Obviously I believe my moral system is correct, otherwise it wouldn't be a moral system, would it?
However, part of that system is not automatically condemning others in case I am wrong.
Or, to put it another way, I may be fallible but my moral system should not be.
No, I can't, accounting of what to what?You can't discern the antecedent? Colonial governments are accountable for the harms they perpetrate, because in general people or groups should be accountable for harms; failing to be subjected to an accounting of harms is/was wrong.
Is this accounting of harm vs the accounting of benefit to what you term the "home populace".
If we are accounting the harm done to the Indians by the British we must also account for the harm done to the British by the Company. One specific example is the driving of people involved in the manufacture of wool cloth to destitution by the Company's import of cheap cotton.
The majority of the home population in the UK were poor farm belabours and destitute factory workers in the 19th Century, after World War II they were a shell-shocked, traumatised mass living in burned out cities. You propose to impose more hardship on them?If the government isn't imposing sacrifices on the home population in order to expedite this process, then it isn't upholding its duty.
We actually did that when we banned slavery - in order to Pass the Act the Government had to buy the freedom of every slave in the colonies, via money raised through taxes.
Are you sure about that? The descendants of American Colonists feel that way, sure, but the colonised don't. A major difference for you in the New World is that Old World diseases killed most of the natives, so the Colonisation process is less visible today. However, India is where many of the nastiest Old World diseases came from and they frequently felled the European Colonists, no the natives.I mentioned earlier in thread that the USA is built on conquest too; that's bad. But Americans today overwhelmingly identify with the country, so there's no real revanchist sensibility. Naturally they should have representation in the conduct of national politics.
You still haven't addressed the issue of the Norman Colonisation of England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Sicily or the Holy Land. Indeed, the English "Colonial Spirit" and all it's trappings, good and bad, go back to Norman expansionism coupled with Norman exceptionalism.
Were the Normans evil? Given they still hold 25% (the actual figure) of England are they still evil?
Your arguments ultimately give credence to the "Free Wessex" movement and other nationalist crypto-racist tripe like the SNP.
Bookmarks