Nope, The biggest embarrassment is the people that believe all the lies surrounding brexit and Trump.
![]()
Nope, The biggest embarrassment is the people that believe all the lies surrounding brexit and Trump.
![]()
That fucked him up.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Laava again.
Don't you look at my accountant.
He's the only one I've got.
That's a weeeeeee bit of a stretch - Ingesting flesh/bone etc. for Medicinal purposes from someone who you didn't actively kill is different from ritualistically killing someone to eat them.
Absolutely we were and we did profit from it Just as every other group/Tribe/Family/collective/community/village/town/city/nation/country/continent/Empire engaged in the practice of Human Slavery and profited from it (whether it be a financial profit, or an increase in Mana or similar 'prestige' concept).
In some ways it is and in some it isn't.
It was a combination of British Legal Principles, Enlightenment values, and Military Might that ended Slavery - A Combination that was so unique in history that is ended a Concept that was over 10,000 years old.
The point I'm making is that sure - the British did some pretty shitty things, and yes they fucked over a lot of people - no one is saying this isn't true. The flipside is that those people that they fucked over, in almost every setting were merrily fucking each other over (often with much more grisly ends for the loosers) well before the British arrived, and sometimes afterwards.
It hardly seems fair to complain about how bad the British where when you read (for example) of what the Maori did in the Chatham Islands, and more specifically the Justification of what they had done, since it was in accordance with their customs.
At worst (for example what was done in Australia to the Aboriginals) was no better or worse than what inter-tribal conflict would have produced.
What the British also did was to end a number of 'cultural practices' that both you and I would agree were abhorrent (Sati springs to mine - you build your pyre and I shall build my gallows and let us all act according to our customs), We also setup most of our former colonies as prosperous Nations, We granted them independence, in most cases without shots needing to be fired - we are on pretty good relations with all of our former colonies - even the ones we ended on bad terms with. We've given them a Legal and Political system that (for all it's faults and failings) is still the most fair process of running a country yet produced.
And this leads to the question: For all the Injustices (perceived or otherwise) are you better off than you would be if you still lived a Tribal existence? The question however is rhetorical - since almost no-one goes back to live a Tribal existence.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Ok the reason I chimed up is the more I learn about some of the political intrusions the Brits and the Mercans have performed trying to either stabilise or more usually exploit an area the ongoing issues it causes has effects for generations.
I mean the middle east was always unstable, but heck, let's carve out a bit of area for the Jews and see what happens. Unintended consequence of WW2 clean up.
Now not to be too hypocritical if I traced my ancestors back beyond these shores they would lead to most corners of Britain.
To what point are we responsible for our Fathers actions? Now our Sons ; we can possibly be apportioned questions of negligence. But we can't alter what our Fathers have done.
This is why nationalism is a bit of a crock.
Don't you look at my accountant.
He's the only one I've got.
Definitely there are ongoing and unintended consequences, The 3rd line however is the real 'gotcha' - Most of the places that Britain were either unstable or had some very unsavory practices. Things that the people who often decry 'colonialism' would no doubt find abhorrent (Sati, FGM etc.).
When people critique what Britain did (and as I've said many times and at length - there is lots to criticize) they often paint a distorted picture that everything was perfect before the evil British came along.
IMO - We should look at what our forefathers did, look at their reasoning, try to work out what their failings were and how might we better conduct ourselves to avoid those failings, whilst increasing the good that we do.
As for the last line - depends on what you mean by Nationalism - Do you support living in a Nation state, free from outside interference where Political power is granted by the Citizenry, whilst upholding certain values?
If yes - then you are a Nationalist to a degree. For example - do you consider yourself a New Zealander? That believes in 'a fair go'? That's what a Nationalist would say, that we as New Zealanders have a number of shared values (and sure, we could argue what they are) and that overall adherence to those values are part of who we are and are on balance a good thing and so should be perpetuated.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Ok maybe that doesn't merit over analysis, it was just a superficial jab at saying I dunno, We come from the best country in the world; reason, I come from there.![]()
But if everyone says that clearly its not true and causes people to treat other nations with contempt.
Heck look at me coming over all hippy. Fuck I'll be going vegan next. . . . Actually now I think of it, most of my meals are at least partially vegan. . . .
And the cutlery and plates aren't made of meat. I guess I don't eat those. But my food touches them and sometimes they go in my mouth like the fork. Has to count for something.
Don't you look at my accountant.
He's the only one I've got.
What's with all the 'we' shit? I was born in England but I am as much responsible for any of the shit that happened generations ago as any descendent of the people on the first boats from the UK that came here. Less so in fact given what those people did to the locals, here and elsewhere.
This conversation started when you appeared to claim some sort of moral high ground for the English - my point is that no culture, no society, no civilization, has any claim to any sort of moral high ground - we are all human beings, descendants of nasty and brutal people - if we look at it from the Survival of the Fittest, then we are the survivors of the fittest - those who were nasty and brutal enough to come out on top - our ancestors. If they had not come out on top they would not have descendants - and those descendants are us.
The history of the world is of people moving around the world , encountering other people - and interacting with them - some times positive interactions, sometimes negative interactions.
A speculative question - and not easy to answer. We still have a tribal existence - it is one in the contemporary world, not the old world.
And this leads to the question: For all the Injustices (perceived or otherwise) are you better off than you would be if you still lived a Tribal existence? The question however is rhetorical - since almost no-one goes back to live a Tribal existence.
There are still people in the Amazon forest who have refused contact and still live int he old way. Are they better off? They would probably say yes, but that really depends on what values you apply to judge "better off". Māori here NEVER got to make the choice. Yes, we may say we are better off - but are we applying Western values, that we have learnt, to answer that question?
Modern life comes with all sorts of stresses and metabolic conditions, such as some cancers, food allergies, heart attacks, which are directly attributable to stress and modern life. When you look at those, and ask if we are truly happy (many people would say we are not) can we really say that we are better off?
If we look worldwide the distribution of knowledge is pretty even - since the colonizing period there have been HUGE advances in all fields - and the world's people are better off for that, especially in medicine. The world has shared in that (apart from the self-isolating Amazon tribes).
The history of the world is what it is ...
As well, major advances in health and life expectancy are a result of the distribution of food around the world. When Cook arrived here the life expectancy of people in France was 28 years. Exactly the same as for Māori - except Māori were probably better fed (in the words of Anne Salmond.) Malnutrition was a major cause of that low life expectancy.
What changes was the European diet (and subsequently diets around the world).
Positive additions to diet include; Potatoes, tomatoes and squash (from the Americas - the Irish Potato famine was not possible until the Europeans discovered the Americas and brought back potatoes) Fruit - such things as oranges from China. Pasta from China (noodles). The much vaunted Italian cuisine is not possible without tomatoes from the Americas and Pasta from China.
These are a few examples. There's a long list of foods that we eat today that come from non-European sources, sources which Europe got from the places it colonized. This redistribution of food accounts for massive changes in our health and life span.
So there has been a massive contribution in this area from the colonized people - a contribution that largely goes unnoticed.
This is short - I could go on - but I'll leave it to you to come back again ..
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Those of us alive today are NOT responsible for the past ...
We are only the products of the past ..
To understand today we need to understand the past ... (how we got to where we are)
We ARE responsible for what happens NOW and into the future ... if we understand the past then we can make a better today and a better future ..
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
I was thinking about life expectancy , and a simple average is misleading. Infant mortality was so high that it seriously skews the numbers. Also people tended to get pulled into being killed.
So a better measurement would be average age of those who made it past childhood and those not killed in wars. Then compared.
Don't you look at my accountant.
He's the only one I've got.
I agree ... simple life expectancy is a blunt instrument .. does not invalidate my point - Europe benefited hugely (in many areas) from the colonization of much of the world.
However, the same thing applies - diet has a lot to do with infant mortality ..
In terms of overall life expectancy, so does diseases, wars, etc etc .. and pre-mid 20th Century had all of those ..
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
This is probably the fundamental disagreement - you are advancing a Moral Relativism argument. I reject that. There are certain things that I absolutely claim the moral high ground on - The ending of Slavery, The ending of Sati (Wife Burning), the Ending of FGM, The ending of HeadHunting etc. These are all things that are a moral absolute.
If you disagree, then by all means - but in order to do so, you have to provide an argument as to why those things can be Moral. I dare you to try it.
We can certainly argue about the Means that things were done, we can argue as to what things fall under the auspices of Moral Absolutes and what things don't, We can argue as to whether or not some things went too far (and I'll concede that in almost all instances they probably did)
To sum up - Regardless of what your Culture says, if you think burning someone alive because their spouse died is okay or even Moral, I've got news for you.
Fair point, however most of the Tribal allegiances are voluntary, temporary and sometimes intersecting - for example, someone from Auckland and Wellington join the Tribe of the Blues and Hurricanes for a Super Rugby match and are in opposition to each other, but those same two people join the Tribe of the All Blacks for a Test Match.
IMO - this transient and non-permanent nature is what helps keep our predilection for tribal warfare at bay.
Absolutely, there are a few groups of people that still do, and more power to them.
Many people might say we aren't better off, but how many of them actually act in accordance with what they say? And this is the Crux of my Argument. Regardless of what people say, it's their actions that speak loudest - very few people who have lived under the Western lifestyle (with all it's perks and pitfalls) choose to go back to the aformentioned amazonian lifestyle? There are some people in NZ who choose to live completely off-grid, and again - more power to them, I have the utmost respect for them.
The others, who say a lot and do nothing, however - I have no respect for. Just like all the Celebrities that said they would move to Canada if Trump won - not a single one has moved.
Definitely agreed.
I think there's some misunderstanding here - I've never made the claim that there wasn't good things, ideas, items that were brought back from the Colonies - Hell, I'm British - our National dish is now a Curry! The Maori invented Trench warfare, I've got fond memories of the Divali festival etc.
Linking back to my part about Moral Relativism, that's the thing that is wonderful (IMO) about the British Empire - that for all it's faults, We stopped a number of things that are objectively repugnant, but for everything else that didn't violate those principles, we tended to leave it be (with varying degrees, granted) and so moving forward, we have all of the best, positive bits of all the cultures we've interacted with throughout the world, without any of the bad bits.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
David Starkey on Brexit, The history of Democracy in the UK and other bits and pieces.
David is on FIRE.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks