Seemingly trivial things that annoy you
Comments
-
Fwiw, I very much subscribe a direct link between the European experience of colonialism (particularly in Africa) and the eventual WW2 and holocaust and that Germany basically imported the colonial attitude and thinking (from their own experience in Namibia) to Europe.
WW2 in Europe the logical end point for the entire premise of colonialism.0 -
I genuinely do not know what you mean by that.rjsterry said:
As someone else put it, guilt is the wrong word. Nobody needs to feel personally guilty over their ancestors' behaviour. That said, various individuals and organisations are sitting on wealth that was directly generated by an industry that required slave labour because the work was so horrific that no-one would do it willingly.pinno said:
Yes, essentially.rick_chasey said:
Pinno deeply objects to offering a judgement on the past using today's values (if I understand his argument correctly - he calls it "contemporary moralism")surrey_commuter said:
whilst I would agree that WW2 starting on 7th July 1937 is an objective fact you would be amazed how many people would disagree and say 3rd September 1939 or even December 7th 1941.pinno said:
[Thank you]rjsterry said:pinno said:
Can someone copy/paste that please as I do not have nor want a Times subscription.rjsterry said:FFS.
No mate. You've just fundamentally misunderstood what history is.Tony Judt was a wonderful historian who has a lot to teach us now, when too often the past is treated simply as polemic. The war in Ukraine prompted me last week to pick up Thinking the Twentieth Century, a series of conversations Judt had with another Europe expert, the US historian Timothy Snyder. Judt received a diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, a variant of motor neurone disease) in 2008 and the book was conceived and executed before his death two years later.
Yet one of its keenest insights was not about an aspect of eastern European history but about the study of history itself. Politically progressive, Judt was worried about “progressive” teaching. For him, the purpose was to pass on knowledge; to “provide children with a mental map — stretching back across time — of the world they inhabited”. He believed it a “grave error to replace data-laden history with the intuition that the past was a set of prejudices in need of correction”.
Before we can say the British Empire was an evil endeavour or that it resulted in wonderful achievements, let us at least have a solid knowledge of what happened back then. This should be true of other contentious areas of history.
A generation of young people is growing up without a common set of historical references, and the historian’s task, Judt argued, is “to supply the dimension of knowledge and narrative without which we cannot be a civic whole”.
There are no such things as objective historical facts. Whenever someone talks about historical facts what they mean is history the way they would like to see it.
There are objective facts. King Henry the 8th was born on the... . The second world war started on the... etc etc
I agree with him in his sentiment and whilst historians will comment on past events idiosyncratically (that's unavoidable), so many Historical events are now viewed with contemporary moralism.
Partygate is short of facts and in the scheme of things globally, is negligible and will be forgotten about. It's a bad example.
To me the parts of history that are objective facts are things like the date GB/France declared war on Germany.
Where it gets interesting is the subjective stuff.
So he feels that you can only judge the actions of someone according to the values of the time, or indeed, not judge the values at all.
Although the term I use is 'moral relativism' . Contemporary moralism is the morals to which we agree to either written or unwritten.
I entirely agree with SC's point 'where it gets interesting is the subjective stuff'.
I have had a long standing argument with a historian about the 1st WW. Which I did not win. I ended up agreeing with him.
My objection to it was the sheer loss of life. However, we live in an era of individualism, freedom of choice and expression. The Edwardian era and post Edwardian era was an era of self sacrifice, subservience and hierarchy.
There really wasn't the objection to the slaughter that would have occurred in more modern times. Hence the few mutinies and lack of protest. There was an acceptance amongst society, the press and government that the [obscene] loss of life was just a necessary thing. That is why we find that war so objectionable. Lloyd George's objections to it almost lost him the premiership.
You can take the different perspective that strategically, this loss of life was un-necessary and futile: we should have dug ourselves in and not bothered trying to regain land by sending men over the top to their deaths. There was little land gain over 4 years when the naval blockade was instrumental in ending the war by starving Germany of resources. The land campaign was lead by British and French Generals who were inept* and coldly dismissive** to the loss of life.
**Field Marshall French reported on a minor push where over 700 men were sent over the top and only a handful survived: '...the men had fought gallantly...' and he was 'very proud of them'. To which we find abhorrent but we live in times where life is precious.
*Ludendorff said to Hindenburg: "The British, they fight like lions" to which Hindenburg replied "Yes but they are lead by donkeys".
So the subjective stuff is very interesting and my view above ^ is subjective but jumping up and down a lot about the huge (and unnecessary) loss of life is actually, although intolerable in our eyes, immaterial to arguments against the 1st WW.
If you brought Haig back to life and put him in a court of law, what would you charge him with? You could only charge him with the laws that were present in that era. The UN, the Hague international court of human rights, Amnesty international, the Geneva convention etc are all post WW1 conventions/organisations. However, you could charge him with ineptitude. That continuous ineptitude one could argue, was at the centre of the loss of life.
The British Empire was formed when there was no global consensus or legal framework regarding the value of life, any concepts of freedom and the rights of man and we can go back to before the Greeks when empires were not being created before drawing a very ambiguous imaginary line. Therefore, it is wrong to enslave people and wrong to occupy foreign territories viewed through a modern perspective but it was quite acceptable then.
This does not sit comfortably amongst those intent on feeling guilty about past events and are perfectly willing to proffer disempowering sympathy, commit self flagellation and ultimately, pay recompense for historical events that we had no part of. They occurred when the moral ground was either non existent, founded on skewed religious beliefs* or presumptive and arrogant. Perhaps the journalist in question is suggesting just that in his sentiment.
*The Conquistadors, the Belgians, Victorian attitudes towards ethnic groups, a few examples off the top of my head.
I also think 'different times; different morals' is a bit of a cop out.
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
-
Sorry, it's not very clear, I'd agree. I'll try to explain it another way. It's not about feeling guilty, it's just about being honest about where all this comes from. Looking at where England was in the late 16th/early 17th century, we were very much a second or third tier country. The reason we are now in the G7 and not a western version of Albania is largely down to us asset stripping bits of the world that we now refer to as developing economies. The empire was not the result of different morals but just straight commercial gain. Having created an empire, stories were then invented to sanitise the process. Clive, who was vilified in his own lifetime as a man who would stop at nothing for his own personal gain ended up with a statue in Whitehall. Colston was reinvented centuries after his death as a late Victorian heroic benefactor by Bristol establishment worried about working class unrest. The imperial attitude that Britain 'should' be running the world persists to the present and continues to cause problems for the world. Britain had direct involvement in the origin of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and various other Middle Eastern rivalries from our attempts to maintain favourable access to oil reserves.pinno said:
I genuinely do not know what you mean by that.rjsterry said:
As someone else put it, guilt is the wrong word. Nobody needs to feel personally guilty over their ancestors' behaviour. That said, various individuals and organisations are sitting on wealth that was directly generated by an industry that required slave labour because the work was so horrific that no-one would do it willingly.pinno said:
Yes, essentially.rick_chasey said:
Pinno deeply objects to offering a judgement on the past using today's values (if I understand his argument correctly - he calls it "contemporary moralism")surrey_commuter said:
whilst I would agree that WW2 starting on 7th July 1937 is an objective fact you would be amazed how many people would disagree and say 3rd September 1939 or even December 7th 1941.pinno said:
[Thank you]rjsterry said:pinno said:
Can someone copy/paste that please as I do not have nor want a Times subscription.rjsterry said:FFS.
No mate. You've just fundamentally misunderstood what history is.Tony Judt was a wonderful historian who has a lot to teach us now, when too often the past is treated simply as polemic. The war in Ukraine prompted me last week to pick up Thinking the Twentieth Century, a series of conversations Judt had with another Europe expert, the US historian Timothy Snyder. Judt received a diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, a variant of motor neurone disease) in 2008 and the book was conceived and executed before his death two years later.
Yet one of its keenest insights was not about an aspect of eastern European history but about the study of history itself. Politically progressive, Judt was worried about “progressive” teaching. For him, the purpose was to pass on knowledge; to “provide children with a mental map — stretching back across time — of the world they inhabited”. He believed it a “grave error to replace data-laden history with the intuition that the past was a set of prejudices in need of correction”.
Before we can say the British Empire was an evil endeavour or that it resulted in wonderful achievements, let us at least have a solid knowledge of what happened back then. This should be true of other contentious areas of history.
A generation of young people is growing up without a common set of historical references, and the historian’s task, Judt argued, is “to supply the dimension of knowledge and narrative without which we cannot be a civic whole”.
There are no such things as objective historical facts. Whenever someone talks about historical facts what they mean is history the way they would like to see it.
There are objective facts. King Henry the 8th was born on the... . The second world war started on the... etc etc
I agree with him in his sentiment and whilst historians will comment on past events idiosyncratically (that's unavoidable), so many Historical events are now viewed with contemporary moralism.
Partygate is short of facts and in the scheme of things globally, is negligible and will be forgotten about. It's a bad example.
To me the parts of history that are objective facts are things like the date GB/France declared war on Germany.
Where it gets interesting is the subjective stuff.
So he feels that you can only judge the actions of someone according to the values of the time, or indeed, not judge the values at all.
Although the term I use is 'moral relativism' . Contemporary moralism is the morals to which we agree to either written or unwritten.
I entirely agree with SC's point 'where it gets interesting is the subjective stuff'.
I have had a long standing argument with a historian about the 1st WW. Which I did not win. I ended up agreeing with him.
My objection to it was the sheer loss of life. However, we live in an era of individualism, freedom of choice and expression. The Edwardian era and post Edwardian era was an era of self sacrifice, subservience and hierarchy.
There really wasn't the objection to the slaughter that would have occurred in more modern times. Hence the few mutinies and lack of protest. There was an acceptance amongst society, the press and government that the [obscene] loss of life was just a necessary thing. That is why we find that war so objectionable. Lloyd George's objections to it almost lost him the premiership.
You can take the different perspective that strategically, this loss of life was un-necessary and futile: we should have dug ourselves in and not bothered trying to regain land by sending men over the top to their deaths. There was little land gain over 4 years when the naval blockade was instrumental in ending the war by starving Germany of resources. The land campaign was lead by British and French Generals who were inept* and coldly dismissive** to the loss of life.
**Field Marshall French reported on a minor push where over 700 men were sent over the top and only a handful survived: '...the men had fought gallantly...' and he was 'very proud of them'. To which we find abhorrent but we live in times where life is precious.
*Ludendorff said to Hindenburg: "The British, they fight like lions" to which Hindenburg replied "Yes but they are lead by donkeys".
So the subjective stuff is very interesting and my view above ^ is subjective but jumping up and down a lot about the huge (and unnecessary) loss of life is actually, although intolerable in our eyes, immaterial to arguments against the 1st WW.
If you brought Haig back to life and put him in a court of law, what would you charge him with? You could only charge him with the laws that were present in that era. The UN, the Hague international court of human rights, Amnesty international, the Geneva convention etc are all post WW1 conventions/organisations. However, you could charge him with ineptitude. That continuous ineptitude one could argue, was at the centre of the loss of life.
The British Empire was formed when there was no global consensus or legal framework regarding the value of life, any concepts of freedom and the rights of man and we can go back to before the Greeks when empires were not being created before drawing a very ambiguous imaginary line. Therefore, it is wrong to enslave people and wrong to occupy foreign territories viewed through a modern perspective but it was quite acceptable then.
This does not sit comfortably amongst those intent on feeling guilty about past events and are perfectly willing to proffer disempowering sympathy, commit self flagellation and ultimately, pay recompense for historical events that we had no part of. They occurred when the moral ground was either non existent, founded on skewed religious beliefs* or presumptive and arrogant. Perhaps the journalist in question is suggesting just that in his sentiment.
*The Conquistadors, the Belgians, Victorian attitudes towards ethnic groups, a few examples off the top of my head.
I also think 'different times; different morals' is a bit of a cop out.
So it's not about guilt, but let's stop trying to kid ourselves this is all ancient water under the bridge or the result of heroic and semi-benevolent deeds. And by recognising that there's a tiny chance we'll do a bit less of stuff like Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Not being able to travel or cycle in any direction without getting stuck in roadworks.
I'd be happy if they properly resurfaced though. They won't.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Apparently there's a proposal for a 10mph limit on the Broomfield Hill (cycles only) section of road in Richmond Park. Even though the 9% section is only 250m long, that's not going to work.0
-
That's ridiculous.kingstongraham said:Apparently there's a proposal for a 10mph limit on the Broomfield Hill (cycles only) section of road in Richmond Park. Even though the 9% section is only 250m long, that's not going to work.
0 -
I don't entirely agree with you. I also don't entirely disagree with you.
We either created an empire or we got taken over by foreign forces: Dutch, French, German, Portuguese, whoever.
Yes, the idea that we should be running an empire still exists but the interference 'stuff' in foreign lands is probably more to do with being allied to the Americans and the then cold war than Empire (if you are talking about more modern times).
...and here we go: "asset stripping". This sort of language does not promote a balanced view. Kenya was left with an intact railway/communication system and was a thriving net exporter of goods upon independence.
Prior to independence, Churchill ordered a team of individuals to compile a comprehensive catalogue of every single facet of Kenyan life. This took 2 years and 250 personnel to compile. It was commissioned to ease the transition to an independent state.
I could go into detail about what occurred after independence but I can assure you, there was more attention afforded to certain ethnic groups by the British than whichever administration took over. I can cite many examples. Remember, Kenya went independent 61 years ago.
In that time, Kenya has modernised but it still lacks a proper taxation system, it has the highest population growth in the world and the number of people in poverty is massive. There isn't a democracy - there is a complete lack pf proper representation and on top of that, corruption is rife. The leading party have always been in power meaning other ethnic groups do not get the political representation that they need.
Which leads to what exactly are you going to do to re-dress these 'sins' of our past?
Monetary compensation? Are we going to pour money into bottomless, corrupt pits?
There is a huge degree of loyalty towards former colonies - like the Commonwealth and the banana trade with former colonies to Germany to France to Britain.
One can argue that we should not have gone there in the first place but Africa could not exist in isolation of a modernising world nor would it have been untouched by foreign countries. I'll refer back to the point about relativism: our small nation had to expand or be under the constant threat of invasion by foreign powers. So the idea that we shouldn't have had an empire is fundamentally flawed and is both hindsight and forms part of this culture of relativism, heaped with flawed moral relativism.
How we handled the transition (India is a good example) in many cases is certainly up for question and was often dire. The fact that we went in the first place is not.
However, the 2nd WW ended and the Empire collapsed and collapsed quickly. Britain was broke. the empire was costing us in the end. It turned out to be be far more costly to run than we were benefitting from it and the implosion was superseded by the cold war, a global population explosion, shifts in power and globalisation.
I cannot speak of other colonies with the same detail as Kenya as I have had no direct experience of them. I refuse to take the view that it was 'like this' when the rhetoric blatantly dismisses, ignores or is simply unaware of the complexities of administrating colonial countries, transitions and the resulting internal power wars after independence. I do not take the view that we should still have and should be running an Empire. I take the view that the current opinion of having had the last true empire is often naïve, riddled with incorrect information and paints an unrealistic picture. So I sit between the dinosaurs and contemporary, blinkered naivety.
If we are going to help these countries, we have to have a much better understanding of the cultures within.
It is without doubt that the empire financed (and populated) the war against Germany.
That is a war which had we lost would have had unimaginable consequences.
That isn't a justification of the British Empire, it's simply another example of a different viewpoint other than the two current and opposing stereotypical stances.
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
-
No. I'm not that old.rick_chasey said:Mau Mau was rebellion was in your life time wasn't it Pinno?
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Care to comment on the concentration & labour camps, mass incarceration and torture? Casual murder?
Bearing in mind it was the 50s0 -
Care to apologise for the hundreds of thousands of insects killed by the cars you've owned?rick_chasey said:Care to comment on the concentration & labour camps, mass incarceration and torture? Casual murder?
Bearing in mind it was the 50s
Have you killed any insects because they got on your nerves?0 -
Don't they deserve as much of a life as we do?0
-
Sorry I’m not really following you here.focuszing723 said:
Care to apologise for the hundreds of thousands of insects killed by the cars you've owned?rick_chasey said:Care to comment on the concentration & labour camps, mass incarceration and torture? Casual murder?
Bearing in mind it was the 50s
Have you killed any insects because they got on your nerves?
No one is asking for apologies. But I wanna know what Pino thinks of something that was done in living memory by Brits. In a part of the world he knows well.
If you want to make out I’m not in a position to ask because I have used a car, then I’ll confess I’m not really following your logic.0 -
I'll reply in more detail later, but with regard to asset stripping comment, that is exactly what the aim was and what happened to India. That's not a modern reinterpretation; that is what the EIC was trying to do: extract as much wealth as possible from the wealthiest empire of the world at the time. There is an excellent series of books on this by William Dalrymple. I'm not sure having a railway is much compensation, notwithstanding that India would have been perfectly capable of building its own railway. I think you are underplaying just how much Britain was at the root of, say, the antagonism between India and Pakistan or the various states of the Middle East. I was recently listening to a podcast about the Sykes Picot Agreement, which was literally two guys who knew next to nothing of the Middle East, dividing up the former Ottoman Empire with crayons on a map.pinno said:I don't entirely agree with you. I also don't entirely disagree with you.
We either created an empire or we got taken over by foreign forces: Dutch, French, German, Portuguese, whoever.
Yes, the idea that we should be running an empire still exists but the interference 'stuff' in foreign lands is probably more to do with being allied to the Americans and the then cold war than Empire (if you are talking about more modern times).
...and here we go: "asset stripping". This sort of language does not promote a balanced view. Kenya was left with an intact railway/communication system and was a thriving net exporter of goods upon independence.
Prior to independence, Churchill ordered a team of individuals to compile a comprehensive catalogue of every single facet of Kenyan life. This took 2 years and 250 personnel to compile. It was commissioned to ease the transition to an independent state.
I could go into detail about what occurred after independence but I can assure you, there was more attention afforded to certain ethnic groups by the British than whichever administration took over. I can cite many examples. Remember, Kenya went independent 61 years ago.
In that time, Kenya has modernised but it still lacks a proper taxation system, it has the highest population growth in the world and the number of people in poverty is massive. There isn't a democracy - there is a complete lack pf proper representation and on top of that, corruption is rife. The leading party have always been in power meaning other ethnic groups do not get the political representation that they need.
Which leads to what exactly are you going to do to re-dress these 'sins' of our past?
Monetary compensation? Are we going to pour money into bottomless, corrupt pits?
There is a huge degree of loyalty towards former colonies - like the Commonwealth and the banana trade with former colonies to Germany to France to Britain.
One can argue that we should not have gone there in the first place but Africa could not exist in isolation of a modernising world nor would it have been untouched by foreign countries. I'll refer back to the point about relativism: our small nation had to expand or be under the constant threat of invasion by foreign powers. So the idea that we shouldn't have had an empire is fundamentally flawed and is both hindsight and forms part of this culture of relativism, heaped with flawed moral relativism.
How we handled the transition (India is a good example) in many cases is certainly up for question and was often dire. The fact that we went in the first place is not.
However, the 2nd WW ended and the Empire collapsed and collapsed quickly. Britain was broke. the empire was costing us in the end. It turned out to be be far more costly to run than we were benefitting from it and the implosion was superseded by the cold war, a global population explosion, shifts in power and globalisation.
I cannot speak of other colonies with the same detail as Kenya as I have had no direct experience of them. I refuse to take the view that it was 'like this' when the rhetoric blatantly dismisses, ignores or is simply unaware of the complexities of administrating colonial countries, transitions and the resulting internal power wars after independence. I do not take the view that we should still have and should be running an Empire. I take the view that the current opinion of having had the last true empire is often naïve, riddled with incorrect information and paints an unrealistic picture. So I sit between the dinosaurs and contemporary, blinkered naivety.
If we are going to help these countries, we have to have a much better understanding of the cultures within.
It is without doubt that the empire financed (and populated) the war against Germany.
That is a war which had we lost would have had unimaginable consequences.
That isn't a justification of the British Empire, it's simply another example of a different viewpoint other than the two current and opposing stereotypical stances.
Clearly Britain is in no position to un-make the the numerous messes it has left around its former empire even if it wanted to. I do however think we should call a spade a spade. And if we shouldn't feel guilt for the actions of our ancestors neither should we give ourselves a pat on the back for some other ancestors being a bit more enlightened.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I assume now as I've made you consciously aware, you will never drive your car again. That includes your bike too.rick_chasey said:
Sorry I’m not really following you here.focuszing723 said:
Care to apologise for the hundreds of thousands of insects killed by the cars you've owned?rick_chasey said:Care to comment on the concentration & labour camps, mass incarceration and torture? Casual murder?
Bearing in mind it was the 50s
Have you killed any insects because they got on your nerves?
No one is asking for apologies. But I wanna know what Pino thinks of something that was done in living memory by Brits. In a part of the world he knows well.
If you want to make out I’m not in a position to ask because I have used a car, then I’ll confess I’m not really following your logic.
Also, you will stop killing insects because they get on your nerves.0 -
What has that got to do with me?rick_chasey said:Care to comment on the concentration & labour camps, mass incarceration and torture? Casual murder?
Bearing in mind it was the 50s
My parents moved to an independent Kenya, 8 years after independence. 1 was a teacher and 1 was a an accountant.
My stepfather was a non-British white. His forefathers were there long before the British, living in harmony with the natives.
The Mau mau committed as many atrocities as the ruling whites. They assassinated
*Pledge of loyalty to the Mau mau
concentration camp
noun
plural noun: concentration camps
a place in which large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labour or to await mass execution.
According to stats, there were just over 2600 prisoners during the Mau mau uprising.
It was wrong but not anywhere near what constituted a German or later, Russian concentration camp.
"There continues to be vigorous debate within Kenyan society and among the academic community within and outside Kenya regarding the nature of Mau Mau and its aims, as well as the response to and effects of the uprising. Nevertheless, partly because as many Kikuyu fought against Mau Mau on the side of the colonial government as joined them in rebellion, the conflict is now often regarded in academic circles as an intra-Kikuyu civil war, a characterisation that remains extremely unpopular in Kenya. In August 1952, Kenyatta told a Kikuyu audience "Mau Mau has spoiled the country...Let Mau Mau perish forever. All people should search for Mau Mau and kill it". Kenyatta described the conflict in his memoirs as a civil war rather than a rebellion. One reason that the revolt was largely limited to the Kikuyu people was, in part, that they had suffered the most as a result of the negative aspects of British colonialism".
Kenyatta was the first president of Kenya.
There was derision amongst the British regarding the treatment of native African's; Churchill being one of them:
The nature of fighting in Kenya led Winston Churchill to express concern about the scale of the fighting: "No doubt the clans should have been punished. 160 have now been killed outright without any further casualties on our side.… It looks like a butchery. If the H. of C. gets hold of it, all our plans in E.A.P. will be under a cloud. Surely it cannot be necessary to go on killing these defenceless people on such an enormous scale."
And before that:
In 1894 [surprisingly], British MP Sir Charles Dilke had observed in the House of Commons, "The only person who has up to the present time benefited from our enterprise in the heart of Africa has been Mr. Hiram Maxim"
Get some balance before swinging the lead towards someone who is not a proponent of Empire, more a person who simply refuses to adopt the current modernist view.
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I think you’re denying the forced labour camps, torture, murder etc. but whatever.
I’m just curious that you feel because it isn’t now you can’t pass judgment on it.
Even at the time they were referred to as British gulags.
So I’m asking you if you want to pass judgment on the people who ran those forced labour camps - forcing them to build a local airport.
Or was it just the thinking of the time?
I’m choosing it because I know it revs you up and that’s sort of the point.0 -
I think you're ignoring the fact you've killed hundreds of thousands of insects, which have as much right to a life than you do. Will you use your bike and car again?rick_chasey said:I think you’re denying the forced labour camps, torture, murder etc. but whatever.
I’m just curious that you feel because it isn’t now you can’t pass judgment on it.
Even at the time they were referred to as British gulags.
So I’m asking you if you want to pass judgment on the people who ran those forced labour camps - forcing them to build a local airport.
Or was it just the thinking of the time?
I’m choosing it because I know it revs you up and that’s sort of the point.1 -
Then it's pointless having the conversation with you.rick_chasey said:
I’m choosing it because I know it revs you up and that’s sort of the point.
What about the Dutch who benefitted from Dutch Empire?
I mean, the Dutch East India Company's trade was massive. It dwarfed other trading companies and Holland benefitted for centuries by the stripping of assets and resource procurement.
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Why do you never mention the Dutch slave trade Rick? It's always the British Empire?
You slag of the Tories in relation to austerity and forget that Nick Clegg/Libs were in power too.
1 -
When you watch the TDF it's always through orange tinted glasses.0
-
But, but, nasty Torwies, innit.focuszing723 said:Why do you never mention the Dutch slave trade Rick? It's always the British Empire?
You slag of the Tories in relation to austerity and forget that Nick Clegg/Libs were in power too."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Sure. We can cover that too.focuszing723 said:Why do you never mention the Dutch slave trade Rick? It's always the British Empire?
You slag of the Tories in relation to austerity and forget that Nick Clegg/Libs were in power too.
I’m just curious how far in the past something has to be before it counts as moral revisionism.0 -
Sorry are you equating driving a car to mass murder?focuszing723 said:
I think you're ignoring the fact you've killed hundreds of thousands of insects, which have as much right to a life than you do. Will you use your bike and car again?rick_chasey said:I think you’re denying the forced labour camps, torture, murder etc. but whatever.
I’m just curious that you feel because it isn’t now you can’t pass judgment on it.
Even at the time they were referred to as British gulags.
So I’m asking you if you want to pass judgment on the people who ran those forced labour camps - forcing them to build a local airport.
Or was it just the thinking of the time?
I’m choosing it because I know it revs you up and that’s sort of the point.
I mean, I know it’s the trivial thread but that seems a bit extreme.0 -
Have a search and tell us when you think the Dutch should stop apologising.rick_chasey said:
Sure. We can cover that too.focuszing723 said:Why do you never mention the Dutch slave trade Rick? It's always the British Empire?
You slag of the Tories in relation to austerity and forget that Nick Clegg/Libs were in power too.
I’m just curious how far in the past something has to be before it counts as moral revisionism.0 -
Who said anything about apologising?focuszing723 said:
Have a search and tell us when you think the Dutch should stop apologising.rick_chasey said:
Sure. We can cover that too.focuszing723 said:Why do you never mention the Dutch slave trade Rick? It's always the British Empire?
You slag of the Tories in relation to austerity and forget that Nick Clegg/Libs were in power too.
I’m just curious how far in the past something has to be before it counts as moral revisionism.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Ok change that to acknowledge.rjsterry said:
Who said anything about apologising?focuszing723 said:
Have a search and tell us when you think the Dutch should stop apologising.rick_chasey said:
Sure. We can cover that too.focuszing723 said:Why do you never mention the Dutch slave trade Rick? It's always the British Empire?
You slag of the Tories in relation to austerity and forget that Nick Clegg/Libs were in power too.
I’m just curious how far in the past something has to be before it counts as moral revisionism.0 -
You keep suggesting that this is just a modern view but that's not really the case. The excesses of Robert Clive in India, which caused a famine in Bengal, led to a parliamentary enquiry and the passing of Regulating Act of 1773 to reform the EIC. There were various revolts in the 19th century with control of India removed from the EIC in 1854 and the Company formally dissolved in 1874. The direction is clear, even if it took 170 years to reach the obvious conclusion.pinno said:
What has that got to do with me?rick_chasey said:Care to comment on the concentration & labour camps, mass incarceration and torture? Casual murder?
Bearing in mind it was the 50s
My parents moved to an independent Kenya, 8 years after independence. 1 was a teacher and 1 was a an accountant.
My stepfather was a non-British white. His forefathers were there long before the British, living in harmony with the natives.
The Mau mau committed as many atrocities as the ruling whites. They assassinated
*Pledge of loyalty to the Mau mau
concentration camp
noun
plural noun: concentration camps
a place in which large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labour or to await mass execution.
According to stats, there were just over 2600 prisoners during the Mau mau uprising.
It was wrong but not anywhere near what constituted a German or later, Russian concentration camp.
"There continues to be vigorous debate within Kenyan society and among the academic community within and outside Kenya regarding the nature of Mau Mau and its aims, as well as the response to and effects of the uprising. Nevertheless, partly because as many Kikuyu fought against Mau Mau on the side of the colonial government as joined them in rebellion, the conflict is now often regarded in academic circles as an intra-Kikuyu civil war, a characterisation that remains extremely unpopular in Kenya. In August 1952, Kenyatta told a Kikuyu audience "Mau Mau has spoiled the country...Let Mau Mau perish forever. All people should search for Mau Mau and kill it". Kenyatta described the conflict in his memoirs as a civil war rather than a rebellion. One reason that the revolt was largely limited to the Kikuyu people was, in part, that they had suffered the most as a result of the negative aspects of British colonialism".
Kenyatta was the first president of Kenya.
There was derision amongst the British regarding the treatment of native African's; Churchill being one of them:
The nature of fighting in Kenya led Winston Churchill to express concern about the scale of the fighting: "No doubt the clans should have been punished. 160 have now been killed outright without any further casualties on our side.… It looks like a butchery. If the H. of C. gets hold of it, all our plans in E.A.P. will be under a cloud. Surely it cannot be necessary to go on killing these defenceless people on such an enormous scale."
And before that:
In 1894 [surprisingly], British MP Sir Charles Dilke had observed in the House of Commons, "The only person who has up to the present time benefited from our enterprise in the heart of Africa has been Mr. Hiram Maxim"
Get some balance before swinging the lead towards someone who is not a proponent of Empire, more a person who simply refuses to adopt the current modernist view.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Well I haven't actually. I did include historical quotes.rjsterry said:
You keep suggesting that this is just a modern view but that's not really the case. The excesses of Robert Clive in India, which caused a famine in Bengal, led to a parliamentary enquiry and the passing of Regulating Act of 1773 to reform the EIC. There were various revolts in the 19th century with control of India removed from the EIC in 1854 and the Company formally dissolved in 1874. The direction is clear, even if it took 170 years to reach the obvious conclusion.pinno said:
What has that got to do with me?rick_chasey said:Care to comment on the concentration & labour camps, mass incarceration and torture? Casual murder?
Bearing in mind it was the 50s
My parents moved to an independent Kenya, 8 years after independence. 1 was a teacher and 1 was a an accountant.
My stepfather was a non-British white. His forefathers were there long before the British, living in harmony with the natives.
The Mau mau committed as many atrocities as the ruling whites. They assassinated
*Pledge of loyalty to the Mau mau
concentration camp
noun
plural noun: concentration camps
a place in which large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labour or to await mass execution.
According to stats, there were just over 2600 prisoners during the Mau mau uprising.
It was wrong but not anywhere near what constituted a German or later, Russian concentration camp.
"There continues to be vigorous debate within Kenyan society and among the academic community within and outside Kenya regarding the nature of Mau Mau and its aims, as well as the response to and effects of the uprising. Nevertheless, partly because as many Kikuyu fought against Mau Mau on the side of the colonial government as joined them in rebellion, the conflict is now often regarded in academic circles as an intra-Kikuyu civil war, a characterisation that remains extremely unpopular in Kenya. In August 1952, Kenyatta told a Kikuyu audience "Mau Mau has spoiled the country...Let Mau Mau perish forever. All people should search for Mau Mau and kill it". Kenyatta described the conflict in his memoirs as a civil war rather than a rebellion. One reason that the revolt was largely limited to the Kikuyu people was, in part, that they had suffered the most as a result of the negative aspects of British colonialism".
Kenyatta was the first president of Kenya.
There was derision amongst the British regarding the treatment of native African's; Churchill being one of them:
The nature of fighting in Kenya led Winston Churchill to express concern about the scale of the fighting: "No doubt the clans should have been punished. 160 have now been killed outright without any further casualties on our side.… It looks like a butchery. If the H. of C. gets hold of it, all our plans in E.A.P. will be under a cloud. Surely it cannot be necessary to go on killing these defenceless people on such an enormous scale."
And before that:
In 1894 [surprisingly], British MP Sir Charles Dilke had observed in the House of Commons, "The only person who has up to the present time benefited from our enterprise in the heart of Africa has been Mr. Hiram Maxim"
Get some balance before swinging the lead towards someone who is not a proponent of Empire, more a person who simply refuses to adopt the current modernist view.
It is much easier to place blame on historical events for current predicaments than it is to find solutions and I think that people are quick to get on a bandwagon.
Empire has been superseded by rampant globalisation, population growth and levels of inequality that are unprecedented. There has been more conflict and turmoil since the end of the British empire than during. We have to put Empire into the context of the evolution of morality, concepts of freedom, human rights etc* but despite that context, the fall of empire didn't mark an end to exploitation and genocide.
*International court of human rights
The Geneva convention
The UN
All organisations that have formed because of the 2nd world war and because of a moral evolution of man you could suggest but ironically, pretty toothless in dealing with Chinese Human rights atrocities, the Saudi campaign against the Yemeni's, the current situation in Ukraine. None of those organisations prevented the Serbian conflict and massacres, Idi Amin, the massacre in Rwanda, Pol pot and the Khmer rouge, actions of the Argentinian military Junta etc etc.
The former slaves of Haiti extracted themselves from French rule 219 years ago and is still pretty f*cked. 30,000 people died from being bludgeoned to death over 20 years from 1937.
In what way does acknowledging past events assist former colonies?
Where do you draw the line?
Political and commercial decisions still primarily dictate what happens globally.
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWI1H9PfroI
