The worm turns

pblakeney

rjsterry wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Who said they're meaningless? A symbol must have meaning otherwise it's not really a symbol. Public statements by governments can and do change the environment and allow other things to happen. May's early rhetoric on Brexit was ridiculed for being meaningless but that uncompromising approach is now supported by a large chunk of the population who might previously have accepted more of a compromise. Words matter.

You clearly have a much higher level of faith in those words and symbols than I do.
They'd be forgotten in the blink of an eye if it suited.

That's why making it formal helps, no?

It's harder to deny stuff happened if the government of the nation who was responsible has accepted responsibility.

FWIW the British gov't has in some instances anyway - usually when there has been a concerted campaign on behalf of the victims. It's just a little piecemeal.

I don’t think anyone is denying the events.
Equally I doubt anyone has sincere remorse for historical actions.
Historical as in previous generations actions.
Nor would I hold today’s generation culpable.

I think they are. Or at least that they weren't as bad as all that. A small example: my brother was telling me about a visit to Denver's Natural History Museum. Native Americans were depicted in the exhibits as part of the fauna; wild animals to be moved out of the way to allow People to settle and farm.

The people who set that up are most likely Trump supporters. Try preaching to them if you wish but I wouldn’t waste my time. I refuse to be associated with that. Similarly anyone voting for Boris.

rjsterry

I think the exhibit long predated Trump. It was more illustrative of a view that was once almost taken as scientific fact but thankfully is now seen as unacceptable.

pinno

Rick Chasey wrote:

I ultimately think the entire premise of 19th C colonialism is pretty bad.

The premise is morally immaterial. Nations needed/wanted resources and power.
Achieving that is where the coercion started.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Turning up somewhere to boss them about (often violently -and often against their will), plunder the resources, use locals as slaves, put down rebellions violently, treating locals as sub human, and generally exploit the local populace for your own gain, isn’t great.

No one here is in denial of the fact. Although, it wasn't all coercive and it certainly gets distorted when seen through a lack of objectivity.
India and Pakistan, population 390m in 1947, administered by 250,000 people. Think about those numbers.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Nor do I think the world was a net beneficiary.

Since when has the procurement of resources and the control of foreign lands been one that is beneficial to humanity?! How many countries currently could boast a foreign policy based on net benefit and human rights?

Rick Chasey wrote:

Though perhaps when you see some of the Empire rhetoric coming out of the more right parts of the U.K., you can see why I quote like to have people reflect the past accurately.

But that's irrelevant and they are w@nkers. However, to say that you reflect the past accurately is entirely subjective.

You have your opinion on the Empire and it's effects.
However, consider why countries are proud to be part of the Common wealth. If they really felt like you do, surely they would be distancing themselves?
Empire has been superceded by many factors, including globalisation.

Would apologising for the past make you feel better about yourself?
Would it make anyone feel better?
Would it not be seen as condescending by some recipients?

rick_chasey

I don't know why you're so hung up on apologising.

I've not suggested that.

rjsterry

Pinno wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Though perhaps when you see some of the Empire rhetoric coming out of the more right parts of the U.K., you can see why I quite like to have people reflect the past accurately.

But that's irrelevant and they are w@nkers. However, to say that you reflect the past accurately is entirely subjective./quote]

It's not irrelevant. One of them is planning to be PM. If you just let stuff slide it gets repeated until everyone thinks it's true, as demonstrated to devastating effect over the last 3 years.

pinno

rjsterry wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Though perhaps when you see some of the Empire rhetoric coming out of the more right parts of the U.K., you can see why I quite like to have people reflect the past accurately.

But that's irrelevant and they are w@nkers. However, to say that you reflect the past accurately is entirely subjective.

It's not irrelevant. One of them is planning to be PM. If you just let stuff slide it gets repeated until everyone thinks it's true, as demonstrated to devastating effect over the last 3 years.[/quote]

It is irrelevant because we were arguing about the rights and wrongs of Empire.

pinno

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don't know why you're so hung up on apologising.

Uh?!

Rick Chasey wrote:

It would be good for the UK govt to formally recognise the damage the UK inflicted on its colonies as part of its colonial rule.

rjsterry

Pinno wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Though perhaps when you see some of the Empire rhetoric coming out of the more right parts of the U.K., you can see why I quite like to have people reflect the past accurately.

But that's irrelevant and they are w@nkers. However, to say that you reflect the past accurately is entirely subjective.

It's not irrelevant. One of them is planning to be PM. If you just let stuff slide it gets repeated until everyone thinks it's true, as demonstrated to devastating effect over the last 3 years.

It is irrelevant because we were arguing about the rights and wrongs of Empire.

No, we're arguing over whether governments of former colonial powers should publicly acknowledge that they weren't entirely benign and how that acknowledgement can impact other public discourse (like Boris and others harking back to the 'good old days')

pinno

rjsterry wrote:

Pinno wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Though perhaps when you see some of the Empire rhetoric coming out of the more right parts of the U.K., you can see why I quite like to have people reflect the past accurately.

But that's irrelevant and they are w@nkers. However, to say that you reflect the past accurately is entirely subjective.

It's not irrelevant. One of them is planning to be PM. If you just let stuff slide it gets repeated until everyone thinks it's true, as demonstrated to devastating effect over the last 3 years.

It is irrelevant because we were arguing about the rights and wrongs of Empire.

No, we're arguing over whether governments of former colonial powers should publicly acknowledge that they weren't entirely benign and how that acknowledgement can impact other public discourse (like Boris and others harking back to the 'good old days')[/quote]

Calm down dear, the Brexit thead is over there.
Can I kindly remind you, that I am a liberal remoaner too.
To be fair to that bumbling buffoon Boris, I don't think he was referring to Colonial days, though I am open to contradiction on that one.

rick_chasey

Pinno wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don't know why you're so hung up on apologising.

Uh?!

Rick Chasey wrote:

It would be good for the UK govt to formally recognise the damage the UK inflicted on its colonies as part of its colonial rule.

You know what recognising means, right?

You know it’s different to apologising?

rjsterry

Pinno wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Pinno wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Though perhaps when you see some of the Empire rhetoric coming out of the more right parts of the U.K., you can see why I quite like to have people reflect the past accurately.

But that's irrelevant and they are w@nkers. However, to say that you reflect the past accurately is entirely subjective.

It's not irrelevant. One of them is planning to be PM. If you just let stuff slide it gets repeated until everyone thinks it's true, as demonstrated to devastating effect over the last 3 years.

It is irrelevant because we were arguing about the rights and wrongs of Empire.

No, we're arguing over whether governments of former colonial powers should publicly acknowledge that they weren't entirely benign and how that acknowledgement can impact other public discourse (like Boris and others harking back to the 'good old days')

Calm down dear, the Brexit thead is over there.
Can I kindly remind you, that I am a liberal remoaner too.
To be fair to that bumbling buffoon Boris, I don't think he was referring to Colonial days, though I am open to contradiction on that one.

We should have a gang sign I meant more generally although the Brexit virus seems to infect abso-f***ing-lutely everything these days.

pblakeney

rjsterry wrote:

I think the exhibit long predated Trump. It was more illustrative of a view that was once almost taken as scientific fact but thankfully is now seen as unacceptable.

2% of Americans believe in flat Earth, and that theory has been around even longer.
My point was more a generalisation of idiots. Create a Venn diagram and you will have one circle enveloping the others.

rick_chasey

I am also sympathetic to the theory that the basis, behaviours and practices in Europe during the Second World War were, in a significant part, conceptualised and practiced in the colonies and were imported into Europe.

Most obviously relevant if you examine the German occupation of Namibia, but can be seen in other tropes across particularly sub-Saharan Africa - concentration camps etc. The premise of taking space for racially superior folk at the expense of racially inferior is not really any different to some of the late 19th and early 20thC thinking on what colonialism is about and it’s easy to see how genocide was “practiced” in the colonies.

Most of the stuff written on this has been by German historians but has been recognised by a whole bunch of academic publications.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

I ultimately think the entire premise of 19th C colonialism is pretty bad.

Turning up somewhere to boss them about (often violently -and often against their will), plunder the resources, use locals as slaves, put down rebellions violently, treating locals as sub human, and generally exploit the local populace for your own gain, isn’t great.

This is a summary of Victorian Britain that it was extended to the colonies is hardly surprising.

It wasn't until 1882 a married woman could own property. In the 1860s, 1.43 million could vote out of a total population of 30 million.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I ultimately think the entire premise of 19th C colonialism is pretty bad.

Turning up somewhere to boss them about (often violently -and often against their will), plunder the resources, use locals as slaves, put down rebellions violently, treating locals as sub human, and generally exploit the local populace for your own gain, isn’t great.

This is a summary of Victorian Britain that it was extended to the colonies is hardly surprising.

It wasn't until 1882 a married woman could own property. In the 1860s, 1.43 million could vote out of a total population of 30 million.

It's not the same.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I ultimately think the entire premise of 19th C colonialism is pretty bad.

Turning up somewhere to boss them about (often violently -and often against their will), plunder the resources, use locals as slaves, put down rebellions violently, treating locals as sub human, and generally exploit the local populace for your own gain, isn’t great.

This is a summary of Victorian Britain that it was extended to the colonies is hardly surprising.

It wasn't until 1882 a married woman could own property. In the 1860s, 1.43 million could vote out of a total population of 30 million.

It's not the same.

But there are a fair few similarities - off the top of my head, the pseudo-scientific attempts to show that poor people suffered from some inherited inferiority which predisposed them to poverty.

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I ultimately think the entire premise of 19th C colonialism is pretty bad.

Turning up somewhere to boss them about (often violently -and often against their will), plunder the resources, use locals as slaves, put down rebellions violently, treating locals as sub human, and generally exploit the local populace for your own gain, isn’t great.

This is a summary of Victorian Britain that it was extended to the colonies is hardly surprising.

It wasn't until 1882 a married woman could own property. In the 1860s, 1.43 million could vote out of a total population of 30 million.

It's not the same.

But there are a fair few similarities - off the top of my head, the pseudo-scientific attempts to show that poor people suffered from some inherited inferiority which predisposed them to poverty.

I meant to mention workhouses.

Gravity Aided

Wonder what atrocities Chinese colonial rule will come up with?

rjsterry

Gravity Aided wrote:

Wonder what atrocities Chinese colonial rule will come up with?

Just need to look at what is going on in Xinjiang.

rick_chasey

Gravity Aided wrote:

Wonder what atrocities Chinese colonial rule will come up with?

Rounding up a million Muslims is pretty awful.

john80

China has only been stable and had a broadly compliant for the last 20 years because of its economic growth. As soon as the world stops being able to fuel China's growth the oppression within this regime will bubble to the surface. How the Chinese government respond is likely to be authoritarian if the past is anything to go by.

rick_chasey

They are already detaining around a million Muslims in camps and separating their children from their parents.

Basically modern day gulags.

pinno

Rick Chasey wrote:

I am also sympathetic to the theory that the basis, behaviours and practices in Europe during the Second World War were, in a significant part, conceptualised and practiced in the colonies and were imported into Europe.

But these 'concentration camps' were not used to avail mass execution. Well, at least the British one's weren't.

There's a fundamental difference.

Would you also like those members of certain indigenous peoples in Africa to recognise that they actively procured slaves who were then sent to the middle east and across the Atlantic?

Anyway, back to China. The world is reliant on the trade that China generates and everyone is seemingly hanging on to their coat tails. that's why no-one will say boo to them.

This is typical pf the Torygraph. What's more important to to this paper is the loss of trade not human rights:

"Jeremy Hunt's China crisis could be bad news for British exports"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... h-exports/

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

They are already detaining around a million Mexicans in camps and separating their children from their parents.

Basically modern day gulags.

Another perspective.

mrfpb

My understanding is that Britain did not just hand over Kong Kong, Brtiain and China signed a treaty on how Hong Kong would be administered (ie the two systems). As the signatory, Britain needs to speak up for the treaty if it wants any international pressure to be brought to bear on China to stick to the rules.

john80

mrfpb wrote:

My understanding is that Britain did not just hand over Kong Kong, Brtiain and China signed a treaty on how Hong Kong would be administered (ie the two systems). As the signatory, Britain needs to speak up for the treaty if it wants any international pressure to be brought to bear on China to stick to the rules.

It is probably more important to keep quiet as xmas is just round the corner and we need those cheap toys. Priorities man we don't want China to stop selling us goods.

Stevo_666

Personally, I'm still waiting for the Italian government to recognise (and possibly apologise for) the oppression of the British people during the Roman occupation of the British Isles from 43-410 AD.

I mean, what have the Romans ever done for us?

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Personally, I'm still waiting for the Italian government to recognise (and possibly apologise for) the oppression of the British people during the Roman occupation of the British Isles from 43-410 AD.

I mean, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Trying to think of some smartarse reply about the Ostrogoths and Germany, but need to do some work.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Personally, I'm still waiting for the Italian government to recognise (and possibly apologise for) the oppression of the British people during the Roman occupation of the British Isles from 43-410 AD.

I mean, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Trying to think of some smartarse reply about the Ostrogoths and Germany, but need to do some work.

Having to work during office hours? You'd detter vote Labour and try to get better employee rights

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Personally, I'm still waiting for the Italian government to recognise (and possibly apologise for) the oppression of the British people during the Roman occupation of the British Isles from 43-410 AD.

I mean, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Trying to think of some smartarse reply about the Ostrogoths and Germany, but need to do some work.

Having to work during office hours? You'd detter vote Labour and try to get better employee rights

Just checked Wikipedia and yes, it was the Germans who took over, then the (Eastern) Romans had another go. More Germans (Holy Roman Empire); a brief flirtation with republicanism; the Normans; the Austrians and the Spanish; and the French. I think we should just blame it on Europe to cover all bases.