Things you have recently learnt

Pross

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

I understand admitting it and apologising. Arguing over a financial settlement years later feels wrong though.

You can see the argument.

The Germans gave reparations to Jews so why is this different?

By giving reparations to Jews but not Herero or Nama the German govt is basically saying they value Jews more than Nama or Herero.

So if you are against reparations then presumably you are also against the reparations the relations of Holocaust victims received.

If you are not then why the inconsistency?

It is only a matter of decades different.

The lessons learned for other countries is that it is a can of worms best left unopened.

You’d kinda hope the lesson learned is don’t be genocidal but people seem to want to let states off the hook on that one.

It’s a fairly morally unambiguous issue here.

You may be interested to learn (on thread...) that the Germans learned a lot on how to do genocide from their experiences in Namibia.

In fact the entire lebensraum bit was really solidified in the public mind during their colonial experiences

There are a lot of lessons to be learned. One is that handing over cash doesn't overwrite history. Next will be a claim of white washing.

Germany compensated Jews for the 1940-1945s genocide but not the Herero and Nama genocide for the 1904-1908 genocide.

Why the difference?

The respective times that had passed and numbers of people directly affected who were still alive?

I know it has been discussed before in relation to slavery but how far does the current Government of a state go back apologising and compensating? What does the compensation payment do to rectify the wrongs and those affected by them?

rick_chasey

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

orraloon said:

1943. Bengal. Churchill. Anyone? No? Just ignore and move on then.

Pino is *very* defensive of any accusations of British bad behaviour in the colonies.

Incorrect.

I get incensed by the misrepresentation of facts.
I have discussed in depth flawed moral relativism.

I presented a counter idea that former colonies need more than a monetary payment (which conveniently relinquishes a contrived collective guilt) but you didn't even consider it.

What I find odd, is that you get more animated over historical events than you do over say, Yemen or the displaced people in and from Syria, or the massacres that took place recently in Burma, or the slow curtailment of free speech and democracy in Hong Kong.
There are plenty of current contemporary examples of genocide, torture and oppression that we should be taking more notice of.

We all have our hobby horses and commenting on one thing doesn’t exclude another.

rjsterry

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

orraloon said:

1943. Bengal. Churchill. Anyone? No? Just ignore and move on then.

Pino is *very* defensive of any accusations of British bad behaviour in the colonies.

Incorrect.

I get incensed by the misrepresentation of facts.
I have discussed in depth flawed moral relativism.

I presented a counter idea that former colonies need more than a monetary payment (which conveniently relinquishes a contrived collective guilt) but you didn't even consider it.

What I find odd, is that you get more animated over historical events than you do over say, Yemen or the displaced people in and from Syria, or the massacres that took place recently in Burma, or the slow curtailment of free speech and democracy in Hong Kong.
There are plenty of current contemporary examples of genocide, torture and oppression that we should be taking more notice of.

It's not an either/or situation. One can be concerned about both. There will always be a newer war; sometimes a bit of distance is needed to see more accurately. If former colonies need more than money, that is not an argument to withold money, but to do more. It has nothing to do with guilt, let alone moral relativism. States do not have feelings and cannot feel guilt. It is just a basic principle of most (all?) legal systems: that an injured party may seek some form of compensation from the body that caused the injury.

pinno

rjsterry said:

...legal systems: that an injured party may seek some form of compensation from the body that caused the injury.

Alive people.

pinno

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

orraloon said:

1943. Bengal. Churchill. Anyone? No? Just ignore and move on then.

Pino is *very* defensive of any accusations of British bad behaviour in the colonies.

Incorrect.

I get incensed by the misrepresentation of facts.
I have discussed in depth flawed moral relativism.

I presented a counter idea that former colonies need more than a monetary payment (which conveniently relinquishes a contrived collective guilt) but you didn't even consider it.

What I find odd, is that you get more animated over historical events than you do over say, Yemen or the displaced people in and from Syria, or the massacres that took place recently in Burma, or the slow curtailment of free speech and democracy in Hong Kong.
There are plenty of current contemporary examples of genocide, torture and oppression that we should be taking more notice of.

We all have our hobby horses and commenting on one thing doesn’t exclude another.

Odd 'hobby horse'.

rjsterry

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

I understand admitting it and apologising. Arguing over a financial settlement years later feels wrong though.

You can see the argument.

The Germans gave reparations to Jews so why is this different?

By giving reparations to Jews but not Herero or Nama the German govt is basically saying they value Jews more than Nama or Herero.

So if you are against reparations then presumably you are also against the reparations the relations of Holocaust victims received.

If you are not then why the inconsistency?

It is only a matter of decades different.

The lessons learned for other countries is that it is a can of worms best left unopened.

You’d kinda hope the lesson learned is don’t be genocidal but people seem to want to let states off the hook on that one.

It’s a fairly morally unambiguous issue here.

You may be interested to learn (on thread...) that the Germans learned a lot on how to do genocide from their experiences in Namibia.

In fact the entire lebensraum bit was really solidified in the public mind during their colonial experiences

There are a lot of lessons to be learned. One is that handing over cash doesn't overwrite history. Next will be a claim of white washing.

Germany compensated Jews for the 1940-1945s genocide but not the Herero and Nama genocide for the 1904-1908 genocide.

Why the difference?

The respective times that had passed and numbers of people directly affected who were still alive?

I know it has been discussed before in relation to slavery but how far does the current Government of a state go back apologising and compensating? What does the compensation payment do to rectify the wrongs and those affected by them?

110 years really isn't that far back. It's almost within living memory. If the two parties still recognisably exist, I don't see why one can't seek some form of redress from the other. Of course it's not easy or straightforward, but I hardly think it's impossible. It's not as though the idea of paying compensation for things other than financial loss is new either. The motivator for most of these atrocities was financial gain so paying some of that back seems entirely appropriate. How it is paid and to whom/what is secondary question. Off the top of my head, some form of trust structure to make those decisions. It won't be perfect but better than doing nothing.

pblakeney

Pick a decade from any century when there hasn't been some atrocity happening somewhere in the world. Picking favourites seems odd, or will keep you very, very busy.
Best start improving things with the here and now. Learn from the past, fix the future.

Pross

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

I understand admitting it and apologising. Arguing over a financial settlement years later feels wrong though.

You can see the argument.

The Germans gave reparations to Jews so why is this different?

By giving reparations to Jews but not Herero or Nama the German govt is basically saying they value Jews more than Nama or Herero.

So if you are against reparations then presumably you are also against the reparations the relations of Holocaust victims received.

If you are not then why the inconsistency?

It is only a matter of decades different.

The lessons learned for other countries is that it is a can of worms best left unopened.

You’d kinda hope the lesson learned is don’t be genocidal but people seem to want to let states off the hook on that one.

It’s a fairly morally unambiguous issue here.

You may be interested to learn (on thread...) that the Germans learned a lot on how to do genocide from their experiences in Namibia.

In fact the entire lebensraum bit was really solidified in the public mind during their colonial experiences

There are a lot of lessons to be learned. One is that handing over cash doesn't overwrite history. Next will be a claim of white washing.

Germany compensated Jews for the 1940-1945s genocide but not the Herero and Nama genocide for the 1904-1908 genocide.

Why the difference?

The respective times that had passed and numbers of people directly affected who were still alive?

I know it has been discussed before in relation to slavery but how far does the current Government of a state go back apologising and compensating? What does the compensation payment do to rectify the wrongs and those affected by them?

110 years really isn't that far back. It's almost within living memory. If the two parties still recognisably exist, I don't see why one can't seek some form of redress from the other. Of course it's not easy or straightforward, but I hardly think it's impossible. It's not as though the idea of paying compensation for things other than financial loss is new either. The motivator for most of these atrocities was financial gain so paying some of that back seems entirely appropriate. How it is paid and to whom/what is secondary question. Off the top of my head, some form of trust structure to make those decisions. It won't be perfect but better than doing nothing.

(West) Germany agreed to pay reparations to the Jews within 7 years of WW2 ending, it was a virtually immediate action to compensate those directly affected that's why I say it's down to timing. My concern if you hand billions to Namibia today is that it just gets rolled up into Government budgets.

I also find it a bit distasteful arguing over what is an acceptable amount of compensation, it suggests that the recipients are more interested in getting money than in the acknowledgement and apology for the act itself. I don't see how 'x' billion isn't enough but 'y' billion is. If someone said 'this is what we plan to do with the money and it is going to cost this amount' it would help. I tend to feel the same when I hear of civil cases for murder in the US where it seems like the family are more keen to get as much money as possible rather than justice for the crime.

rick_chasey

Ah right, so it's about if you kick the can down the road for long enough.

Why do you think they were so quick to realise what they did in Europe but not in South West Africa?

briantrumpet

I've just read this morning that Devon has the most bridges of any county, at 3215. That's over Devon's 8000 miles of roads (also the most), so more than one bridge every three miles.

elbowloh

I don't think you can discount the point that Germany had just lost a war being a major factor behind them paying reparations and were therefore in a position where they were having to immediately assess and confront what they had done.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Ah right, so it's about if you kick the can down the road for long enough.

Why do you think they were so quick to realise what they did in Europe but not in South West Africa?

Could it be because they lost and they did not have much choice in the decision?

I imagine if the Namibian tanks had rolled into Berlin the compensation would have been forthcoming

surrey_commuter

briantrumpet said:

I've just read this morning that Devon has the most bridges of any county, at 3215. That's over Devon's 8000 miles of roads (also the most), so more than one bridge every three miles.

I appreciate that not all will be road bridges but one every 2.5 miles is staggering. As the bits I have been to have nowhere near that ratio there must be other parts where it would make more sense to join them together as a tunnel

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

I understand admitting it and apologising. Arguing over a financial settlement years later feels wrong though.

You can see the argument.

The Germans gave reparations to Jews so why is this different?

By giving reparations to Jews but not Herero or Nama the German govt is basically saying they value Jews more than Nama or Herero.

So if you are against reparations then presumably you are also against the reparations the relations of Holocaust victims received.

If you are not then why the inconsistency?

It is only a matter of decades different.

The lessons learned for other countries is that it is a can of worms best left unopened.

You’d kinda hope the lesson learned is don’t be genocidal but people seem to want to let states off the hook on that one.

It’s a fairly morally unambiguous issue here.

You may be interested to learn (on thread...) that the Germans learned a lot on how to do genocide from their experiences in Namibia.

In fact the entire lebensraum bit was really solidified in the public mind during their colonial experiences

There are a lot of lessons to be learned. One is that handing over cash doesn't overwrite history. Next will be a claim of white washing.

Germany compensated Jews for the 1940-1945s genocide but not the Herero and Nama genocide for the 1904-1908 genocide.

Why the difference?

Two possible reasons:
1. Germany needed to demonstrate rehabilitation in the eyes of the world, and this only included their most recent transgression. This is essentially your hobby horse that only European lives matter in the eyes of many.
2. 40 years is quite a long time. For example, the Amritsar massacre happened in 1919, but India was independent in 1947. Similarly, Europe was battling it out in trenches in 1914-1918, but by 1945 they were dropping atomic bombs.

briantrumpet

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

I've just read this morning that Devon has the most bridges of any county, at 3215. That's over Devon's 8000 miles of roads (also the most), so more than one bridge every three miles.

I appreciate that not all will be road bridges but one every 2.5 miles is staggering. As the bits I have been to have nowhere near that ratio there must be other parts where it would make more sense to join them together as a tunnel

I've written to them to ask if there's a database/spreadsheet available, as it is an amazing figure, and there could be some fun rides getting in the maximum number in one day. But the thought that if you did 30 per day it would still be 108 days of riding is quite something.

Save the tunnel for Somerset, so you don't need to see Highbridge or Bridgwater (though I admit the engineering could be tricky there...)

surrey_commuter

briantrumpet said:

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

I've just read this morning that Devon has the most bridges of any county, at 3215. That's over Devon's 8000 miles of roads (also the most), so more than one bridge every three miles.

I appreciate that not all will be road bridges but one every 2.5 miles is staggering. As the bits I have been to have nowhere near that ratio there must be other parts where it would make more sense to join them together as a tunnel

I've written to them to ask if there's a database/spreadsheet available, as it is an amazing figure, and there could be some fun rides getting in the maximum number in one day. But the thought that if you did 30 per day it would still be 108 days of riding is quite something.

Save the tunnel for Somerset, so you don't need to see Highbridge or Bridgwater (though I admit the engineering could be tricky there...)

somebody has done it for you
https://www.devon.gov.uk/accesstoinformation/archives/information_request/road-and-foot-bridges

briantrumpet

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

I've just read this morning that Devon has the most bridges of any county, at 3215. That's over Devon's 8000 miles of roads (also the most), so more than one bridge every three miles.

I appreciate that not all will be road bridges but one every 2.5 miles is staggering. As the bits I have been to have nowhere near that ratio there must be other parts where it would make more sense to join them together as a tunnel

I've written to them to ask if there's a database/spreadsheet available, as it is an amazing figure, and there could be some fun rides getting in the maximum number in one day. But the thought that if you did 30 per day it would still be 108 days of riding is quite something.

Save the tunnel for Somerset, so you don't need to see Highbridge or Bridgwater (though I admit the engineering could be tricky there...)

somebody has done it for you
https://www.devon.gov.uk/accesstoinformation/archives/information_request/road-and-foot-bridges

Ah, fantastic, thanks. Now just to get that into a sortable spreadsheet file...

shirley_basso

briantrumpet said:

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

I've just read this morning that Devon has the most bridges of any county, at 3215. That's over Devon's 8000 miles of roads (also the most), so more than one bridge every three miles.

I appreciate that not all will be road bridges but one every 2.5 miles is staggering. As the bits I have been to have nowhere near that ratio there must be other parts where it would make more sense to join them together as a tunnel

I've written to them to ask if there's a database/spreadsheet available, as it is an amazing figure, and there could be some fun rides getting in the maximum number in one day. But the thought that if you did 30 per day it would still be 108 days of riding is quite something.

Save the tunnel for Somerset, so you don't need to see Highbridge or Bridgwater (though I admit the engineering could be tricky there...)

somebody has done it for you
https://www.devon.gov.uk/accesstoinformation/archives/information_request/road-and-foot-bridges

Ah, fantastic, thanks. Now just to get that into a sortable spreadsheet file...

There are some amazing plugins for Excel which may even map them for you.

briantrumpet

shirley_basso said:

briantrumpet said:

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

I've just read this morning that Devon has the most bridges of any county, at 3215. That's over Devon's 8000 miles of roads (also the most), so more than one bridge every three miles.

I appreciate that not all will be road bridges but one every 2.5 miles is staggering. As the bits I have been to have nowhere near that ratio there must be other parts where it would make more sense to join them together as a tunnel

I've written to them to ask if there's a database/spreadsheet available, as it is an amazing figure, and there could be some fun rides getting in the maximum number in one day. But the thought that if you did 30 per day it would still be 108 days of riding is quite something.

Save the tunnel for Somerset, so you don't need to see Highbridge or Bridgwater (though I admit the engineering could be tricky there...)

somebody has done it for you
https://www.devon.gov.uk/accesstoinformation/archives/information_request/road-and-foot-bridges

Ah, fantastic, thanks. Now just to get that into a sortable spreadsheet file...

There are some amazing plugins for Excel which may even map them for you.

That, or something similar, is a good idea, thanks. I've got it into a Google Sheet now, so there could be some fun to be had, though out of necessity, I suspect most rides would be a tad lumpy. Here's the profile of a Devon 100-miler we did yesterday that must have included a fair few:

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Ah right, so it's about if you kick the can down the road for long enough.

Why do you think they were so quick to realise what they did in Europe but not in South West Africa?

Covered by Elbowloh, SC and BB. Germany had lost a war and were in full apology mode plus different times. WW2 was when Empires were still falling whereas they were still just about in their prime. Do you really think it is to do with where it took place? Every long establish country that had an empire has got its unwanted history, some are still continuing creating them. How many countries should be making reparations to Afghanistan? The developed world could go bankrupt repaying all its past crimes against countries in Asia, Africa, the Americas and Oceania.

pblakeney

Pross said:

The developed world could go bankrupt repaying all its past crimes against countries in Asia, Africa, the Americas and Oceania.

Not to mention that those areas have their own histories that they'd rather forget.

rjsterry

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Ah right, so it's about if you kick the can down the road for long enough.

Why do you think they were so quick to realise what they did in Europe but not in South West Africa?

Covered by Elbowloh, SC and BB. Germany had lost a war and were in full apology mode plus different times. WW2 was when Empires were still falling whereas they were still just about in their prime. Do you really think it is to do with where it took place? Every long establish country that had an empire has got its unwanted history, some are still continuing creating them. How many countries should be making reparations to Afghanistan? The developed world could go bankrupt repaying all its past crimes against countries in Asia, Africa, the Americas and Oceania.

It could. But seeing as the developed world, to a large extent, is developed *because* of the wealth extracted from those empires, distributing some of that wealth back to where it came from is at least something worth discussing.

And yes, there would be a queue of states for Afghanistan.

rick_chasey

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Ah right, so it's about if you kick the can down the road for long enough.

Why do you think they were so quick to realise what they did in Europe but not in South West Africa?

Covered by Elbowloh, SC and BB. Germany had lost a war and were in full apology mode plus different times. WW2 was when Empires were still falling whereas they were still just about in their prime. Do you really think it is to do with where it took place? Every long establish country that had an empire has got its unwanted history, some are still continuing creating them. How many countries should be making reparations to Afghanistan? The developed world could go bankrupt repaying all its past crimes against countries in Asia, Africa, the Americas and Oceania.

You pose rhetorical questions but I think the answer to both is "yeah sure go for it".

I am all for making war and war crimes prohibitively expensive.

Pross

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Ah right, so it's about if you kick the can down the road for long enough.

Why do you think they were so quick to realise what they did in Europe but not in South West Africa?

Covered by Elbowloh, SC and BB. Germany had lost a war and were in full apology mode plus different times. WW2 was when Empires were still falling whereas they were still just about in their prime. Do you really think it is to do with where it took place? Every long establish country that had an empire has got its unwanted history, some are still continuing creating them. How many countries should be making reparations to Afghanistan? The developed world could go bankrupt repaying all its past crimes against countries in Asia, Africa, the Americas and Oceania.

It could. But seeing as the developed world, to a large extent, is developed *because* of the wealth extracted from those empires, distributing some of that wealth back to where it came from is at least something worth discussing.

And yes, there would be a queue of states for Afghanistan.

Sure but on a more micro scale you could make the same arguments within the UK. Many of the now deprived former industrial areas were the source of wealth to other areas including the City of London. OK there was no genocide but there was smaller scale killing of protestors and reformists. My argument is just that at some point you have to draw a line in the sand, admit that countries and their people were wronged, apologise and move on.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Ah right, so it's about if you kick the can down the road for long enough.

Why do you think they were so quick to realise what they did in Europe but not in South West Africa?

Covered by Elbowloh, SC and BB. Germany had lost a war and were in full apology mode plus different times. WW2 was when Empires were still falling whereas they were still just about in their prime. Do you really think it is to do with where it took place? Every long establish country that had an empire has got its unwanted history, some are still continuing creating them. How many countries should be making reparations to Afghanistan? The developed world could go bankrupt repaying all its past crimes against countries in Asia, Africa, the Americas and Oceania.

You pose rhetorical questions but I think the answer to both is "yeah sure go for it".

I am all for making war and war crimes prohibitively expensive.

Again, you are applying the morals and principles of today to events of long ago. The term war crime and the whole concept of humanitarian law was only just developing at the time of the events you mention in Namibia.

Before that it was very much a case of survival of the fittest and you took what you wanted unless the person who owned it was stronger. Obviously that seems reprehensible to us now but you can't view historic actions by current norms.

rick_chasey

I don't think there has ever been a moral case for genocide, Pross.

I wrote my dissertation on how British colonialists explained away the Congo genocide at the time and they certainly weren't saying it was morally justified.

rjsterry

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Ah right, so it's about if you kick the can down the road for long enough.

Why do you think they were so quick to realise what they did in Europe but not in South West Africa?

Covered by Elbowloh, SC and BB. Germany had lost a war and were in full apology mode plus different times. WW2 was when Empires were still falling whereas they were still just about in their prime. Do you really think it is to do with where it took place? Every long establish country that had an empire has got its unwanted history, some are still continuing creating them. How many countries should be making reparations to Afghanistan? The developed world could go bankrupt repaying all its past crimes against countries in Asia, Africa, the Americas and Oceania.

It could. But seeing as the developed world, to a large extent, is developed *because* of the wealth extracted from those empires, distributing some of that wealth back to where it came from is at least something worth discussing.

And yes, there would be a queue of states for Afghanistan.

Sure but on a more micro scale you could make the same arguments within the UK. Many of the now deprived former industrial areas were the source of wealth to other areas including the City of London. OK there was no genocide but there was smaller scale killing of protestors and reformists. My argument is just that at some point you have to draw a line in the sand, admit that countries and their people were wronged, apologise and move on.

I agree you can't go back ad infinitum but as I said if the two parties still recognisably exist then I think it is worth looking at whether some form of material redress can accompany a formal acknowledgement/apology. I think it is probably best if some third party makes that call, much as we have neutral third parties trying to mediate in ongoing disputes. I also don't think we need to be absolutist about it. Just because some issues are too difficult to resolve, doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with those where a difference can be made. There's no need for a single line in the sand.

surrey_commuter

On a similar tangent who thinks that if Germany had hung on for longer that we would have dropped an A-bomb on Berlin?

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

On a similar tangent who thinks that if Germany had hung on for longer that we would have dropped an A-bomb on Berlin?

No way would the allies have let the Russians take Berlin with no fight...

rjsterry

Loosely related and something I have recently learnt: of the 180,000 tons of silver Spain extracted from Mexico and Peru in the 17th and 18th century, 30% of it ended up in China via the British and Dutch through exchange for other commodities.