Seemingly trivial things that annoy you

pinno

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sure. We can cover that too.

I’m just curious how far in the past something has to be before it counts as moral revisionism.

'Moral revisionism'
'Contemporary moralism'. wtf are you on about?

rick_chasey

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sure. We can cover that too.

I’m just curious how far in the past something has to be before it counts as moral revisionism.

'Moral revisionism'
'Contemporary moralism'. wtf are you on about?

Whatever you want to call it.

You say we can’t judge the British Empire by today’s moral standards.

How far in the past does something need to be before you feel you can’t judge it by the standards now.

Yesterday? A year? Within living memory?

focuszing723

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sure. We can cover that too.

I’m just curious how far in the past something has to be before it counts as moral revisionism.

'Moral revisionism'
'Contemporary moralism'. wtf are you on about?

Whatever you want to call it.

You say we can’t judge the British Empire by today’s moral standards.

How far in the past does something need to be before you feel you can’t judge it by the standards now.

Yesterday? A year? Within living memory?

Yet you're going to still use your car and bike and kill insects which deserve as much as a right to life than we do. Directly by your actions.

Forget living memory, you will kill them today!

It's absolutely horrific the death you've directly caused over your living memory.

Do you acknowledge it, what are you going to do about it?

Don't even attempt to infer only Humanity matters, that just reeks of imperialism over nature.

rick_chasey

I don’t really understand your argument focus.

Am I not allowed to give my own moral view on genocides and other crimes because I use a car and a bike?

focuszing723

rick_chasey said:

I don’t really understand your argument focus.

Am I not allowed to give my own moral view on genocides and other crimes because I use a car and a bike?

Just deflection, no answer.

focuszing723

You're too busy fvckin around with the moral compass to see your own direct impact on life. Try answering that first.

rjsterry

pinno said:

rjsterry said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

Care to comment on the concentration & labour camps, mass incarceration and torture? Casual murder?

Bearing in mind it was the 50s

What has that got to do with me?
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.

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.

Well I haven't actually. I did include historical quotes.

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.

Globalisation is pretty obviously a result of the various global empires of the major European powers.

Social inequality steadily reduced to roughly the middle of the 20th century and has since reversed to roughly where it was in 1920. That is still significantly less inequality than further back in history. More info here.
https://ourworldindata.org/income-inequality.

I'm not sure the claim that there is more conflict since the end of the British Empire stacks up either.

There were so many wars in India that they had to number them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_Kingdom

verylonglegs

Car insurance renewal offered at a premium of 40% more than last year. Er..no thanks.

pinno

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sure. We can cover that too.

I’m just curious how far in the past something has to be before it counts as moral revisionism.

'Moral revisionism'
'Contemporary moralism'. wtf are you on about?

Whatever you want to call it.

The term is relativism.
I am not revising past morality.
'Contemporary moralism' - that's current.

pinno

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sure. We can cover that too.

I’m just curious how far in the past something has to be before it counts as moral revisionism.

'Moral revisionism'
'Contemporary moralism'. wtf are you on about?

Whatever you want to call it.

You say we can’t judge the British Empire by today’s moral standards.

No, we must be careful how we view history not judge history through modern concepts of morality.

rick_chasey

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sure. We can cover that too.

I’m just curious how far in the past something has to be before it counts as moral revisionism.

'Moral revisionism'
'Contemporary moralism'. wtf are you on about?

Whatever you want to call it.

You say we can’t judge the British Empire by today’s moral standards.

No, we must be careful how we view history not judge history through modern concepts of morality.

Right. I'll ask it once more in the vain hope of an answer. If you think we shouldn't judge the British empire, or indeed anything in the past, by today's standards, where in the past do you draw the when we can judge something by today's standards?

How far back do we have to go before the "modern concepts of morality" are no longer applicable? A day? A week? A year? A decade? a century?

Presumably you are happy to pass moral judgement on my forum posts, even though every time you read it, you're reading history, as it was written in the past.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sure. We can cover that too.

I’m just curious how far in the past something has to be before it counts as moral revisionism.

'Moral revisionism'
'Contemporary moralism'. wtf are you on about?

Whatever you want to call it.

You say we can’t judge the British Empire by today’s moral standards.

No, we must be careful how we view history not judge history through modern concepts of morality.

Right. I'll ask it once more in the vain hope of an answer. If you think we shouldn't judge the British empire, or indeed anything in the past, by today's standards, where in the past do you draw the when we can judge something by today's standards?

How far back do we have to go before the "modern concepts of morality" are no longer applicable? A day? A week? A year? A decade? a century?

Presumably you are happy to pass moral judgement on my forum posts, even though every time you read it, you're reading history, as it was written in the past.

I'm struggling to see why you can't judge the past both in its historical context and today's. Isn't part of the study of history also studying how attitudes towards past events have changed?

Meh. I'm just a scientist and patent lawyer, what do I know.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sure. We can cover that too.

I’m just curious how far in the past something has to be before it counts as moral revisionism.

'Moral revisionism'
'Contemporary moralism'. wtf are you on about?

Whatever you want to call it.

You say we can’t judge the British Empire by today’s moral standards.

No, we must be careful how we view history not judge history through modern concepts of morality.

Right. I'll ask it once more in the vain hope of an answer. If you think we shouldn't judge the British empire, or indeed anything in the past, by today's standards, where in the past do you draw the when we can judge something by today's standards?

How far back do we have to go before the "modern concepts of morality" are no longer applicable? A day? A week? A year? A decade? a century?

Presumably you are happy to pass moral judgement on my forum posts, even though every time you read it, you're reading history, as it was written in the past.

I'm struggling to see why you can't judge the past both in its historical context and today's. Isn't part of the study of history also studying how attitudes towards past events have changed?

Meh. I'm just a scientist and patent lawyer, what do I know.

Yes absolutely, but Pinno doesn't agree, so I wanna tease out the logical ends of his position.

You can even judge it against today's standards *in the context of the standards of the time*.

My theory, which Pino will object to vociferously (as is his right), is that he takes that position as it allows him to defend something that his family and history is tied up with, which is ultimately indefensible.

rick_chasey

(If anyone is interested in the topic, there is a pulitzer prize winning book called Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain's Gulag in Kenya - By Caroline Elkins)

rjsterry

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sure. We can cover that too.

I’m just curious how far in the past something has to be before it counts as moral revisionism.

'Moral revisionism'
'Contemporary moralism'. wtf are you on about?

Whatever you want to call it.

You say we can’t judge the British Empire by today’s moral standards.

No, we must be careful how we view history not judge history through modern concepts of morality.

History *is* and has always been a modern point of view on past events, all the way back to Herodotus. It's never been about an objective record. No such thing exists.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sure. We can cover that too.

I’m just curious how far in the past something has to be before it counts as moral revisionism.

'Moral revisionism'
'Contemporary moralism'. wtf are you on about?

Whatever you want to call it.

You say we can’t judge the British Empire by today’s moral standards.

No, we must be careful how we view history not judge history through modern concepts of morality.

History *is* and has always been a modern point of view on past events, all the way back to Herodotus. It's never been about an objective record. No such thing exists.

Well it's written by the winners isn't it.

I do think there is a tendency, when applying modern standards, to treat events that happened later to be as a consequence of what came before, just because they happened afterwards.

I'm struggling for example, a little bit, to draw a clear line between globalisation and the British empire, when so much of globalisation is a consequence of the technologies (transport, communication) that facilitate it, and considering that the collapse of empire is the opposite of globalisation. I do appreciate that large multinational trading bodies were left over, but again so many have arisen since and with no link to the British empire, it seems like a thesis looking for supporting facts to me.

Globalisation is a consequence of the industrial revolution. That seems more intuitively reasonable.

But what do I know, etc.

rjsterry

pinno said:

rjsterry said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

Care to comment on the concentration & labour camps, mass incarceration and torture? Casual murder?

Bearing in mind it was the 50s

What has that got to do with me?
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.

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.

...

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.

...

I think you can tie several of those to the early 20th century legacy of the dividing up of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires by the French and British after WW1. If you start dividing up the map with no regard for the local demographics then this is bound to create deep seated and long-standing problems that other people can later exploit.

Similarly, if you take over and run a country for a long period, then leave at short notice with no handover to another authority, that will leave a gap to be exploited.

pinno

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sure. We can cover that too.

I’m just curious how far in the past something has to be before it counts as moral revisionism.

'Moral revisionism'
'Contemporary moralism'. wtf are you on about?

Whatever you want to call it.

You say we can’t judge the British Empire by today’s moral standards.

No, we must be careful how we view history not judge history through modern concepts of morality.

Right. I'll ask it once more in the vain hope of an answer. If you think we shouldn't judge the British empire, or indeed anything in the past, by today's standards, where in the past do you draw the when we can judge something by today's standards?

How far back do we have to go before the "modern concepts of morality" are no longer applicable? A day? A week? A year? A decade? a century?

Presumably you are happy to pass moral judgement on my forum posts, even though every time you read it, you're reading history, as it was written in the past.

You can judge it all you like.

Shall I repeat the statement?: No, we must be careful how we view history [not judge history] through modern concepts of morality.

"Presumably you are happy to pass moral judgement on my forum posts, even though every time you read it, you're reading history, as it was written in the past. "

That it just a nonsense.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sure. We can cover that too.

I’m just curious how far in the past something has to be before it counts as moral revisionism.

'Moral revisionism'
'Contemporary moralism'. wtf are you on about?

Whatever you want to call it.

You say we can’t judge the British Empire by today’s moral standards.

No, we must be careful how we view history not judge history through modern concepts of morality.

History *is* and has always been a modern point of view on past events, all the way back to Herodotus. It's never been about an objective record. No such thing exists.

Well it's written by the winners isn't it.

I do think there is a tendency, when applying modern standards, to treat events that happened later to be as a consequence of what came before, just because they happened afterwards.

I'm struggling for example, a little bit, to draw a clear line between globalisation and the British empire, when so much of globalisation is a consequence of the technologies (transport, communication) that facilitate it, and considering that the collapse of empire is the opposite of globalisation. I do appreciate that large multinational trading bodies were left over, but again so many have arisen since and with no link to the British empire, it seems like a thesis looking for supporting facts to me.

Globalisation is a consequence of the industrial revolution. That seems more intuitively reasonable.

But what do I know, etc.

People have written series of books on less big topics, so lets not pretend we'll solve it on the forum, but my understanding is globalisation is a concept that emerged in the West the early-to-mid 20th Century, and clearly the previous experience of international trade in the West was through imperialism and the Empire, so clearly there are some roots there. That is the context in which the idea of globalisation was conceived.

pinno

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sure. We can cover that too.

I’m just curious how far in the past something has to be before it counts as moral revisionism.

'Moral revisionism'
'Contemporary moralism'. wtf are you on about?

Whatever you want to call it.

You say we can’t judge the British Empire by today’s moral standards.

No, we must be careful how we view history not judge history through modern concepts of morality.

History *is* and has always been a modern point of view on past events, all the way back to Herodotus. It's never been about an objective record. No such thing exists.

Well it's written by the winners isn't it.

I do think there is a tendency, when applying modern standards, to treat events that happened later to be as a consequence of what came before, just because they happened afterwards.

I'm struggling for example, a little bit, to draw a clear line between globalisation and the British empire, when so much of globalisation is a consequence of the technologies (transport, communication) that facilitate it, and considering that the collapse of empire is the opposite of globalisation. I do appreciate that large multinational trading bodies were left over, but again so many have arisen since and with no link to the British empire, it seems like a thesis looking for supporting facts to me.

Globalisation is a consequence of the industrial revolution. That seems more intuitively reasonable.

But what do I know, etc.

This ^ I agree with.
However, I do not know where I ever drew a line between globalisation and the British empire, nor attempted to. It's a somewhat erroneous idea.

pinno

rjsterry said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sure. We can cover that too.

I’m just curious how far in the past something has to be before it counts as moral revisionism.

'Moral revisionism'
'Contemporary moralism'. wtf are you on about?

Whatever you want to call it.

You say we can’t judge the British Empire by today’s moral standards.

No, we must be careful how we view history not judge history through modern concepts of morality.

History *is* and has always been a modern point of view on past events, all the way back to Herodotus. It's never been about an objective record. No such thing exists.

Again, who said anything about 'objective record'? Not I.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sure. We can cover that too.

I’m just curious how far in the past something has to be before it counts as moral revisionism.

'Moral revisionism'
'Contemporary moralism'. wtf are you on about?

Whatever you want to call it.

You say we can’t judge the British Empire by today’s moral standards.

No, we must be careful how we view history not judge history through modern concepts of morality.

History *is* and has always been a modern point of view on past events, all the way back to Herodotus. It's never been about an objective record. No such thing exists.

Well it's written by the winners isn't it.

I do think there is a tendency, when applying modern standards, to treat events that happened later to be as a consequence of what came before, just because they happened afterwards.

I'm struggling for example, a little bit, to draw a clear line between globalisation and the British empire, when so much of globalisation is a consequence of the technologies (transport, communication) that facilitate it, and considering that the collapse of empire is the opposite of globalisation. I do appreciate that large multinational trading bodies were left over, but again so many have arisen since and with no link to the British empire, it seems like a thesis looking for supporting facts to me.

Globalisation is a consequence of the industrial revolution. That seems more intuitively reasonable.

But what do I know, etc.

People have written series of books on less big topics, so lets not pretend we'll solve it on the forum, but my understanding is globalisation is a concept that emerged in the West the early-to-mid 20th Century, and clearly the previous experience of international trade in the West was through imperialism and the Empire, so clearly there are some roots there. That is the context in which the idea of globalisation was conceived.

Was globalisation conceived, or did it just happen as a consequence of capitalism. Every company is run for profit and so there's an in built need to access new markets?

rick_chasey

All ideas come and go, and our understanding of how the world is and works changes over time too.

You can't have an overseas imperial colony without at some point conceiving the idea for one. How they come about is complicated and I wrote my final exams on the conception of the mid-to-late 19th century European understanding of what a colonial empire is and means.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sure. We can cover that too.

I’m just curious how far in the past something has to be before it counts as moral revisionism.

'Moral revisionism'
'Contemporary moralism'. wtf are you on about?

Whatever you want to call it.

You say we can’t judge the British Empire by today’s moral standards.

No, we must be careful how we view history not judge history through modern concepts of morality.

History *is* and has always been a modern point of view on past events, all the way back to Herodotus. It's never been about an objective record. No such thing exists.

Well it's written by the winners isn't it.

I do think there is a tendency, when applying modern standards, to treat events that happened later to be as a consequence of what came before, just because they happened afterwards.

I'm struggling for example, a little bit, to draw a clear line between globalisation and the British empire, when so much of globalisation is a consequence of the technologies (transport, communication) that facilitate it, and considering that the collapse of empire is the opposite of globalisation. I do appreciate that large multinational trading bodies were left over, but again so many have arisen since and with no link to the British empire, it seems like a thesis looking for supporting facts to me.

Globalisation is a consequence of the industrial revolution. That seems more intuitively reasonable.

But what do I know, etc.

People have written series of books on less big topics, so lets not pretend we'll solve it on the forum, but my understanding is globalisation is a concept that emerged in the West the early-to-mid 20th Century, and clearly the previous experience of international trade in the West was through imperialism and the Empire, so clearly there are some roots there. That is the context in which the idea of globalisation was conceived.

Was globalisation conceived, or did it just happen as a consequence of capitalism. Every company is run for profit and so there's an in built need to access new markets?

I'd say capitalism drove globalisation. I'd also say capitalism also drove imperialism.
But what do I know, etc.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sure. We can cover that too.

I’m just curious how far in the past something has to be before it counts as moral revisionism.

'Moral revisionism'
'Contemporary moralism'. wtf are you on about?

Whatever you want to call it.

You say we can’t judge the British Empire by today’s moral standards.

No, we must be careful how we view history not judge history through modern concepts of morality.

History *is* and has always been a modern point of view on past events, all the way back to Herodotus. It's never been about an objective record. No such thing exists.

Well it's written by the winners isn't it.

I do think there is a tendency, when applying modern standards, to treat events that happened later to be as a consequence of what came before, just because they happened afterwards.

I'm struggling for example, a little bit, to draw a clear line between globalisation and the British empire, when so much of globalisation is a consequence of the technologies (transport, communication) that facilitate it, and considering that the collapse of empire is the opposite of globalisation. I do appreciate that large multinational trading bodies were left over, but again so many have arisen since and with no link to the British empire, it seems like a thesis looking for supporting facts to me.

Globalisation is a consequence of the industrial revolution. That seems more intuitively reasonable.

But what do I know, etc.

People have written series of books on less big topics, so lets not pretend we'll solve it on the forum, but my understanding is globalisation is a concept that emerged in the West the early-to-mid 20th Century, and clearly the previous experience of international trade in the West was through imperialism and the Empire, so clearly there are some roots there. That is the context in which the idea of globalisation was conceived.

Was globalisation conceived, or did it just happen as a consequence of capitalism. Every company is run for profit and so there's an in built need to access new markets?

How much more globalist can you get than bragging that you have an empire - i.e. a preferential market for your trade - on which the sun never sets?

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sure. We can cover that too.

I’m just curious how far in the past something has to be before it counts as moral revisionism.

'Moral revisionism'
'Contemporary moralism'. wtf are you on about?

Whatever you want to call it.

You say we can’t judge the British Empire by today’s moral standards.

No, we must be careful how we view history not judge history through modern concepts of morality.

History *is* and has always been a modern point of view on past events, all the way back to Herodotus. It's never been about an objective record. No such thing exists.

Well it's written by the winners isn't it.

I do think there is a tendency, when applying modern standards, to treat events that happened later to be as a consequence of what came before, just because they happened afterwards.

I'm struggling for example, a little bit, to draw a clear line between globalisation and the British empire, when so much of globalisation is a consequence of the technologies (transport, communication) that facilitate it, and considering that the collapse of empire is the opposite of globalisation. I do appreciate that large multinational trading bodies were left over, but again so many have arisen since and with no link to the British empire, it seems like a thesis looking for supporting facts to me.

Globalisation is a consequence of the industrial revolution. That seems more intuitively reasonable.

But what do I know, etc.

People have written series of books on less big topics, so lets not pretend we'll solve it on the forum, but my understanding is globalisation is a concept that emerged in the West the early-to-mid 20th Century, and clearly the previous experience of international trade in the West was through imperialism and the Empire, so clearly there are some roots there. That is the context in which the idea of globalisation was conceived.

Was globalisation conceived, or did it just happen as a consequence of capitalism. Every company is run for profit and so there's an in built need to access new markets?

How much more globalist can you get than bragging that you have an empire - i.e. a preferential market for your trade - on which the sun never sets?

Are.you arguing that empire created.globalism, or globalism created empire? See my point?

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sure. We can cover that too.

I’m just curious how far in the past something has to be before it counts as moral revisionism.

'Moral revisionism'
'Contemporary moralism'. wtf are you on about?

Whatever you want to call it.

You say we can’t judge the British Empire by today’s moral standards.

No, we must be careful how we view history not judge history through modern concepts of morality.

History *is* and has always been a modern point of view on past events, all the way back to Herodotus. It's never been about an objective record. No such thing exists.

Well it's written by the winners isn't it.

I do think there is a tendency, when applying modern standards, to treat events that happened later to be as a consequence of what came before, just because they happened afterwards.

I'm struggling for example, a little bit, to draw a clear line between globalisation and the British empire, when so much of globalisation is a consequence of the technologies (transport, communication) that facilitate it, and considering that the collapse of empire is the opposite of globalisation. I do appreciate that large multinational trading bodies were left over, but again so many have arisen since and with no link to the British empire, it seems like a thesis looking for supporting facts to me.

Globalisation is a consequence of the industrial revolution. That seems more intuitively reasonable.

But what do I know, etc.

People have written series of books on less big topics, so lets not pretend we'll solve it on the forum, but my understanding is globalisation is a concept that emerged in the West the early-to-mid 20th Century, and clearly the previous experience of international trade in the West was through imperialism and the Empire, so clearly there are some roots there. That is the context in which the idea of globalisation was conceived.

Was globalisation conceived, or did it just happen as a consequence of capitalism. Every company is run for profit and so there's an in built need to access new markets?

How much more globalist can you get than bragging that you have an empire - i.e. a preferential market for your trade - on which the sun never sets?

By definition not global because it was always about the *empire* and not the rest of the world

rick_chasey

If anyone is interested, this is quite a good resource on the forced labour camps the Brits ran in the 1950s, complete with 3D reconstructions.

https://www.museumofbritishcolonialism.org/emergencyexhibition

pinno

rick_chasey said:

My theory, which Pino will object to vociferously (as is his right), is that he takes that position as it allows him to defend something that his family and history is tied up with, which is ultimately indefensible.

That is bollox.
My family is not tied up with Empire.
They moved to Kenya after independence.
I am not trying to defend actions that are indefensible.

I think that the bullying that you were subject to means that you are far too emotive and, you also keep steering the terminology and the argument in your direction repeatedly.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sure. We can cover that too.

I’m just curious how far in the past something has to be before it counts as moral revisionism.

'Moral revisionism'
'Contemporary moralism'. wtf are you on about?

Whatever you want to call it.

You say we can’t judge the British Empire by today’s moral standards.

No, we must be careful how we view history not judge history through modern concepts of morality.

Right. I'll ask it once more in the vain hope of an answer. If you think we shouldn't judge the British empire, or indeed anything in the past, by today's standards, where in the past do you draw the when we can judge something by today's standards?

How far back do we have to go before the "modern concepts of morality" are no longer applicable? A day? A week? A year? A decade? a century?

Presumably you are happy to pass moral judgement on my forum posts, even though every time you read it, you're reading history, as it was written in the past.

Why don't you chuck out some examples and we can all give our opinion