Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 98

Thread: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

  1. #61
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,152

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    I don't agree with this reading of history at all.

    The general principle you seem to be drawing from 'moral beliefs differ' is not one about the study of history but about your moral system in particular being superior - which would be unsupported. I hope that's not where you're going.

    My own belief is that to the extent I have moral beliefs I can apply them to my reasoning. It's pretty straightforward. Whether I'm wrong to hold some moral beliefs is neither here nor there.
    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.

    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.
    No, I can't, accounting of what to what?

    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.

    If the government isn't imposing sacrifices on the home population in order to expedite this process, then it isn't upholding its duty.
    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?

    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  2. #62

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    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.
    OK, maybe you're wrong in your view of the British government's recent liability in Oriental foreign policy.

    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.
    Yes, British elites oppressed British folk too.

    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?
    The country overall benefited, but the place to start would be at the top. For example, one way to go about this - just as an example - might be to expropriate the wealth of the British commercial and aristocratic class, adopt a socialist economy, and settle an agreement with India on reparations, close economic bilateralism, and freedom of movement. :P

    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.
    A good start.

    Are you sure about that? The descendants of American Colonists feel that way, sure, but the colonised don't.
    Ask 'em.

    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.
    The world is the way it is. Why are you so interested in alternate universes as a springboard for reasoning?

    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.
    Acts in themselves may be evil. We have literally no way of assessing ultimate causal impact, and to predicate evaluation on an impossibility would, on paper, prevent it from ever arising. Since the standard is impossible, it's not controlling, and no one who advocates it can escape definitional hypocrisy by acting in a contradictory way (which is inevitable). Sound very Christian come to think of it.

    Were the Normans evil? Given they still hold 25% (the actual figure) of England are they still evil?
    Modern aristocrats would presumably be criticized under standard leftist tropes of wealth accumulation, not for descent from a long-dispersed ethnic group.

    Your arguments ultimately give credence to the "Free Wessex" movement and other nationalist crypto-racist tripe like the SNP.
    No, they support arguments for wealth redistribution.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 07-18-2019 at 03:38.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  3. #63
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,169

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    You keep using wrong and misleading terminology and refusing to address what I have said. I have explained what it is you are doing. Address my posts for once.
    Here is the post that summarises what is wrong with your reading of history.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Of course modern perspectives must be applied to the study of history, or all we could ever study would be the biographies of kings, generals, and philosophers. Because those were the perspectives afforded respect throughout history; other perspectives of course always existed, but your doctrine is one more excuse to ignore them. But I'm not even referring to historical analysis, but to the application of moral reasoning to facts. If we observe the fact that a serial killer has brutally slain a dozen indigents, it is a simple judgement to say it was a bad thing for the killer to kill a dozen indigents. The doings of a serial killer, or mercenary or whoever, at any point in history or prehistory, could similarly be labeled a Bad Thing by us for a similar set of acts. That many in the past, depending on circumstances, may not have seen the "serial kiler" the same way is useful for understanding past societies, but has no bearing on what we should think today.
    How do you read the British conquest of northern India? Was it the unjustified conquest of a native people by outsiders who suppressed Indian nationhood with their colonial overlordship?

    "Of course modern perspectives must be applied to the study of history". These are your quoted words.

  4. #64
    Old Town Road Senior Member Strike For The South's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Between Louis' sheets
    Posts
    10,347

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    Hong Kong is a colonial uniqueness that maintains that uniqueness under Chinese rule. It is hardly what I would use a template.
    There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford

    My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

    I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.

  5. #65
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,152

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    OK, maybe you're wrong in your view of the British government's recent liability in Oriental foreign policy.
    I'm sure the current President of China thinks I'm wrong.

    Does that make one of us evil?

    Yes, British elites oppressed British folk too.

    The country overall benefited, but the place to start would be at the top. For example, one way to go about this - just as an example - might be to expropriate the wealth of the British commercial and aristocratic class, adopt a socialist economy, and settle an agreement with India on reparations, close economic bilateralism, and freedom of movement. :P
    Well, we had close economic bilateralism and freedom of movement, India decided it didn't really want that. Also, we had to give those things up to join the EEC.

    A good start.
    Despite which some people think the British people today should pay reparations.

    As we know, any diversion of tax money hurts the poorest in society.

    Ask 'em.
    I remain unconvinced.

    The world is the way it is. Why are you so interested in alternate universes as a springboard for reasoning?
    Firstly - Plato.

    Secondly - this is what actually happened, I'm not making it up.

    Acts in themselves may be evil. We have literally no way of assessing ultimate causal impact, and to predicate evaluation on an impossibility would, on paper, prevent it from ever arising. Since the standard is impossible, it's not controlling, and no one who advocates it can escape definitional hypocrisy by acting in a contradictory way (which is inevitable). Sound very Christian come to think of it.
    I'm honestly having trouble with you this week, there's a lot of purple prose.

    Firstly, it appears you are saying acts can be evil and intention doesn't matter - this is the import of your first sentence. This seems problematic to me, and contrary to the basic legal principle that you need a guilty mind to go with the guilty act.

    Secondly, you seem to link "evil" to the moment, but not to its long-term impact, intended or otherwise. Again, you're ignoring the issue of intention which surely has to be your primary differentiating factor which divides "bad" from "evil". This is especially true as you can have someone do something "good" like provide full employment as part of their "evil" plan to become a Tyrant.

    Your third point appears to be trying to apply the principle of scientific enquiry to ethics and history, which doesn't really work because you can only construct a theoretical model and test it speculatively - such speculation is not repeatable ergo not scientific. In any case, you rejected the speculative "democratic Hitler" out of hand.

    Modern aristocrats would presumably be criticized under standard leftist tropes of wealth accumulation, not for descent from a long-dispersed ethnic group.
    Not so long-dispersed, really. In any case, you're asking me to accept an essentially Marxist critique of history. I have read Marx's history, it's reductive and sees the social order as necessarily a repeating wheel, which can only be broken by Communism.

    No, they support arguments for wealth redistribution.
    I think the same argument can by applied to support ethno-nationalism, because your argument de-legitimises rule by the "other" and seems to admit no point at which the "other" can be integrated.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  6. #66
    Member Member Tuuvi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The wild west
    Posts
    1,398

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    So a couple of days ago I was reading God and the State by Mikhail Bakunin, which was written in 1871 when British imperialism was still in force, and I came across the following passage:

    It is well known that the Protestant propagandism, especially in England and America, is very intimately connected with the propagandism of the material, commercial interests of those two great nations; and it is known also that the objects of the latter propagandism is not at all the enrichment and material prosperity of the countries into which it penetrates in company with the Word of God, but rather the exploitation of those countries with a view to the enrichment and material prosperity of certain classes, which in their own country are very covetous and very pious at the same time.
    Bakunin's attitude towards imperialism was basically the same as my own, and he was writing just a few years before the British began conquering Zululand.

  7. #67

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    Here is the post that summarises what is wrong with your reading of history.

    How do you read the British conquest of northern India? Was it the unjustified conquest of a native people by outsiders who suppressed Indian nationhood with their colonial overlordship?

    "Of course modern perspectives must be applied to the study of history". These are your quoted words.
    You asked that exact question many posts ago. I'm not going to rewrite them for you, but as I urge to take the trouble to read them I'll assist by offering a condensed variant:


    You repeat two formulas: "Do not assess the past by the standards of the present" and "read events and actions by the standards of the time." You conveniently do not define what this means, and you apply it to rule that it is inappropriate to assign moral judgement to British colonial practices.

    The formulas you repeat do not actually entail this and have a different meaning that I discussed, which you fall afoul of, and the way you use them in practice in this thread - to say that moral judgement of something in the past is unavailable to us - is logically incoherent and therefore inevitably hypocritical. Ironically, you thus fall into the practice of assessing history by your personal standards. Besides that you (unlike PVC) have not attempted to build an independent ethical theory, I point out that you and everyone else makes judgments about historical facts all the time, in particular their aesthetic, intellectual, and indeed moral value to oneself. For example, I doubt you believe in Aristotelian medicine or the existence of Apollo. If you do not, you have so judged history and the practices of historical cultures. If you do, well, do you believe in every god, every doctrine, even the mutually exclusive ones? Of course you cannot. Next, is a general's breakfast as worthy of your consideration as terrain or as the contemporary aristocratic hierarchy - or vice versa? Do you consider every historical fact, every event as important as the next? If not - and to do so would clearly be impossible - you have again applied your personal, modern perspective to sort history and evaluate it. Concretely with the subject of colonialism in this thread, it should be unavailable to evaluate supposed benefits of colonialism - such as suppressing slavery or the settee - without assuming that these practices were bad; indeed this translates to motivated cherry-picking.

    Because the principle you would apply is illogical and incoherent, and you only invoke it and elaborate it with respect to a historical practice that you otherwise defend, it gives the impression that you are laundering your personal political and moral commitments through the name of historiography, ironically just what you claimed you were warning against.



    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    I'm sure the current President of China thinks I'm wrong.

    Does that make one of us evil?
    What is it with someone always having to be evil? But it wouldn't be challenging for most to interpret a career like Xi's as evil, if you must use the term.

    Despite which some people think the British people today should pay reparations.

    As we know, any diversion of tax money hurts the poorest in society.
    Sounds like the standard dodge - 'you don't want us to spend this money on Indians, or else it can't go to you, dear peasants.' Not that it was going to in the first place.

    The discomfort the question of reparations may cause shouldn't interfere with consideration of whether it is technically merited, which one can't do without a fundamental acceptance of colonialism as calamity. Anyway, perhaps India would like to try some freedom of movement today; not all reparations need be monetary.

    I remain unconvinced.
    You're convinced your opinion holds great sway among Maoli and Puerto Ricans? Sounds like an instance of the observer's standards overriding accurate representation of cultural context.

    Secondly - this is what actually happened, I'm not making it up.
    Correct. You were saying that India is literally not America. I agree, in the trivial sense...

    I'm honestly having trouble with you this week, there's a lot of purple prose.
    Flowery literary devices and heavy use of adjectives? That's not characteristic of this thread. Maybe the number of clauses I was connecting was too high.

    Firstly, it appears you are saying acts can be evil and intention doesn't matter - this is the import of your first sentence. This seems problematic to me, and contrary to the basic legal principle that you need a guilty mind to go with the guilty act
    For specific crimes as statutorily constructed. Not all crimes need a specific mens rea, and I'm not limiting myself to statutory crimes anyway. Legality is not morality. If I drop a lump of dog feces in someone's drink when they aren't looking, few would have trouble agreeing that the act I did was a bad one. My intent is irrelevant to the quality of badness of the act - I could have wanted to do it to hurt the person, I could have thought I was helping them, I could somehow have accomplished it by accident. Which is not to say that intent can't be relevant with respect to anything at all. It can be relevant in conditioning how others will react to me in the aftermath, and I in turn.

    Secondly, you seem to link "evil" to the moment, but not to its long-term impact, intended or otherwise.
    I mean, you're the one who introduced the term "evil", but that's not quite right. Without engaging in the philosophical distinctions between bad vs. good and right vs. wrong, the moral valence of an act is typically discernible immediately or even essentially. When a thief burglarizes a home we can debate just how bad it is (e.g. what was stolen, from whom, by whom, why), but even a consequentialist who affirms the possibility that the theft could be not-bad or even good ('Austin Powers stole the nuclear launch codes from Dr. Evil'), even that person could agree that stealing in itself is bad. And yes, technically I'm introducing confusion with the parenthetical because the semantics of theft in that circumstance are debatable, but the concept should be clear.

    We can try to assess long-term impact, though it is very difficult (because all of the past is inextricable from all of the present). For example, we can estimate the physical and epidemiological consequences of US deployment of Agent Orange in Vietnam, but we can also try to measure those consequences up to the present day. It is however impossible to assess ultimate impact, which is beyond the present day and well beyond human history (existence).

    Again, you're ignoring the issue of intention which surely has to be your primary differentiating factor which divides "bad" from "evil". This is especially true as you can have someone do something "good" like provide full employment as part of their "evil" plan to become a Tyrant.
    Sure, like I said I don't doubt the Nazis accomplished many good things. Person A died in a concentration camp, thus saving Person B from being swindled or murdered. A German couple's ailing marriage was rescued in the excitement of Kristallnacht. A camp inmate found God. Movies and videogames about WW2 exist. Or orthogonally, we know that defeating the Nazis is causally tied in our reality with 9/11 and the Rwandan genocide, so maybe we should be disappointed that America didn't join up with Germany to conquer the world and usher in 10,000 Years of Peace. Who knows. It's chump change.

    I might as well allege that the manner of Britain's exchange of Hong Kong can't be bad because the long-term impact will make up for it. It's a type of baseless and unverifiable assertion - Pannonian might recognize its form in assurances that Brexit will deliver in 50 years, no kidding - and it really just serves to evade pretty much every conceivable component of ethics. Unless subverting ethics was your intent in the first place, but as a conservative Christian you're probably not going in that direction.

    Your third point appears to be trying to apply the principle of scientific enquiry to ethics and history
    ...N-no? I have no idea what you mean.

    In any case, you rejected the speculative "democratic Hitler" out of hand.
    I'm unfavorable on the metaphysics of counterfactuals, and moreover their utility in reasoning about history. "Democratic Hitler" can't tell us anything about the world. Either go to the trouble of making up a hypothetical future figure, or develop a person's reasonable expectation about a given moment in time after establishing what the available facts would have been (e.g. in 1930 Germany, would it make sense to believe that Hitler is a secret democrat?).

    Not so long-dispersed, really. In any case, you're asking me to accept an essentially Marxist critique of history. I have read Marx's history, it's reductive and sees the social order as necessarily a repeating wheel, which can only be broken by Communism.
    Marx? Not really, you just don't have to like the aristocracy.

    I think the same argument can by applied to support ethno-nationalism, because your argument de-legitimises rule by the "other" and seems to admit no point at which the "other" can be integrated.
    I can't reconstruct your logic other than that you're implying the Normans have not integrated, which they certainly have. Ethnic groups may or may not maintain continuity through time, there is no primordial assertiveness of bloodline in some Lovecraftian sense - and if there were there couldn't be Normans in the first place, they would just be something even older.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  8. #68
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,169

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    You asked that exact question many posts ago. I'm not going to rewrite them for you, but as I urge to take the trouble to read them I'll assist by offering a condensed variant:

    You repeat two formulas: "Do not assess the past by the standards of the present" and "read events and actions by the standards of the time." You conveniently do not define what this means, and you apply it to rule that it is inappropriate to assign moral judgement to British colonial practices.

    The formulas you repeat do not actually entail this and have a different meaning that I discussed, which you fall afoul of, and the way you use them in practice in this thread - to say that moral judgement of something in the past is unavailable to us - is logically incoherent and therefore inevitably hypocritical. Ironically, you thus fall into the practice of assessing history by your personal standards. Besides that you (unlike PVC) have not attempted to build an independent ethical theory, I point out that you and everyone else makes judgments about historical facts all the time, in particular their aesthetic, intellectual, and indeed moral value to oneself. For example, I doubt you believe in Aristotelian medicine or the existence of Apollo. If you do not, you have so judged history and the practices of historical cultures. If you do, well, do you believe in every god, every doctrine, even the mutually exclusive ones? Of course you cannot. Next, is a general's breakfast as worthy of your consideration as terrain or as the contemporary aristocratic hierarchy - or vice versa? Do you consider every historical fact, every event as important as the next? If not - and to do so would clearly be impossible - you have again applied your personal, modern perspective to sort history and evaluate it. Concretely with the subject of colonialism in this thread, it should be unavailable to evaluate supposed benefits of colonialism - such as suppressing slavery or the settee - without assuming that these practices were bad; indeed this translates to motivated cherry-picking.

    Because the principle you would apply is illogical and incoherent, and you only invoke it and elaborate it with respect to a historical practice that you otherwise defend, it gives the impression that you are laundering your personal political and moral commitments through the name of historiography, ironically just what you claimed you were warning against.
    A lot of rhetoric without any examples, let alone relevant ones. Let me demonstrate to you what I mean by judging using standards of the times, using a relevant example.

    You criticise the British presence in India, using the post-colonialist argument of an unwanted foreign power lording it over natives. So I pointed you to the British conquest of northern India, which was Britain's first military conquest in the subcontinent. The British were fighting against the Mogul empire. The Moguls were, as their name indicates, a foreign ruler non-native to India, being a Mongo-Turkish dynasty descended from Timur (now there's someone who was considered bloodthirsty even for his times, and deliberately so). So contrary to British outsiders imposing themselves on the natives, it was one foreign ruler replacing another. And even that is arguably taking post-colonialism a bit far, as whether a ruler was foreign or not was less of an issue than in our era of nation states, eg. you never see post-colonialist critiques of the Mogul empire in India.

    So there is an example of me applying my historiography, with constant reference to a relevant example, contained in a single paragraph, with the summary bolded in a single sentence. Can you apply your historiography similarly to said example, so we can see what it looks like in practice? Try not to use reams of philosophical rhetoric in lieu of historical discussion. Using examples is a good thing; try it.

  9. #69
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,152

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    What is it with someone always having to be evil? But it wouldn't be challenging for most to interpret a career like Xi's as evil, if you must use the term.
    It's about perspective.

    We think Nazis are evil because Nazis killed Jews, Gypsies, Gays etc. as a matter of policy, so we hunt and imprison Nazis. Nazis killed those because they believed they were evil.

    So who is evil - you for stopping the Nazi from killing the evil Jew or the evil Nazi for killing the evil Jew?

    The answer comes from whether or not you believe the Jew is evil, as to any character trait you or Nazi posses. It doesn't matter if the Nazi loves his wife and children, goes to Church, gives to charity, or if you're a womanising slob fuelled by cigarettes and whisky.

    Likewise Xi, he's a Tyrant, but he's also brought China unprecedented wealth, massively increased standards of living and virtually ended the One Child policy.

    YOUR perspective defines what YOU believe to be Good and Evil - this does not make you automatically right.

    Sounds like the standard dodge - 'you don't want us to spend this money on Indians, or else it can't go to you, dear peasants.' Not that it was going to in the first place.

    The discomfort the question of reparations may cause shouldn't interfere with consideration of whether it is technically merited, which one can't do without a fundamental acceptance of colonialism as calamity. Anyway, perhaps India would like to try some freedom of movement today; not all reparations need be monetary.
    We are not allowed to give anyone from the Commonwealth Freedom of Movement - the EU said so. As regards india specifically, they've actually told us they don't really care for our aid any more - they're doing fine, thanks. CAn't remember if they still take the money, though.

    As regards reparations generally - as far as I'm concerned everyone involved is dead and I consider it immoral to inflict harm of those no living for the sake of those long gone.

    You're convinced your opinion holds great sway among Maoli and Puerto Ricans? Sounds like an instance of the observer's standards overriding accurate representation of cultural context.
    By all means, show me some polls. Native Americans on the Mainland still refuse to participate in American Civil Society for the most part and still live on reservations. I'm not suggesting natives in the Americas want "independence" I'm challenging your blith dismissal of any dissatisfaction they might feel.

    Correct. You were saying that India is literally not America. I agree, in the trivial sense...
    Then why refer to "alternate histories"?

    Flowery literary devices and heavy use of adjectives? That's not characteristic of this thread. Maybe the number of clauses I was connecting was too high.
    Subject - verb - object in the first sentence of a paragraph with everything clearly identified by name - that's all I want. If two clauses are separated by a full stop they are separate sentences and require their own SVB. Period.

    For specific crimes as statutorily constructed. Not all crimes need a specific mens rea, and I'm not limiting myself to statutory crimes anyway. Legality is not morality. If I drop a lump of dog feces in someone's drink when they aren't looking, few would have trouble agreeing that the act I did was a bad one. My intent is irrelevant to the quality of badness of the act - I could have wanted to do it to hurt the person, I could have thought I was helping them, I could somehow have accomplished it by accident. Which is not to say that intent can't be relevant with respect to anything at all. It can be relevant in conditioning how others will react to me in the aftermath, and I in turn.
    The basic legal principles are based on the idea that the law is just. You can't be guilty without mens rea in Common Law because someone cannot be held accountable for something they did not intend or could not reasonably foresee. This is not always the case in Statute Law, of course, but that's a separate point.

    I mean, you're the one who introduced the term "evil"
    I referred to the "evils" of the British government in the modern day against its own citizens - chiefly in unilaterally stripping millions of citizen of the right of abode even before their home countries were independent. Tuuvi Is the one who introduced the idea that Colonialism as a system was "evil", not me.

    Without engaging in the philosophical distinctions between bad vs. good and right vs. wrong, the moral valence of an act is typically discernible immediately or even essentially.
    Only within a given moral framework - if one does not need to debate that framework the morality of the act is usually immediately apparent. When one is presented with two competing moral systems one first has to choose between them.

    When a thief burglarizes a home we can debate just how bad it is (e.g. what was stolen, from whom, by whom, why), but even a consequentialist who affirms the possibility that the theft could be not-bad or even good ('Austin Powers stole the nuclear launch codes from Dr. Evil'), even that person could agree that stealing in itself is bad. And yes, technically I'm introducing confusion with the parenthetical because the semantics of theft in that circumstance are debatable, but the concept should be clear.
    Stealing from Dr Evil is good, stealing from evil Hitler is good so long as the theft is not banal (you're not just stealing their ready cash to spend on booze.) The act of theft presupposes theat the person being stolen from has the right to the thing being stolen. If someone steals my bike and I take it back it might look like stealing to an outsider - but it's my bike.

    We can try to assess long-term impact, though it is very difficult (because all of the past is inextricable from all of the present). For example, we can estimate the physical and epidemiological consequences of US deployment of Agent Orange in Vietnam, but we can also try to measure those consequences up to the present day. It is however impossible to assess ultimate impact, which is beyond the present day and well beyond human history (existence).
    You are correct, we cannot asses longterm impact beyond the current time in a way that is useful for assigning a value for reparations. Although, we can asses the intended long-term impact. Stealing a nuclear scientist from the Nazis will stop the Nazis getting the bomb first.

    More later, sleep now.
    Last edited by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus; 07-30-2019 at 11:53.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  10. #70

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    A lot of rhetoric without any examples, let alone relevant ones.
    Now, I don't think you're dishonest, just lazy. I gave examples.

    You criticise the British presence in India, using the post-colonialist argument of an unwanted foreign power lording it over natives. So I pointed you to the British conquest of northern India, which was Britain's first military conquest in the subcontinent. The British were fighting against the Mogul empire. The Moguls were, as their name indicates, a foreign ruler non-native to India, being a Mongo-Turkish dynasty descended from Timur (now there's someone who was considered bloodthirsty even for his times, and deliberately so). So contrary to British outsiders imposing themselves on the natives, it was one foreign ruler replacing another.
    I addressed this, if you would read my posts. You never explained why the prior existence of empires is relevant.

    And even that is arguably taking post-colonialism a bit far, as whether a ruler was foreign or not was less of an issue than in our era of nation states, eg. you never see post-colonialist critiques of the Mogul empire in India.
    The Mughals are long gone, the British aren't.

    So there is an example of me applying my historiography, with constant reference to a relevant example, contained in a single paragraph, with the summary bolded in a single sentence. Can you apply your historiography similarly to said example, so we can see what it looks like in practice?
    I want you to explain what you think my disagreement with you is.


    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    YOUR perspective defines what YOU believe to be Good and Evil - this does not make you automatically right.
    Yes. Did we need a thread to establish that people have differing perspectives?

    We are not allowed to give anyone from the Commonwealth Freedom of Movement - the EU said so.
    What convenient timing.

    As regards reparations generally - as far as I'm concerned everyone involved is dead and I consider it immoral to inflict harm of those no living for the sake of those long gone.
    Perhaps the most important component to an argument for/implementation of reparations is, after all, the moral one. There is no discussion if the parties aren't on the same page as to the nature or existence of wrongdoing.

    By all means, show me some polls. Native Americans on the Mainland still refuse to participate in American Civil Society for the most part and still live on reservations. I'm not suggesting natives in the Americas want "independence" I'm challenging your blith dismissal of any dissatisfaction they might feel.
    I didn't dismiss dissatisfaction, I said "Americans today overwhelmingly identify with the country, so there's no real revanchist sensibility." There is great dissatisfaction with the federal government, but nowhere near as much sentiment for separatism. If you disagree, you need to show your basis.

    Fun fact: There are about as many Americans of Puerto Rican descent as there are recorded Native Americans and Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders.

    About a fifth of Native Americans live on reservations. (Probably in part because they're a really shitty place to live.) They're also highly overrepresented in the armed forces. So are Puerto Ricans it appears. (According to this, "Puerto Ricans are the only Latino group over-represented in the military.")

    Puerto Ricans have tended to overwhelmingly identify as white (whereas in a place like Brazil the racial classification system is designed to divvy up people of American admixture).

    Vast majorities of Puerto Ricans over time have been distributed among wanting to achieve statehood or else maintaining the current territorial status.

    As for Hawaii, the state is now highly multi-ethnic (1/4 white, 1/4 multiracial, 2/5 Asian), so we probably want to hone in on the attitudes of maoli themselves, not the whites or Asians who can be expected to fully identify with the USA. Unlike other aboriginal demographics Hawaiians don't really have much measure of recognized sovereignty or nationhood at the federal level, so the main political activist movements - alongside ones more focused on provision/securing of services or maintaining cultural integrity* - are ones debating and advocating for one of native Hawaiian tribehood, independence, or increased sovereignty, which are not necessarily the same. Since there is internal controversy among sovereigntists between the paths of federal recognition and independence, we might expect a particularly high proportion of native Hawaiians to oppose the status quo, but I can't find evidence more than a minority reject the status quo.

    At any rate, I have no opinions on Hawaiian federal recognition but if 1% of the entire population of the state of Hawaii (which per above is 10% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander) want independence I wouldn't take that very seriously. I bet you could find that many Cornish who want to join Wales or Brittany - each.

    *An example would be the currently ongoing protests against building an observatory on holy Mauna Kea.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  11. #71
    Coffee farmer extraordinaire Member spmetla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kona, Hawaii
    Posts
    2,660

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    The Hawaiian community is struggling to define what it wants. Some want full independence, some would be happy with tribal like recognition (which the Office of Hawaiian Affairs or OHA was supposed to be), some just want prosperity. But they being such a minority within their own land will be ignored for the most part apart from things like the TMT project when a few hundred to thousand can make a difference even if they disagree about what outcome they want.

    "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
    -Abraham Lincoln

    Member thankful for this post:



  12. #72

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame


    Wooooo!!!

  13. #73
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,152

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    It should be noted that the flag they displayed in LegCo is the old Colonial flag.

    That symbol of the greats evils of Colonialism is the thing people are turning to.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  14. #74
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    3,792

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    Quote Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
    The article exists for a reason yes, I did not write it...

  15. #75
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,152

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    So, whilst we in the West wring our hands over just how guilty we should feel the situation continues to deteriorate.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asi...eporting-story

    How long now?
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  16. #76
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,320

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    I think they'll let it run its course. It is not a threat to the rule of the Communist Party and being heavy handed is only going to damage Brand China. They're already giving their version of events to all their citizens and it seems most are against the riots and causing disruption.

    By not intervening they can claim the high ground that this is people causing disharmony and damage over what was merely a law and a theoretical risk - probably all caused by the West trying to cause problems. Sending in the army might create martyrs, and imposing Martial Law could destroy the very thing that Hong Kong continues to give - access to the Financial markets.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  17. #77
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    3,792

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    So, whilst we in the West wring our hands over just how guilty we should feel the situation continues to deteriorate.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asi...eporting-story

    How long now?
    As long as it takes China to make their control complete.
    Quote Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
    The article exists for a reason yes, I did not write it...

  18. #78
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,169

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    I think they'll let it run its course. It is not a threat to the rule of the Communist Party and being heavy handed is only going to damage Brand China. They're already giving their version of events to all their citizens and it seems most are against the riots and causing disruption.

    By not intervening they can claim the high ground that this is people causing disharmony and damage over what was merely a law and a theoretical risk - probably all caused by the West trying to cause problems. Sending in the army might create martyrs, and imposing Martial Law could destroy the very thing that Hong Kong continues to give - access to the Financial markets.

    That's what a Beijing mouthpiece in the SCMP says.

  19. #79

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame


    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  20. #80
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,152

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    For those who like some context with their youtube:

    This is a new song that was conposed online - it extolls Freedom for Hong Kong. Something I fully support.

    However, the original Bill that sparked these protests has been withdrawn and the protests continue. More pointedly - the protesters have begun to demand the UK and/or US take action.

    We must hope that Beijing declines to flatten Hong Kong, but I am not optimistic. The situation is moving towards open (albeit non-violent) insurrection.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  21. #81
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,169

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    For those who like some context with their youtube:

    This is a new song that was conposed online - it extolls Freedom for Hong Kong. Something I fully support.

    However, the original Bill that sparked these protests has been withdrawn and the protests continue. More pointedly - the protesters have begun to demand the UK and/or US take action.

    We must hope that Beijing declines to flatten Hong Kong, but I am not optimistic. The situation is moving towards open (albeit non-violent) insurrection.
    What would be notable is what the people of Yuen Long think about the continued protests. Any news on that?

  22. #82

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame



    [Permanent withdrawal of the extradition bill]
    Withdrawal of the "riot" description used about the protests
    Amnesty for all arrested protesters
    An independent inquiry into alleged police brutality
    Universal suffrage for the elections of the chief executive and Legislative Council, Hong Kong's parliament.
    I don't think most Hong Kongers are interested in a foreign intervention (though Chinese military suppression would merit international sanctions).
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  23. #83
    Member Member Greyblades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,179
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    Hong kong police have shot a protestor with a live round. On the anivaersary of communist china's founding.

    http://https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49891403

    It begins.
    Last edited by Greyblades; 10-01-2019 at 18:05.
    Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Don't be scared that you don't freak out. Be scared when you don't care about freaking out
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Member thankful for this post:



  24. #84

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
    Hong kong police have shot a protestor with a live round. On the anivaersary of communist china's founding.

    http://https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49891403

    It begins.
    The scene is incredible in its composition, almost cinematic. The gunman keeping the gun up high as the protester recoils in shock and finally collapses (technically trips on another protester being beat down behind him). My cursed mediatized brain can't help but associate Fallout New Vegas iconography.
    @ACIN

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    Last edited by Montmorency; 10-01-2019 at 23:21.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  25. #85
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,152

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
    Hong kong police have shot a protestor with a live round. On the anivaersary of communist china's founding.

    http://https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49891403

    It begins.
    Or it ends, depending on your perspective. Odd that Policeman is in Green as opposed to Black - I wonder if they've been quietly bussing in Police from Mainland China.

    Why is he pointing a revolver at people to begin with?
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  26. #86
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,169

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    Or it ends, depending on your perspective. Odd that Policeman is in Green as opposed to Black - I wonder if they've been quietly bussing in Police from Mainland China.

    Why is he pointing a revolver at people to begin with?
    If you want to know why he's pointing it at people, then goodness knows. If you want to know why he's armed, all police in Hong Kong are armed.

    Member thankful for this post:



  27. #87

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    Or it ends, depending on your perspective. Odd that Policeman is in Green as opposed to Black - I wonder if they've been quietly bussing in Police from Mainland China.

    Why is he pointing a revolver at people to begin with?
    According to the NYT the protester had just been involved in beating a fallen officer with a group, and in the videos you can see him swinging a pipe or some other object at the officer before the officer fires.

    Gotta love reciprocal escalation.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Member thankful for this post:



  28. #88
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,152

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    I will never understand the concept of Police carrying guns.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  29. #89
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,169

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    According to the NYT the protester had just been involved in beating a fallen officer with a group, and in the videos you can see him swinging a pipe or some other object at the officer before the officer fires.

    Gotta love reciprocal escalation.
    If the description in the article is accurate, and I can confirm that last bit from seeing the video, then I doubt the officer will be in much trouble.

  30. #90
    Backordered Member CrossLOPER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Brass heart.
    Posts
    2,319

    Default Re: Hong Kong: Britain's 22-year shame

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    I will never understand the concept of Police carrying guns.
    In the US, at least in Atlanta where i live, it is not uncommon in cases of crime for criminals to smash open windows for spare change or shoot people before trying to mug them. Back in December, a young police officer was killed chasing a suspect, after he turned around and fired into a group of officers trying to arrest him. I think they ended up unloading into him.

    Basically, it's really easy to buy a gun and enough ammunition to depopulate a state.
    Requesting suggestions for new sig.

    -><- GOGOGO GOGOGO WINLAND WINLAND ALL HAIL TECHNOVIKING!SCHUMACHER!
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    WHY AM I NOT BEING PAID FOR THIS???

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO