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

[Pannonian]

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.

It doesn't change the salient point. Start with the conclusion that Britain is to get a kicking, then set up the rules so that Britain is found to be in the wrong and needs a kicking, and tweak the rules so that Britain and only Britain gets a kicking. It's Calvinball.

[Sarmatian]

It doesn't change the salient point. Start with the conclusion that Britain is to get a kicking, then set up the rules so that Britain is found to be in the wrong and needs a kicking, and tweak the rules so that Britain and only Britain gets a kicking. It's Calvinball.

You got me. I invented slave trade and colonial exploitation so that Britain would be in the wrong.

Neither ever existed in history.

[Pannonian]

You got me. I invented slave trade and colonial exploitation so that Britain would be in the wrong.

Neither ever existed in history.

Everything that Britain has done since we gave up slavery has also not existed in history. Only what we did when carrying out slavery existed in history. Ergo Britain is in the wrong, and has done nothing to redress this wrong. If other countries have also done the same, then rules are invented to excuse them whilst leaving Britain still in the wrong and in need of a kicking.

[Husar]

Everything that Britain has done since we gave up slavery has also not existed in history. Only what we did when carrying out slavery existed in history. Ergo Britain is in the wrong, and has done nothing to redress this wrong. If other countries have also done the same, then rules are invented to excuse them whilst leaving Britain still in the wrong and in need of a kicking.

What? The others have to pay as well, possibly even more. They're just not making fun of it here like the Brits do and avoid the silly arguments.

[Pannonian]

What? The others have to pay as well, possibly even more. They're just not making fun of it here like the Brits do and avoid the silly arguments.

Quite possibly because, on this subject, Britain has done a fair bit to end slavery. If you're so concerned about social justice and making sure the injusticed get payment, why don't you petition your own German government to set aside a substantial fund to pay them?

[Husar]

Quite possibly because, on this subject, Britain has done a fair bit to end slavery. If you're so concerned about social justice and making sure the injusticed get payment, why don't you petition your own German government to set aside a substantial fund to pay them?

Let's just pretend you're not trying to distract from your own issues again, then the answer is simple:

Germany had no official colonial ambitions until 1884, Bismarkc was always against it and only corporate interest and some sill nationalists wanted colonies to exploit at the time. In WW1 you took our colonies and made them your colonies and then we paid you for all the trouble involved for several decades.

So how much has Britain paid in reparations again?

[Pannonian]

Let's just pretend you're not trying to distract from your own issues again, then the answer is simple:

Germany had no official colonial ambitions until 1884, Bismarkc was always against it and only corporate interest and some sill nationalists wanted colonies to exploit at the time. In WW1 you took our colonies and made them your colonies and then we paid you for all the trouble involved for several decades.

So how much has Britain paid in reparations again?

On the reparations, did Louis not make it clear that it was for repairing damage inflicted on various communities, that everyone paid and the Allied countries paid the majority of it, and that Germany borrowed more money from the US for the purpose than she actually paid in reparations, eventually defaulting rather than pay it back?

And as for not paying the cost of upholding your idea of social justice because you weren't involved, that's wonderful. Back in the 19th century when we had an anti-slavery campaign and the muscle to push it, we didn't just deal with the consequences of our use of slaves. We also pushed our ideals on others around the world, rooting out slavery wherever we could, using multilateral resources where it was made available, or just using our own if it wasn't. We didn't say, that's not our problem. We said, slavery is bad, and it's bad universally, whether we're involved or not, and we'll do whatever we can to end it. Since the British don't seem to care as much about the issue nowadays as you do, why don't you take up the mantle of anti-slavery activism, and use your resources to push it like we did in the C19? Or is it easier to point fingers and use strong words than to actually pay to uphold the ideals you're talking about?

[CBR]

So how much has Britain paid in reparations again?

How much has Germany paid in reparations for the genocide in Namibia? Or is foreign aid and returning of skulls enough?

[Sarmatian]

I hear your point.

I was commenting on the apples/oranges factor of applying current moral and ethical standards to actions taken by people decades or centuries in the past when then-accumulated human wisdom established entirely different standards for evaluation. Would we evaluate the effectiveness of a Roman Legion by its comparative capability against the 82nd Airborne division? By that metric, the Roman military was a sad joke -- your typical legion would be trashed by a platoon of paratroopers if the paras could get a double-ration of ammo.

Then why is Germany still paying for WW1 and WW2? Invasions were pretty common back then, and there wasn't a single major nation in that time period, most notably USA, UK, Japan, Italy, USSR... (in no particular order), that didn't make quite a few wars of conquests, or even mistreatment of it's own or foreign citizens.

...And this post highlights the problem with British nationalism perfectly. The "It's Britain and ONLY Britain"-attitude. No it's not, there's not a single nation on earth who doesn't get criticized when they act like dicks.

Quite a few of them end up being invaded as well, while all the Brits has to put up with is some finger-pointing. Leave your victimization at the door, please.

Exactly. It seems that the issue of ALL countries involved in slave trade paying reparations translates "WHY ONLY BRITAIN PAY?" to the average Brit.

Quite possibly because, on this subject, Britain has done a fair bit to end slavery. If you're so concerned about social justice and making sure the injusticed get payment, why don't you petition your own German government to set aside a substantial fund to pay them?

Because the British empire covered quarter of the globe while the German empire consisted of a small sausage factory in Tanganyika. I thought that was common knowledge.

[HoreTore]

Everything that Britain has done since we gave up slavery has also not existed in history. Only what we did when carrying out slavery existed in history. Ergo Britain is in the wrong, and has done nothing to redress this wrong. If other countries have also done the same, then rules are invented to excuse them whilst leaving Britain still in the wrong and in need of a kicking.

The scramble for Africa was post-slavery. So was quite a few of the massacres in India.

...And this post highlights the problem with British nationalism perfectly. The "It's Britain and ONLY Britain"-attitude. No it's not, there's not a single nation on earth who doesn't get criticized when they act like dicks.

Quite a few of them end up being invaded as well, while all the Brits has to put up with is some finger-pointing. Leave your victimization at the door, please.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It doesn't change the salient point. Start with the conclusion that Britain is to get a kicking, then set up the rules so that Britain is found to be in the wrong and needs a kicking, and tweak the rules so that Britain and only Britain gets a kicking. It's Calvinball.

I hear your point.

I was commenting on the apples/oranges factor of applying current moral and ethical standards to actions taken by people decades or centuries in the past when then-accumulated human wisdom established entirely different standards for evaluation. Would we evaluate the effectiveness of a Roman Legion by its comparative capability against the 82nd Airborne division? By that metric, the Roman military was a sad joke -- your typical legion would be trashed by a platoon of paratroopers if the paras could get a double-ration of ammo.

[Slyspy]

This is what happens when you regard history as the present in a different suit.

[InsaneApache]

It doesn't change the salient point. Start with the conclusion that Britain is to get a kicking, then set up the rules so that Britain is found to be in the wrong and needs a kicking, and tweak the rules so that Britain and only Britain gets a kicking. It's Calvinball.

You see mate, we've never been forgiven for standing up to two of the most repressive tyrannies facing Europe these last 200 years. Therefore we must be punished.

And they wonder why we feel a moral exceptionalism.

Perhaps because it is justified. We got it wrong but then we corrected it without anyone putting tanks on our lawns.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

[Sarmatian]

You see mate, we've never been forgiven for standing up to two of the most repressive tyrannies facing Europe these last 200 years. Therefore we must be punished.

And they wonder why we feel a moral exceptionalism.

Perhaps because it is justified. We got it wrong but then we corrected it without anyone putting tanks on our lawns.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

So, we've switched from "Brits are hated because we were never invaded" to "Brits are hated because we're morally superior".

It's getting better and better. Do go on, old chap, please.

[Husar]

You see mate, we've never been forgiven for standing up to two of the most repressive tyrannies facing Europe these last 200 years. Therefore we must be punished.

Two? I only count one Third Reich.

And they wonder why we feel a moral exceptionalism.

Perhaps because it is justified. We got it wrong but then we corrected it without anyone putting tanks on our lawns.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Most of the interventions in Europe only happened because you wanted to secure your own position and did not want a bigger continental power that might overshadow you. You managed that pretty well but to say the motives were altruistic is a bit much.
The slavery issue was also tackled more because of rivalries with the American colonists rather than altruistic reasons as has been mentioned. Of course as the victor you always got the chance to write the history and turn your motives into more noble ones than they really were at the time.

[Sarmatian]

Two? I only count one Third Reich.

Nappy being the other one.

[Husar]

Nappy being the other one.

He said repressive tyrannies.
Napoleon was a conqueror but he also brought other countries a legal code or summing that they wanted to keep and stuff, repressive tyranny is a bit much even though I'm not a fan of his as should be evident given that I forgot what exactly he brought us.

[Brenus]

All this debate is about how a National Representation is built. The problem with Slavery and its abolition is to abolish Slavery (which is good) you first have to admit you had slavery (which is bad). And the fact that you built your wealth on it just adds complexity to the problem a little bit more.

You can add as well there is good memory you can celebrate (e.g. Trafalgar: be proud of your past), and the one you can’t (e.g. slavery: pfff, it is past, can you give me a break).

Now, I will add a little bit of Marxism analyse in this debate: England (and France and Holland) decided (to renew, in case of France where slavery was abolish by the French Revolution then reinstated by Napoleon) to abolished Slavery because they didn’t needed any more. The system of production had changed with the Industrial Revolution, and it was no more need of unpaid/cheap/enslaved labour. In fact, this mass became costly, as a slave child is not productive and you still have to feed him/her and provide shelter, and the same can be said for elderly slaves or sick ones. A “free” mass of workers, self-oppressed and in the rule of laws tailored by the ruling classes is cost effective, and they have to take care of themselves and that is it.
Even better, this mass becomes “customer” and will give back the money in form of rent, taxes and all other kind of products, services and miscellaneous. It is a win-win solution. And it makes you feeling good.

In summary, it is the story of a man who stole your socks, sell them back to you, and ask you to smile and to be grateful that you’ve got socks back. And it works, still today: you know, the Riches who create jobs instead of the Riches who become richer thanks to your work… The best joke EVER.

[Brenus]

“Nappy being the other one.” Yeap, this is how GB sees History. Mind you, helping the Tsar of All Russia, very well-known champion of Freedom and reinstalling an Absolute King in France is not really fighting for freedom. And there is not absolute proof that democracy and freedom was much spread in UK either, but, again, that is a National Conscience Building exercise.