My point was to let you know that the quote you got so worked up over was sarcasm and not meant seriously...

[InsaneApache]

Various Wars on Things should convince you that it does not take too much effort to come up with a few examples.

Name one.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Name one.

The obvious example is the War on Drugs.

[Greyblades]

America! Daisy Yeah! America!

Incidentally they have a very similar self-image to yours, now they seem a bit tame in comparison though since they're more willing to make up for their slavery mistakes of the past instead of talking about how they made up for it by saving us all from communist slavery.

Americans are British 2.0, now with more self destruction.

[Pannonian]

Americans are British 2.0, now with more self destruction.

They always were Britain 2.0, a more fanatically principled version of us. Slavery is just about the only issue where Britain 1.0 held the higher moral ground. On every other issue, the Americans are just like the British, except with more belief in liberal ideals that over here are more of a general understanding than a nationalistic pseudo-religion. On most things, we're happy with being not as bad as most, but the Americans have to be the most highly principled of all. They're the young guns that we ought to have aspired to be, but we're the retirees who're just happy to be out of it all.

[Furunculus]

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.

we have been reparating-furiously(tm)* ever since we 'failed' at stopping the slave trade whilst spending the about 150 years and lives of over 1,500 british sailors freeing over 150,000 african slave**, i think that modern britain is sitting pretty by modern standards***.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depart...al_Development

** http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/visi..._infosheet.htm

*** http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4124496.html

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The premise of this topic and the discussion are absurd.

Have I ever owned slaves?

No - ergo I should not be paying for the mistakes of others, not that my sheep-farming ancestors had anything to do with slavery, but even so.

Have I spent any time freeing slaves?

No - ergo I get no props for that.

OK - so what do I win?

[Rhyfelwyr]

The premise of this topic and the discussion are absurd.

Have I ever owned slaves?

No - ergo I should not be paying for the mistakes of others, not that my sheep-farming ancestors had anything to do with slavery, but even so.

Have I spent any time freeing slaves?

No - ergo I get no props for that.

OK - so what do I win?

I think the silliest thing in this thread is the failure of some people to see the distinction between the Viking raids on the one hand, and the accumulation of wealth by the continuing British state in the slave trade on the other. This is not about individuals, it is about states, and paying reparations for ill-gotten gains. Some small part of the wealth that the British state has today is from historic gains from the slave trade. The British state of today is the same one that played a major role in fostering the Atlantic slave trade. Thus at an institutional level, it should acknowledge some sort of responsibility, especially when it is responsible for the on-going humanitarian disaster that is Haiti, and much of the trouble in Africa.

And while this is not about individuals, every British citizen has in some way benefited from the wealth of the slave trade.

[HoreTore]

Have I ever owned slaves?

Are you personally asked for anything?

Or is it the British state they ask, which has owned slaves?

[Montmorency]

Well, hold on - if we want to get technical about it, there was a long period in which the British state didn't really do anything besides support organizations like the East India Company, which did all the slavery and exploitation directly.

Since that organization no longer exists, shouldn't its direct depredations be written off at least in part?

[HoreTore]

Well, hold on - if we want to get technical about it, there was a long period in which the British state didn't really do anything besides support organizations like the East India Company, which did all the slavery and exploitation directly.

Since that organization no longer exists, shouldn't its direct depredations be written off at least in part?

Wasn't the East India Company nationalized in some fashion when it went bankrupt?

[Pannonian]

The premise of this topic and the discussion are absurd.

Have I ever owned slaves?

No - ergo I should not be paying for the mistakes of others, not that my sheep-farming ancestors had anything to do with slavery, but even so.

Have I spent any time freeing slaves?

No - ergo I get no props for that.

OK - so what do I win?

It's to do with successor states apparently. Because we've been more stable than most (having taken part in toppling some of these tyrannical states, more fool us), we get to be screwed further back than most. Maybe Greece should allow Macedonia the privilege of claiming to be the successor to the Alexandrian kingdom, since that way they won't get billed for Alex's actions. I'd hate to imagine what the central Asians could claim from China, since the Chinese claim to be the successors to the Mongolian empire. Oh hang on, nobody claims from the Greeks and Chinese, since one is broke and the other is too powerful to mess with. Dang these perfidious French for renumbering their republic every once in a while and giving themselves a clean sheet. Maybe we should renumber our governments in the same way. Since Thatcher is year zero for modern British politics, the current government could be called the 8th parliament (with 1979 being the 1st, and including the Major and Brown interregnums).

[Montmorency]

>>>Wasn't the East India Company nationalized in some fashion when it went bankrupt?<<<

My impression was that it progressively came under more state control from the late 18th c. until full nationalization after the Rebellion of 1857.

[HoreTore]

It's to do with successor states apparently. Because we've been more stable than most (having taken part in toppling some of these tyrannical states, more fool us), we get to be screwed further back than most. Maybe Greece should allow Macedonia the privilege of claiming to be the successor to the Alexandrian kingdom, since that way they won't get billed for Alex's actions. I'd hate to imagine what the central Asians could claim from China, since the Chinese claim to be the successors to the Mongolian empire. Oh hang on, nobody claims from the Greeks and Chinese, since one is broke and the other is too powerful to mess with. Dang these perfidious French for renumbering their republic every once in a while and giving themselves a clean sheet. Maybe we should renumber our governments in the same way. Since Thatcher is year zero for modern British politics, the current government could be called the 8th parliament (with 1979 being the 1st, and including the Major and Brown interregnums).

You would also need to adopt the french way of shaving...

@Monty: nationalization also means adopting responsibilities, so in that case the current british state would be liable for the actions of the East India Company...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So, after all of these reparations are dispensed.

Let us suppose that mores have shifted yet again, say 100 years hence, and the cultures of the world have reverted to a "it happened in the past, let it be" attitude.

Would those paying reparations today then receive payments because they were wrongfully forced to pay reparations?




Just a thought.