Braveheart

[Chrism]

Originally posted by Perle
you are right. It cannot be compared with the british and especially english achievements.


between 1618 and 1918 ( thats 300 years) , england was at war for 237 years:

10 wars for 73 years against france;

against Spain: 8 wars, 48 years;
agaist Holland: 7 wars, 36 years;
against Denmark: 6 wars, 23 years;
against russia: 4 wars, 7 years;
against germany: 4 wars, 17 years;
against China: 3 wars, 9 years;
against USA: 2 wars, 13 years;
against Sweden: 2 wars, 6 years;
against egypt: 2 wars, 2 years;
against Turkey: 2 wars, 3 years;

and this is not even counting the colonies where they met not much resistence.

Several of those overlap though, so to say 237 years is incorrect.

The Seven Years War for example lasted between 1755 and 1763. The fact that we were at war with 6 countries doesn't mean that war lasted 48 years you muppet.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Perhaps I am interpreting his posts differently, but I'm reading that he said "we" (i.e. the Brits) were an evil empire. Which seems fairly uncontronversial.

I thought it was more 'the' evil empire. Perhaps I misread.

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
but if we take the core values of domination, exploitation and conquest I'd say this was worse than Bolshevism. (Stalinism is another matter) Perhaps you could elaborate.

I tend to disagree that the size of the exploitation and related policies is the be-all and end-all. It isn't. There is a definite need to examine the 'quality' of the exploiation that makes it particularly repulsive, more so than much of British imperial practise - particularly under Stalin. The British Empire, even at it's worst, never intentionally indulged in that type of industrial genocide.

We must also not forget how progressive The British Empire became over the course of it's life, with the eventual culmination of that progress being the emancipation of it's subjects.

The Soviet Union was simply seven decades in the history of the world that stunted Russia and it's environs. I don't want to start gibbering on in a Reagan-esque manner, but the system itself was incapable of serious reform or progress for most of it's history, and when that reform loked possible, Gorbachev made a pig's ear of it.

Originally posted by Perle
you are right. It cannot be compared with the british and especially english achievements.


between 1618 and 1918 ( thats 300 years) , england was at war for 237 years:

10 wars for 73 years against france;

against Spain: 8 wars, 48 years;
agaist Holland: 7 wars, 36 years;
against Denmark: 6 wars, 23 years;
against russia: 4 wars, 7 years;
against germany: 4 wars, 17 years;
against China: 3 wars, 9 years;
against USA: 2 wars, 13 years;
against Sweden: 2 wars, 6 years;
against egypt: 2 wars, 2 years;
against Turkey: 2 wars, 3 years;

and this is not even counting the colonies where they met not much resistence.

you forgot austria(hungary)

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Chrism
The Seven Years War for example lasted between 1755 and 1763. The fact that we were at war with 6 countries doesn't mean that war lasted 48 years you muppet.

Or 42 either, which is a more conventional value of 6x7

[ELeeming]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Nice try, however the invasion of the territory now known as the United States was mainly (but not entirely) carried out by the British. This invasion led to the virtual extinction of the native population. The figure was something like 1492 had 80 million Native Americans, 1600 had 8 million, thats' genocide no matter which you you spin it. Then there was the potato famine, the wholesale slaughter of Indians, Chinese, Africans, The million ssacrificed pointlessly in the colonial wars we refer to as World War 1, the list goes on. So we have genocide and we have the deaths of a hell of a lot of people. Furthermore the population in Britain livied in horrific poverty until the end of the second world war, we had children under 10 working 16 hour days, appaling working conditions, poor health, poor literacy, high infant mortality.

The British can't pat themselves on the back for emancipating the colonies, much of that emanciaption was done after the bitter struggle of the indiginous people and it's an insult to their bravery and heroism to pretend that we saw the error of our ways and just gave them their liberty. Furthemore many of those countries are still recovering from the centuries of brutal repression and virtual slavery, we owe compensation we could never repay.

As for progressivesness in the UK that seems to be due mostly to the civil rights movements, the natural opposition ot empire, but even then we waged war on the Irish Catholics until 1994.

So spare me your back slapping contenedness about an empire that brought misery to hundreds of millions of people for the profit of a few.

TBPH, France and Spain also contributed to the slaughter of native americans, and I suspect your dates are out a bit. The idea of the british empire was always commercial, and as such emancipation was a fairly well recognised step forward. It was always a goal, albeit long term.

If you look around the world, Commonwealth countries are generally better off than their neighbours, with very few exceptions.

As for the person who said

not a direct quote
Nearly all the world's modern crises, are less results of British Colonialism and ****eness.

I think you can probably balme these on the break up of the empire, rather than the empire itself. If you change government, you always get trouble (Civ players know this, so does Iraq at the present time.)

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Nice try, however the invasion of the territory now known as the United States was mainly (but not entirely) carried out by the British. This invasion led to the virtual extinction of the native population.

Woah, woah, reality check. There was no engineered destruction of the native people by The British state - the problems that the natives faced, obviously, were not alieviated by The British/English Statte, it was not an intentional destruction of a people. Colonisation simply had that effects on many areas. And to make out that English/British colonisation was solely responsible is absurd.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Then there was the potato famine, the wholesale slaughter of Indians, Chinese, Africans, The million ssacrificed pointlessly in the colonial wars we refer to as World War 1, the list goes on. So we have genocide

You seem to be very confused about what 'genoicide' means. I shall give you a definition:

"The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"

(From Merriam-Webster.com)

None of the things you have mentioned fall under this defintion. They were either casualties of war, or unintentional casualties of the nature of imperialism, or just caused by poor administration.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
the population in Britain livied in horrific poverty until the end of the second world war, we had children under 10 working 16 hour days, appaling working conditions, poor health, poor literacy, high infant mortality.

What the hell has this got to do with anything?

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
The British can't pat themselves on the back for emancipating the colonies, much of that emanciaption was done after the bitter struggle of the indiginous people

Many areas were let free in a very dignified and sensible way. Certainly, they were better handled than The French, Portugese and Spanish, to name the three other big empires.

These were not just instances where the British simply couldn't hold onto the said areas anymore. It was a combanation of the fact that many of these areas wanted self-determination and the prevailing feeling in Britian was that they should be given that freedom that resulted in such a smooth process.

Look how The French handled de-colonisation, and how The British did. And compare, say India and Algeria now. Or even look at how Portugal handled the breakup of it's empire during the latter half of the 20th century, particularly.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
As for progressivesness in the UK that seems to be due mostly to the civil rights movements,

What?

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
but even then we waged war on the Irish Catholics until 1994.

Errr, what?

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
So spare me your back slapping contenedness about an empire that brought misery to hundreds of millions of people for the profit of a few.

When did I ever say Imperialism wasn't corrupt as a practise? When did I say nothing other than the process wasn't the ultimate manifestation of evil and sin, as some people on here seem to want to claim it was?

Imperialism is up there with some of the many exceedingly foolish political practises that mankind has turned to during the course of history. However, to make some of the statements that you and others have been making about it is foolish and erroneous.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Nice try, however the invasion of the territory now known as the United States was mainly (but not entirely) carried out by the British. This invasion led to the virtual extinction of the native population.

Wow. Ok, well let’s start with the fact that the colonisation of North America was done in great measure by the French, Dutch, Spanish and British, Just because the British came out on top in the end does not mean they were the only ones involved.

Secondly, the extermination of the Natives was a result of Smallpox and Typhus, as well as an assortment of other European diseases. That is not Genocide, any more than the Spanish Influenza Epidemic in 1919 which killed 20 million people was the responsibility of the Spanish, or anyone else.

By the time colonisation started in earnest the disease had already done its work. The whole atrocity of the Indian wars, the reservations, the expansions to the West and so on, they are all generations after the disease had all but wiped out native power in the Americas, so lets not toss around the word genocide to much, shall we? Of course the treatment of the American natives by colonial powers was abhorrent, no question, but nothing like genocide.

The million sacrificed pointlessly in the colonial wars we refer to as World War 1, the list goes on.

The vast majority of casualties in WWI were White Europeans, so I can hardly call it a colonial war. In the peripheries, all the colonial battles were fought with limited deaths with the exception of the Germans in East Africa, and even then it makes up a tiny fraction of a percent of the deaths in WWI. Lastly, though the proportion of responsibility for WWI is still being debated to this day, I think everyone agrees that the Central power carry a lot more blame than Britain does…

Furthermore the population in Britain livied in horrific poverty until the end of the second world war, we had children under 10 working 16 hour days, appaling working conditions, poor health, poor literacy, high infant mortality.

Two problems. One, had you said prior to the FIRST world war you might have been closer, and even then not really, worker situations in Britain were vastly improved after the social unrest of the 1848 revolutions, and they continued to improve as the 19th century continued.

Two, the situations you describe existed across the globe not just in Britain, and of all the nations in the world Britain and Germany were probably the MOST progressive with labour reform. If you are going to attack a culture, try not to be so anachronistic about it.

In the end, obviously colonial administration was never pleasant. That applies to Britain, France, Germany, the US, Belgium, Japan… any colonial power. Of all the colonial powers, British rule was probably the most even-handed, it was certainly better than France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Spain or Japan. That does not make it good of course, it just makes it better than the norm.

[Chrism]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Or 42 either, which is a more conventional value of 6x7

1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762

Plus large parts of 1755 and 1763

Add to that that it is a continuation of the French & Indian War that started in 1754 and it's actually longer than 8 years.

[Chrism]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
It doesn't surprise me that you find it so easy to justify the British empire, for some reaosn everyone always finds it easy to believe that their countries history is a road of unstumbling glory.

Vermillion isn't British you muppet.

[Chrism]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Greece, Turkey

Greece and Turkey were British colonies? Really? perhaps you ought to tell them because they seem to be unaware of this turn of events (ever heard of the Ottoman Empire? Check where that was).

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
When we refer to the emancipated area's left by the British you are of course referring to post war Kenya, Uganda, Greece, Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, South Africa, India to name a few, yes I can see what a bang up job we did there. But of course it was all their fault, wasn't it when we left these people they had every oppurtunity to prosper but they were too stupid, that must be the case, becasue as everyone knows we were the glorius and generous British empire who never exploits nations for it's own profit, the fact that they ALL landed in turmoil shows us that when we enslaved their people we stepped in just in time.

Far be it from me to criticise your post, but when was Greece a part of the British empire? (and so on. [edit] this has already been dealt with[/edit])

ps.

Do you actually bother to read other people's posts? They're not trying to say it was good, but it was a 'lesser evil'.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
assorted ranting.

I am having some difficulty trying to determine what your point is.

As far as I can tell, you primary argument is that: By 2003 standards, the British colonial rule in many of the colonies was very unpleasant, in particular when it came to their treatment of aboriginals. Well, you win. I will certainly not argue such an obvious truism.

It is however a completely irrelevant point. Examining the past through the lens of the present is an exercise in futility. You will find that, due to the evolution of morality over the ages, many things in the past were awful by today’s standards:
-Colonialism in the 17th and 18th centuries was awful by modern standards.
-Religious wars throughout the dark ages and renaissance were awful by modern standards.
-Labour laws in the 17th and 18th centuries were awful by modern standards.
-The penal system in the early 20th century was awful by modern standards.
-Disco in 1974 was awful by modern standards.

So what? If you want to get an idea of the moral fibre of a culture or nation, then compare it to its contemporaries, and the laws and norms of the age. If you do that, you discover that Britain was in fact somewhat more enlightened than its fellow nations; it dealt with natives in a comparatively even-handed fashion, and was one of the most progressive states in the world in terms of labour laws, literacy and public health. Only Prussia had better literacy and worker protection laws, and they preceded British reforms by a matter of months. Compare Britain to the colonial rule of any other state you care to mention, and you will find that it comes out significantly more progressive.

Colonialism was a natural outgrowth of mercantilism and while I agree it had some very unpleasant effects on some nations, and was responsible for the mistreatment of aboriginal peoples across the world, that is not the exclusive domain of Britain, or even of Colonial powers.

If your argument is against the evils of the 16th through 19th century worldwide development of colonial rule, then fine, argue away. If it is against the British in particular, then you have lost before you started. Hell, the British did not even invent Colonial rule, they learned from the Spanish, the Portuguese and the Dutch, all of which were far crueller to local populations.

[Perle]

Originally posted by Vermillion
I am having some difficulty trying to determine what your point is.


-Colonialism in the 17th and 18th centuries was awful by modern standards.
-Religious wars throughout the dark ages and renaissance were awful by modern standards.
-Labour laws in the 17th and 18th centuries were awful by modern standards.
-The penal system in the early 20th century was awful by modern standards.
-Disco in 1974 was awful by modern standards.

Its a shame that you would spoil your very good posts with a very blunt and untactfull statement like this.
you are belittling colonialism by indirectly comparing it to disco in 1974.

I also find it very peculiar that you did not answer this:

Originally posted by Vermillion
Secondly, the extermination of the Natives was a result of Smallpox and Typhus, as well as an assortment of other European diseases. That is not Genocide, any more than the Spanish Influenza Epidemic in 1919 which killed 20 million people was the responsibility of the Spanish, or anyone else.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue

As for the native American's the European diseaes were dilberatly spread, blankets infected with smallpocks were DELIBERATELY given to the Indians, in Cuba and Ahiti there was the systematic masacre of the indigionoour population. I am well aware of genocide means, it describes the European slaughter of Indians by shooting them, stabbing them and driving them off their land that took place between the arrival of columbus and the Indian emancipation movement of the 1960's, it describes the virtual extinction of the American buffalo the main source of food for many Indian's, it includes their virtual erasion from history and revolting hollywood stereotypes

Normally , you would answer with an informed post filled with facts. Yet, this time you just ignored it and even called it ranting.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Perle
Normally , you would answer with an informed post filled with facts. Yet, this time you just ignored it and even called it ranting.

Perhaps he's just become bitter like the rest of us.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Perle
Normally , you would answer with an informed post filled with facts. Yet, this time you just ignored it and even called it ranting.

Something reliable and full of facts. It's not really an area of history full of rock hard certainities and vermillion was quite right really.

[Archi]

Compare Britain to the colonial rule of any other state you care to mention, and you will find that it comes out significantly more progressive.

Compare the North American frontier of the 19th Century. The US had to have several Cavalry divisions to supress the Native Americans in the west. The British had 50 RCMP's to patrol the whole of western Canada (the Sioux chief Sitting Bull sought refuge in Canada and became good friends with the RCMP's stationed there). This was because the redcoats dispensed justice and werent bought off by land speculators like the Indian affairs managers in the US. On the other hand in South Africa The British had to fight an established Zulu nation, along with Boer settlers. Because they wanted the riches of South African mines. It is a matter of perspective of where the British (and other colonial powers) were on how they treated the indiginous population. They were simply malevolent in some places and benign in others.

[Kyoto]

Originally posted by Archi
Compare the North American frontier of the 19th Century. The US had to have several Cavalry divisions to supress the Native Americans in the west. The British had 50 RCMP's to patrol the whole of western Canada (the Sioux chief Sitting Bull sought refuge in Canada and became good friends with the RCMP's stationed there). This was because the redcoats dispensed justice and werent bought off by land speculators like the Indian affairs managers in the US. On the other hand in South Africa The British had to fight an established Zulu nation, along with Boer settlers. Because they wanted the riches of South African mines. It is a matter of perspective of where the British (and other colonial powers) were on how they treated the indiginous population. They were simply malevolent in some places and benign in others.

Quite right archi, although i would put it down to different people. In S.A. that f*ckwit Kitchener was in charge. Just about everything that was wrong with British Foregein policy in the late 19th early 20th centuries derives from this retard.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Perle
Its a shame that you would spoil your very good posts with a very blunt and untactfull statement like this.
you are belittling colonialism by indirectly comparing it to disco in 1974.

Actually, I thought I was belittling Disco by comparing it to colonialism.

Frankly, I saw nothing overly blunt and untactful about my list of examples, they are all situations which were the norm and the standard at their period of history, but are now looked upon with the disdain of the modern viewpoint.

I also find it very peculiar that you did not answer this:

Not really odd, I just did not find it to be terribly relevant. Yes, once the diseases had run their course and annihilated the native populations, in subsequent years I have read of isolated instances of things like this happening. They were not the actions of a nation, or a government, or even of the British, the only instances I have ever heard of this were by the Spanish in what is now Mexico. Even more amusing, these tactics met with no effect whatsoever, as since the disease had run its course, the natives had already been exposed, and no more harm was done. (Small pox is like Chicken pox, you can only ever get it once)

So what? If this were the actions of a state, rather than some ignorant would be farmers you might have a point. Even if it was, is it different from the French catapulting plague ridden cattle into a city to spread disease, or putting corpses of plague victims in enemy wells?

The disease was natural, and it killed the North and South American natives long before any of them had even met many whites.

All of this is a total aside, yes the biological holocaust of Small pox and Typhus was terrible, but it was neither a result of colonialism nor the fault of the British. French and Spanish settlers were there in equal if not greater numbers for years. Furthermore, you do yourself and the temporal period a disservice by examining it entirely through an anachronistic viewpoint.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Vermillion
If your argument is against the evils of the 16th through 19th century worldwide development of colonial rule, then fine, argue away. If it is against the British in particular, then you have lost before you started. Hell, the British did not even invent Colonial rule, they learned from the Spanish, the Portuguese and the Dutch, all of which were far crueller to local populations.

Yet again, I find this line of argument rather odd. Indeed, I must remember it for my inevitable court defence.

When the prosecution turn to me and accuse me of impropetiary actions with a girl who was clearly fourteen years old, I shall leap to a defence of :
- There are other people in the world who have behaved in a similar fashion.
- Some of these people have, in fact, behaved worse than I did. Some of them for example have been involved in murders, rapes, etc.
- Some of these people have, in the past, done it more than once.

I shall then launch into a detailed discussion of how the Nazi horrors were clearly worse than my indiscretion (in accordance to Godwin's Law as previously mentioned) and how, in-fact, I am not worse than Hitler.

Do you think it'd get me off?

[MrL_JaKiri]

No, for two reasons.

One, we're talking social forces rather than individuals.

Two, you'd still be wrong by the standards of the time; if everyone else was having sex with 14 year old girls and you didn't, then that would be a valid comparison.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
<snip>

Relativism is bankrupt.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Relativism is bankrupt.

I heard that AOL TimeWarner bought it out.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
[b]Yet again, I find this line of argument rather odd. Indeed, I must remember it for my inevitable court defence.

No, but then again as you well know it is an absurd example. Considering it is against both the laws and morals of the time, I would say that it hardly stands as any kind of comparason. The statement that Hitler was worse it a silly red herring, and you know it.

A better comparason is if you sleep with a consenting 24 year old girl who is your girlfriend in the privacy of your own home. Of course, what you do not know is that in 200 years that act will become illegal. But right now it is completely within the rules and norms of society.

Now, would someone 200 years in this hypothetical future be right to call you a monster because you broke a future law of a different culture you had no knowledge of whatsoever, even though in the present it is a legal, ethical and moral norm of society?

Thats what we are talking about.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Thats what we are talking about.

Killing people, enslaving them, that kind of thing - that's wrong and always has been wrong. The fact that some people temporarily overlooked this is completley irrelevent to my mind.

Consensual relationships between adults have always been right. The fact some people overlooked this...etc.

Yes, obviously the British (or Spanish, or whomever) didn't go round thinking "HAHAHA - let's go round doing evil!" - people don't do that, aside from a few marginal figures from history who probably had mental health issues. Even where people do start off doing something they think is wrong they will generally rationalise (e.g. "Well, this company makes so much money, it's OK to steal from them" to "Well, black people don't feel in the same way we do, so it's OK to enslave them")

So therefore, if we are taking the individuals motives as a guide to their actions we're led with a dead end (to my mind). So what are we left with? The ethical norms of society? I'm not even sure how we'd measure this. With something like the Trans-Atlantic slave trade only a tiny proportion of Europeans were involved, and it's not like we can definitely say how most Europeans felt as they weren't consulted (and a good proportion wouldn't have even been aware of how the Africans were treated anyway). So what are we saying? The rich and the powerful at the time thought it was OK? Well obviously they bloody did, they were the ones doing it...

The only way we can measure is against either (a) our relative moral opinion now - e.g. slavery and killing is generally wrong or (b) a quasi-objective idea based on the universals of the enlightenment.

Relativism just leads us into a thick meaningless swamp as far as I'm concerned. How can we even begin to compare the Spnaish and English atrocities (as you sort of did earlier)? Surely both were just doing stuff which they thought was OK at the time?

Although I was being facetious with my court example, it has a relevence. If this thread has become an indictment of various criminal empires, I don't see the relevance of saying one is worse than the other.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Killing people, enslaving them, that kind of thing - that's wrong and always has been wrong. The fact that some people temporarily overlooked this is completley irrelevent to my mind.

Consensual relationships between adults have always been right. The fact some people overlooked this...etc.

I mean no offense by this, but if what we are arguing is what is "in your mind" then this is the epitome of a pointless argument. However, the fact that you believe it does not make it so. Temprarily overlooked this? Humanity has had about 5000 years of embracing slavery in one form or another, and about 200 years of denying it.

The fact that we now believe something does not make alternative beliefs in human history wrong. What is wrong with the concept of slavery as practiced by the Greeks or the Romans, or the Sumerians? It was necessary and universally accepted at the time .

Not only was it universal, but there existed no frame of context to even think about the kind of emancipation you speak of. Even slaves did not believe the institution of slavery should be abolished. Telling them that slavery is wrong is like telling a blind man he sees in colour. Not only are you wrong, but they have no context to even understand your theories.

Relativism can be overdone, absolutely, but where it breaks down in in modern cultural relativism, comparing cultures at the same period in time. In terms of historical viewpoint, relativism is essential, and a critical part to understanding how ancient societies worked. Dismissing their culture and las because it does not gree with what you currently believe in 2003 is simply historical revisionism.

Although I was being facetious with my court example, it has a relevence. If this thread has become an indictment of various criminal empires, I don't see the relevance of saying one is worse than the other.

Not at all. Your example was of an act which was wrong, by the morals, laws and standards of the time, and you treid to justify it by saying others were worse.

I am referring to cultural practice which is universally accepted, and to which any other way is unknown. Fo them to think in 2003 terms would be impossible. You may not [b] approve[/] but that has no effect on wheither it was right or wrong at the time.

This is not modern cultural relativism, which I admit is a very sticky issue, this is historical cultural relativism, which is essential for any study of history.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Vermillion
[b]The fact that we now believe something does not make alternative beliefs in human history wrong. What is wrong with the concept of slavery as practiced by the Greeks or the Romans, or the Sumerians? It was necessary and universally accepted at the time.

Relativism has it's place in history because morality has no real place. When we study (say) the Spartans we don't bother condeming their inhumanity every second line because we are (probably) trying to produce an objective account of their actions, beliefs, culture, etc...

What this thread is (or at least, has become) is a discussion of the evils of an empire and comparisons between empires (both through history and in a specific time period). As such, how can we not put aside relativism?

Poster 1 : "Hey guys, I think those Brits were pretty evil."
Poster 2 : "No, they were doing what they thought were right."
Poster 2 : "Also, the Spanish were much worse."
Poster 1 : "Much worse at what? Doing what they thought was right?"

The discussion makes no sense. Also, I'm not sure I quite understand what you are defining as "standards of the time"? Presumably the British were OK in conducting slavery as most of the other Western powers thought it was OK, right? Or most of the rest of the world basically, yes?

But consequently, the NAZI's are clearly "worse" because they were conducting a process of genocide at a time when the majority of the world thought that it was wrong...correct? So, what is this, a vote? Presumably in a vote today, most of the worlds population would probably be vaguely against women's rights (in a general sense perhaps). So therefore, the western liberal elite are wrong? How does this prevailing attitude of the time thing work?

To reitirate : Slavery has always been wrong. Yes, slavery has been a major component in human history to the point where even thinkers like Aristotle could not really begin to imagine a society without it. So what? This is not historical revisionism, nor is it getting morally outraged. It's trying to establish a structure for comparing one empire to another (which, btw, I'm rejecting).

There may have been five thousand years of slavery, but there has also been five thousand years of slave revolts.

[JonnyBGood]

I don't get this thread. Does anyone know what exactly is being argued here?

[Dante Hicks]

As always we've drifted from :

Braveheart is rubbish / Why are the English the baddies

to

Why the English were baddies

to

Why the English were a little bit bad, but the Soviets were worse

to

Why the Soviets were bad but the English were worse

to

some other stuff I may have missed

to

Historical Relativism vs Historical Materialism vs Absolutist Universal Morality

Possibly.

[Nusselt]

jeez dudes the movie finished days ago

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Historical Relativism vs Historical Materialism vs Absolutist Universal Morality

I'll nominate a fourth in the shape of subjective post-modernist morality. Which incidentally means the less I explain it the more right it is as a theory.

[Nusselt]

im not a clever person like all you clever intellectual brainheads so ill just stick in my 1ps worth of stateschooledleftat16withnoGCSEs knowledge.


The British Empire. Most people were glad to see the back of us. The end.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
but even then we waged war on the Irish Catholics until 1994.

I was just reading through this thread in an attempt to find some logical cohesion and I saw this. I'm utterly bewildered about how the British empire managed to wage war on me and my family for a couple of decades without any of us noticing.

[Tzencath]

the british empire made the world what it is today, without it the technologies of the industrial revolution would not exist in most of the world, india would still be a nation of elephant riding warriors, half the africas would still be in villiage wars and the australasias would be just a place with jumping things.

the empire brought the world into the new age, granted the examples above are a bit extreme, but to an extent they're true.

you find me one place in the world where an industrial revolution similar to the one in britain took place without the empire having anything to do with it, then look at the times it happened with our assistance...

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
I was just reading through this thread in an attempt to find some logical cohesion and I saw this. I'm utterly bewildered about how the British empire managed to wage war on me and my family for a couple of decades without any of us noticing.

I noted this earlier when I was tearing that particular reply apart. It seemed 'odd'. (That's a uncharacteristically charitable comment.)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Tzencath
half the africas would still be in villiage wars and the australasias would be just a place with jumping things.

Two points :

Are you trying to take the credit for how great Africa currently is?

Are you aware there were life-forms in Australia other than Kangaroo's? I once heard a rumour there was some black people living there, but my daddy told me they were just pretending to get the white man's money through welfare.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
I noted this earlier when I was tearing that particular reply apart. It seemed 'odd'. (That's a uncharacteristically charitable comment.)

To be honest I doubt he's entirely compus mentis. There seem to be a fair few wild accusations thrown in for good measure in his posts.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
I was just reading through this thread in an attempt to find some logical cohesion and I saw this. I'm utterly bewildered about how the British empire managed to wage war on me and my family for a couple of decades without any of us noticing.

Do you live in Northern Ireland?

[Tzencath]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Two points :

Are you trying to take the credit for how great Africa currently is?

Are you aware there were life-forms in Australia other than Kangaroo's? I once heard a rumour there was some black people living there, but my daddy told me they were just pretending to get the white man's money through welfare.

i'm saying that the africas wouldn't have that much hi-technology, i'm not saying anything about the domestic situations at the moment.

read the rest of the post foo' "granted the examples above are a bit extreme".

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Tzencath
i'm saying that the africas wouldn't have that much hi-technology,

Are you talking about technology or industry?

Anyway, in either case, Africa could have benefitted much more through peaceful investment and growth than military domination, which was designed to unfairly weight the scales towards robbing the occupied areas than it was to building them up.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Do you live in Northern Ireland?

No, that's why I included my family in there. My grandfather lived there for most of his life and my mother for the first part of hers.










PS He said irish catholics. As far as I'm aware that usually means catholics who are Irish.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Tzencath
read the rest of the post foo' "granted the examples above are a bit extreme".

I read the entire post.

Now, if you look at Hong Kong, that's an extreme example. It's gone from moderately important port to international finance centre with mega-amounts of high tech.

Looking at Africa as an example isn't "extreme". It just doesn't work.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
No, that's why I included my family in there. My grandfather lived there for most of his life and my mother for the first part of hers.

I would think saying "waging a war" doesn't literally mean against every single person.

Not that I'd use such terms, but bleh...

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
To reitirate : Slavery has always been wrong. Yes, slavery has been a major component in human history to the point where even thinkers like Aristotle could not really begin to imagine a society without it.

Again, I go back to saying that your argument is:

"I believe stuff, anything against that stuff throughout history, regardless of society, culture or context, is wrong according to what I believe."

That is simply tautological, and mistaken.

Slavery was not always wrong. Slavery is now wrong.

Yes there have been slave revolts, but we many examples of slaves, while unhappy with their particular lot, do not call for abolition or anything of the kind. There have been lower-class revolts as well, do you believe having a lower class is wrong?

Do you genuinely believe that your opinions right NOW are the absolute truth, and that any changes or differences in the views and opinions of society, in the past or the future are just wrong?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Slavery was not always wrong. Slavery is now wrong.

When did it become wrong? And why? If your argument was "it was once economically viable, now it's not" then that's fine, but societies could have existed (certain in the 16th Century onwards) without slavery.

Yes there have been slave revolts, but we many examples of slaves, while unhappy with their particular lot, do not call for abolition or anything of the kind. There have been lower-class revolts as well, do you believe having a lower class is wrong?

Yes, I do believe having a lower class is "wrong" (i.e. non desirable). Societies which do not have a lower class are better than those that do (in general, not that any of the former exist of course). The fact slaves don't call for an end to slavery is entirely unsurprising.

Do you genuinely believe that your opinions right NOW are the absolute truth, and that any changes or differences in the views and opinions of society, in the past or the future are just wrong?

There is no such thing as absolute morality. Morals are based on certain things - the economics, political system of a society but primarily the human condition (basically biology).

Liberty, Equality and Fraternity will always be ideals to strive towards - always that is unless the nature of humanity changes to the point where freedom (for instance) is no longer desirable because We Are Borg.

Everything else is details basically. Plenty of my opinions are subjective (e.g. "Avril Lavigne rocks incely") and therefore not right or wrong (in the strict sense). A lot of opinions (thoughts, etc) I hold will be proved wrong, or become wrong overtime due to changes in the economy & society. So for example on a very banal political point, I currently oppose "the right to buy" (Tory scheme to allow government tenants to purchase their homes) due to various reasons. In another society (or if developments took place which changed the supply/demand of housing in the UK) I might approve of it. It really depends.

However, freedom will never be proved wrong. Of course, it might go out of fashion and be shunned by the majority of the great and the good (or the majority of everyone). That's fine, since most things I believe are minority views anyway. But, as stated, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity will always something worth striving towards.

Slavery is pretty much automatically anti-Freedom (in every application found thus far) and thus is wrong. In an alien culture far away where two races live in bizarre symbiosis slavery might be right.

But not with humanity. Not yet at least.

[queball]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Slavery is pretty much automatically anti-Freedom (in every application found thus far) and thus is wrong. In an alien culture far away where two races live in bizarre symbiosis slavery might be right.

But not with humanity. Not yet at least.

How could it be economically viable but anti-freedom?
If a man with two slaves can do more than three free men, then there is more freedom with slavery than without. Whether slavery is right or wrong is for public opinion, economics, politics, etc, to decide.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by queball
If a man with two slaves can do more than three free men, then there is more freedom with slavery than without.

Please tell me you're trolling.

[W]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Again, I go back to saying that your argument is:

"I believe stuff, anything against that stuff throughout history, regardless of society, culture or context, is wrong according to what I believe."

That is simply tautological, and mistaken.

Slavery was not always wrong. Slavery is now wrong.

Yes there have been slave revolts, but we many examples of slaves, while unhappy with their particular lot, do not call for abolition or anything of the kind. There have been lower-class revolts as well, do you believe having a lower class is wrong?

Do you genuinely believe that your opinions right NOW are the absolute truth, and that any changes or differences in the views and opinions of society, in the past or the future are just wrong?

This is silly to the extreme. If slavery is or is not wrong, then that is the state it has always been in. As far as I'm concerned, it's the later. What's more correct is that Slavery was not always regarded as wrong by non-slaves, now it is.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by W
This is silly to the extreme. If slavery is or is not wrong, then that is the state it has always been in. As far as I'm concerned, it's the later.

Oh Come on... Morality is entirely a human construct, something is wrong because we decide it is. We can do that certainly, but we cannot decide right or wrong retroactively.

There is no universal morality, unless you believe in God defining morals. That too is odd, as God says slavery is OK in the Old testament, so is God wrong?

(Tell you what people, for the sake of this argument, lets leave theology out of it)

Before life developed on the planet, slavery was not wrong, any more than it was wrong to water your plants during the day or cross against the light. Morality is entirely a human construct. Society today says slavery is wrong. I agree wholeheartedly. But that does not allow us to make retroactive judgements on cultures of the past when their world was so far different from our they might as well have been living on mars.

The best you can do is say: "By 2003 standards, many of the laws, policies and cultural practices of the ancient rolams were morally questionable". That is a perfectly reasonable statement.

Saying that the romans were morally wrong in toto is silly and unrealistic. Not only is morality a human construct, but it is a changing human construct. I guarentee you that in 500 years the laws and morals of society will have changed enormously, and will they have the right to judge our culure now as utterly wrong? If they decide that people under 25 should not be allowed to have kids, or that sex with animals is perfectly acceptable (Dont say these are slly examples, our morals have changed more than that in the LAST 500 years) then do these phantom people of the future have the right to declare our society morally bankrupt based on laws they created for their reasons we have no knowledge of?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Vermillion
The best you can do is say: "By 2003 standards, many of the laws, policies and cultural practices of the ancient rolams were morally questionable". That is a perfectly reasonable statement.

Well, I think I made that point previously. When judging previous cultures (i.e. what this thread started with) we have to use our own standards to judge them. Otherwise, we can't make any judgements at all. Which is fine of course, and perhaps beneficial from a history perspective...

If they decide that people under 25 should not be allowed to have kids, or that sex with animals is perfectly acceptable

Having sex with animals while being repulsive, I have no moral objections to - in the same way I find hip-hop awful beyond belief but I don't think it violates any kind of fundamental moral premise. Restricting people's choice in terms of their own personal body is wrong though, yes. It may become taboo (or frowned upon) to have kids under 25 (much like it is to have kids now over 40) but it wil never become wrong. So sure, one day having sex with animals might one day become acceptable (perhaps even "cool") but that no-way contradicts my main points.

Yes, obviously values change (as I've said) but the scope of changes is fairly limited. To say that previous cultures may as well have been living on Mars is nonsense - we wouldn't be able to comprehend an alien lifeforms motivation at all, whereas the vast vast majority of human history makes sense (inside it's own logic). If we look at the Old Testament we might be apalled by some of the barbarism, but things like "Thou Shall Not Kill" or steal or whatever makes perfect sense today with no realistic chance of being overthrown (and please no IP trolls post here...)

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Vermillion

This is not modern cultural relativism, which I admit is a very sticky issue, this is historical cultural relativism, which is essential for any study of history.

Please explain the difference.