Seemingly trivial things that annoy you

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

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

Are you sure? The EIC was a private corporation independent of the British government. Likewise the Hudson Bay Company, Muscovy Company, etc. The trade came first and the empire came as the corporations sought to secure their markets from competitors. Only later were these nationalised.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

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

Are you sure? The EIC was a private corporation independent of the British government. Likewise the Hudson Bay Company, Muscovy Company, etc. The trade came first and the empire came as the corporations sought to secure their markets from competitors. Only later were these nationalised.

I mean, globalism literally didn't exist as a concept until the fall of the various colonial Empires, so yeah.

Globalism is a lot to do with international integration, sharing political values, including forms of government (liberal, democratic etc), and that wasn't really on the cards back then.

International trade has been around forever.

pblakeney

Globalism is international trade.
All the other stuff is just what greases the wheels.

rick_chasey

I mean, it is literally not, but OK.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

I mean, it is literally not, but OK.

I bet you could write a book saying that it is, and that it would be really convincing until you'd read the book that says it isn't. And vice versa.

rick_chasey

The whole point of globalisation is that it *isn't* just international trade, but that politics, foreign policies, economic policies, are all intertwined and inseparable, so they must be managed at an international level, not a national level.

The entire definition is that it is not just international trade. That's the whole point!

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

The whole point of globalisation is that it *isn't* just international trade, but that politics, foreign policies, economic policies, are all intertwined and inseparable, so they must be managed at an international level, not a national level.

The entire definition is that it is not just international trade. That's the whole point!

At least in our neck of the woods, wealth = re-election. So like children swarming about the ball during a school football match, the political alignment follows from the international trade.

Comment.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

The whole point of globalisation is that it *isn't* just international trade, but that politics, foreign policies, economic policies, are all intertwined and inseparable, so they must be managed at an international level, not a national level.

The entire definition is that it is not just international trade. That's the whole point!

You appear to think that politics drives trade.
I think the opposite is true. I'm leaving it as agree to disagree.

Edited for clarity, and timeline.

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

You appear to think that politics drives trade.
I think the opposite is true. I'm leaving it as agree to disagree.

I'm saying trade drives politics, so we are agreeing. The key word is "follow".

TheBigBean

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 think where I have sympathy for Pinno's argument is that you consistently ignore the way people were treated in the UK at the same time. For example, UK courts finally determined that rape within marriage was illegal in 1991. Beating children in schools was banned in 1996. Homosexuality became legal in 1967. In 1948 Workhouses were finally abolished. Etc.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

You appear to think that politics drives trade.
I think the opposite is true. I'm leaving it as agree to disagree.

I'm saying trade drives politics, so we are agreeing. The key word is "follow".

My comment (which I've edited) was replying to Rick.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

The whole point of globalisation is that it *isn't* just international trade, but that politics, foreign policies, economic policies, are all intertwined and inseparable, so they must be managed at an international level, not a national level.

The entire definition is that it is not just international trade. That's the whole point!

You appear to think that politics drives trade.
I think the opposite is true. I'm leaving it as agree to disagree.

Edited for clarity, and timeline.

*head in hands*.

We're talking at cross purposes. I'm giving you the definition of globalisation, as you seem to think it is just about trade and the rest is irrelevant.

Globalisation is the idea that economics, trade, politics, are all inseparable, and must be considered as a whole at an *international level*

I'm not commenting on what follows another. FWIW, I don't think there is a sequence and it's all the same sh!t and you can't consider them independently.

Tashman

Back on topic - this thread for the past few pages!

pinno

rjsterry said:

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.

I do not disagree with any of that.
There was a handover in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Zimbabwe (of the one's I know of).
In Zimbabwe, it was agreed (and signed by Mugabe) that:

1. 70% of farmers paid compensation for the land they occupied and could keep it.
2. 20 seats in parliament were retained for white representation and to ease the transition.

Mugabe rescinded the agreement. Agriculture in Zimbabwe was the economic spine of the country and when Mugabe stirred up further anti-white farmer animosity it was in contravention of the above. Once they took over the farms, both the economy and farms collapsed. Prior to that, they removed the 20 parliamentary seats previously reserved.

Jomo Kenyatta (the 1st president of Kenya) became the 1st Prime minister before becoming president. His continuous use of reconciliatory prose and policy was part of a co-ordinated hand over. See my post above about Churchill's transitionary commission, which started almost 10 years before the actual handover.

Where it went badly wrong was in places like Kashmir and Pakistan where the British exit was too rapid and lines were drawn without proper consideration.
The 2nd WW bled Britain dry. Who knows what various handovers would have been like had Britain not had to withdraw so hastily.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

The whole point of globalisation is that it *isn't* just international trade, but that politics, foreign policies, economic policies, are all intertwined and inseparable, so they must be managed at an international level, not a national level.

The entire definition is that it is not just international trade. That's the whole point!

You appear to think that politics drives trade.
I think the opposite is true. I'm leaving it as agree to disagree.

Edited for clarity, and timeline.

*head in hands*.

We're talking at cross purposes. I'm giving you the definition of globalisation, as you seem to think it is just about trade and the rest is irrelevant.

Globalisation is the idea that economics, trade, politics, are all inseparable, and must be considered as a whole at an *international level*

I'm not commenting on what follows another. FWIW, I don't think there is a sequence and it's all the same sh!t and you can't consider them independently.

Exactly. Not sure that is something new, though, although the scale has undoubtedly increased. Despite on paper there being various competing empires there was still a fair amount of international coordination.

Wheelspinner

rjsterry

Wheelspinner said:

Ah, there are other threads if you don't like this one. And it is supposed to be annoying 😛

Pross

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

Ah, there are other threads if you don't like this one. And it is supposed to be annoying 😛

Supposed to be trivial too!

focuszing723

Will it ever stop?

Yo, I don't know.

Vanilla Ice, 1990.

rjsterry

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

Ah, there are other threads if you don't like this one. And it is supposed to be annoying 😛

Supposed to be trivial too!

The initial post about that headline was. Blame that Mr Pinno for arguing with me 😀.

focuszing723

How far back will AI judge humanity, probably more relevant.

rick_chasey

focuszing723 said:

How far back will AI judge humanity, probably more relevant.

I think that's Terminator 2: Judgement Day.

Pross

The use of unnecessary words e.g on the cycling commentary now “the young 19 year old” or the hairdresser opposite the building my choir rehearse in has a sign “Ladies and gents unisex hairdresser”

Pross

People asking the same question others have already asked and had answered. The rugby club I support are in a cup final on Saturday and there have been numerous posts every day recently asking what time is kick off and how to get tickets.

pblakeney

Shrinkflation.

Wheelspinner

Pross said:

The use of unnecessary words e.g on the cycling commentary now “the young 19 year old” or the hairdresser opposite the building my choir rehearse in has a sign “Ladies and gents unisex hairdresser”

There's a tradie van I see locally some days... "Specialist in all kinds of tiling"

Grrrr.

Pross

pblakeney said:

Shrinkflation.

The word or it happening?

I reckon duo bars of Snickers etc. are now the size that individual bars used to be. I’d rather pay more and get the proper size.

pblakeney

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

Shrinkflation.

The word or it happening?

I reckon duo bars of Snickers etc. are now the size that individual bars used to be. I’d rather pay more and get the proper size.

It happening, becoming more prevalent and obvious.

briantrumpet

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

Shrinkflation.

The word or it happening?

I reckon duo bars of Snickers etc. are now the size that individual bars used to be. I’d rather pay more and get the proper size.

It happening, becoming more prevalent and obvious.

It's a good word to describe a really annoying practice.

Tashman

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

Shrinkflation.

The word or it happening?

I reckon duo bars of Snickers etc. are now the size that individual bars used to be. I’d rather pay more and get the proper size.

6 mini bars for 79p in Lidl - Happy days