But I am NOT perfectly and rigorously consistent in my objection to statues. What do you think I am? An omni-sentient computer? As a white Brit living in Britain I am, I confess, more likely to have an objection to a statue of a white British racist situated in Britain (e.g. the Colston one on Bristol) than to a statute of "the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu" located in wherever he hails from (or even here for that matter).
God, I can't believe how I dumb down to humour people sometimes.
Now then, your turn -
How the devil can you justify saying that the British Empire was NOT - along with the various other things it was - a notable example of racist colonialism?
I'm glad we've established the selectivity of your indignation.
On your question: It's complicated, very complicated, but to answer your specific question:
Well, the 'colonialism' bit is tautological, so I'll ignore that, other than to point out that it has now become a loaded word, which it wasn't at the time.
'Notable' - yes, I'll grant that the British Empire was notable, indeed extraordinary in many ways, not only in its extent, but also in that it was built with remarkably little military power. Britain had a hugely powerful navy, but never a huge army, yet ended up ruling half the world - that really is notable, and a key fact you need to keep firmly in view. It was also notable in exporting values such as human rights, the rule of law, and democracy across the world - flawed in many respects of course, but the flaws are less remarkable than the way it spread those values.
What it wasn't was an 'example of racist colonialism'. That is an absurd misrepresentation, both in what it says and more importantly in what it doesn't say. Firstly, it was primarily a trading empire. Secondly the British were so successful -more so than other European powers - partly because they took the trouble understand the cultures of the people they were trading with, and later ruling. All those experts in Arabic and Sanskrit weren't just 'racist colonisers', they were deeply respectful of other cultures - see Kipling for another (much unfairly maligned) example. Thirdly you can't ignore the missionaries. We would denigrate or laugh at them now, but in their worldview they were altruistic, saving the souls of those unfortunate people who had been denied the benefits of a proper Christian upbringing. 'Racism' really didn't come in to it except as an afterthought, and I'm not even sure that the word makes much sense in the context of the times.
Will that do as an answer?
You're working hard (aka waffling) to deflect and obscure. I guess I know why.
It's like this -
The Empire was big and lasted a long time and thus was decidedly notable. The essence of Empire was the colonization of other countries and other peoples. The enterprise was undeniably fueled by a sense of white supremacy - which is racism. This racism was in turn validated and cemented in the consciousness of both exploited and exploiter by the fact of the colonization.
The British Empire was a notable example of racist colonialism.
In italics since now demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt. Although one really should not have to.
It has not been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt.
You continuously asserting this ever more vigorously doesn't make it more convincing or true.
It's all very well Johnson standing up and saying that "people must follow the rules or we will tighten them", but it begs the question as to how it will be judged if people are following the rules. What are they expecting to happen to case numbers? Some people won't follow the rules regardless of what they are so simply tightening them in response won't have much effect.
But equally without setting any objectives, projected outcomes for avoidance of further tightening, how will this be assessed. Case numbers are inevitably going to continue to rise, but this doesn't mean that they will necessarily rise dangerously. And a large amount of the vulnerable population are protecting themselves. If in two weeks time cases have risen to 12,000 will that be evidence that people aren't "following the rules"? What if they rise to 12,000 in 6 weeks? Or 10 weeks?
There have to be some objectives. Dare i say it some forecasts...
There will be but they won't be in the public domain. But it won't be so much the case numbers themselves that are the critical factor (how trustworthy they are as a metric in isolation is very dubious) but them combined with a great many other factors all together - like the ONS survey, the estimate R rate, the test positivity rate and more.
Why does this need to be secret information? Surely it's helpful for public buy in if they can be treated like adults and be given some of the information about how things are progressing? As it is everything's likely to be judged (by the public) against that ridiculous graph yesterday.
The depressing thing about it all is that the unlocking from the first time round wasn't really finished even as it was, plenty of stuff hadn't even got back to any sort of normal before today, and it won't now for possibly more than 6 more months.
Tried to see what the options were like to go for a swim, half the swimming pools even vaguely near me still not open and the other half only open for a short handful of hours in the day, that is if you can get one of the slots you have to pre-book in advance. Also tried to get a dental checkup, told by my practice not on the NHS but they'll happily do it if I stump 60 quid for a private appointment. Just to do a checkup, not even any specific dental work. I daresay in a year's time we might have solved covid but with a major dental work backlog.
Feel sorry for the other stuff that hadn't even reopened yet before today.
It's all very well Johnson standing up and saying that "people must follow the rules or we will tighten them", but it begs the question as to how it will be judged if people are following the rules. What are they expecting to happen to case numbers? Some people won't follow the rules regardless of what they are so simply tightening them in response won't have much effect.
But equally without setting any objectives, projected outcomes for avoidance of further tightening, how will this be assessed. Case numbers are inevitably going to continue to rise, but this doesn't mean that they will necessarily rise dangerously. And a large amount of the vulnerable population are protecting themselves. If in two weeks time cases have risen to 12,000 will that be evidence that people aren't "following the rules"? What if they rise to 12,000 in 6 weeks? Or 10 weeks?
There have to be some objectives. Dare i say it some forecasts...
There will be but they won't be in the public domain. But it won't be so much the case numbers themselves that are the critical factor (how trustworthy they are as a metric in isolation is very dubious) but them combined with a great many other factors all together - like the ONS survey, the estimate R rate, the test positivity rate and more.
Why does this need to be secret information? Surely it's helpful for public buy in if they can be treated like adults and be given some of the information about how things are progressing?
For the reason I said, there won't be a clear threshold you need to take it all together.
Lets say the case figure has risen to 12,000 in 2 weeks but in that time the positivity rate has fallen to 0.8% and the ONS is estimating R around 1 etc . . . or in 2 weeks the case figure is 12,000 but in that time the positivity rate has increased to 2%, the R is estimated at 1.6 etc
Which 12,000 case scenario would you prefer? The cases in isolation only tell part of the story.
It's all very well Johnson standing up and saying that "people must follow the rules or we will tighten them", but it begs the question as to how it will be judged if people are following the rules. What are they expecting to happen to case numbers? Some people won't follow the rules regardless of what they are so simply tightening them in response won't have much effect.
But equally without setting any objectives, projected outcomes for avoidance of further tightening, how will this be assessed. Case numbers are inevitably going to continue to rise, but this doesn't mean that they will necessarily rise dangerously. And a large amount of the vulnerable population are protecting themselves. If in two weeks time cases have risen to 12,000 will that be evidence that people aren't "following the rules"? What if they rise to 12,000 in 6 weeks? Or 10 weeks?
There have to be some objectives. Dare i say it some forecasts...
I know I've banged on about this before, but were any aims outlined? He'd fail his Ofsted if they weren't put front and centre.
But I am NOT perfectly and rigorously consistent in my objection to statues. What do you think I am? An omni-sentient computer? As a white Brit living in Britain I am, I confess, more likely to have an objection to a statue of a white British racist situated in Britain (e.g. the Colston one on Bristol) than to a statute of "the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu" located in wherever he hails from (or even here for that matter).
God, I can't believe how I dumb down to humour people sometimes.
Now then, your turn -
How the devil can you justify saying that the British Empire was NOT - along with the various other things it was - a notable example of racist colonialism?
I'm glad we've established the selectivity of your indignation.
On your question: It's complicated, very complicated, but to answer your specific question:
Well, the 'colonialism' bit is tautological, so I'll ignore that, other than to point out that it has now become a loaded word, which it wasn't at the time.
'Notable' - yes, I'll grant that the British Empire was notable, indeed extraordinary in many ways, not only in its extent, but also in that it was built with remarkably little military power. Britain had a hugely powerful navy, but never a huge army, yet ended up ruling half the world - that really is notable, and a key fact you need to keep firmly in view. It was also notable in exporting values such as human rights, the rule of law, and democracy across the world - flawed in many respects of course, but the flaws are less remarkable than the way it spread those values.
What it wasn't was an 'example of racist colonialism'. That is an absurd misrepresentation, both in what it says and more importantly in what it doesn't say. Firstly, it was primarily a trading empire. Secondly the British were so successful -more so than other European powers - partly because they took the trouble understand the cultures of the people they were trading with, and later ruling. All those experts in Arabic and Sanskrit weren't just 'racist colonisers', they were deeply respectful of other cultures - see Kipling for another (much unfairly maligned) example. Thirdly you can't ignore the missionaries. We would denigrate or laugh at them now, but in their worldview they were altruistic, saving the souls of those unfortunate people who had been denied the benefits of a proper Christian upbringing. 'Racism' really didn't come in to it except as an afterthought, and I'm not even sure that the word makes much sense in the context of the times.
Will that do as an answer?
You're working hard (aka waffling) to deflect and obscure. I guess I know why.
It's like this -
The Empire was big and lasted a long time and thus was decidedly notable. The essence of Empire was the colonization of other countries and other peoples. The enterprise was undeniably fueled by a sense of white supremacy - which is racism. This racism was in turn validated and cemented in the consciousness of both exploited and exploiter by the fact of the colonization.
The British Empire was a notable example of racist colonialism.
In italics since now demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt. Although one really should not have to.
The British Empire was an empire, in other words. Everything you say is true, but it works equally well if you substitute Roman, Babylonian or Achaemenid for British. That's human nature for you.
Yep. Totally agree with that observation. It was one racist exploitative undertaking amongst many. But it was our racist exploitative undertaking. And it was relatively recent. This to me makes it of particular interest and relevance. Others prefer to re-classify it as something more benign than it objectively was. They use the man-of-the-world phrase "it's complicated" to seek to achieve this. I'm neither fooled nor impressed by such talk.
It's all very well Johnson standing up and saying that "people must follow the rules or we will tighten them", but it begs the question as to how it will be judged if people are following the rules. What are they expecting to happen to case numbers? Some people won't follow the rules regardless of what they are so simply tightening them in response won't have much effect.
But equally without setting any objectives, projected outcomes for avoidance of further tightening, how will this be assessed. Case numbers are inevitably going to continue to rise, but this doesn't mean that they will necessarily rise dangerously. And a large amount of the vulnerable population are protecting themselves. If in two weeks time cases have risen to 12,000 will that be evidence that people aren't "following the rules"? What if they rise to 12,000 in 6 weeks? Or 10 weeks?
There have to be some objectives. Dare i say it some forecasts...
I know I've banged on about this before, but were any aims outlined? He'd fail his Ofsted if they weren't put front and centre.
The aim that has been outlined is to curtail the rise in infections. That is getting the R down, same as was said earlier this year.
Obsessing over case numbers misses the fact they're not the issue.
But I am NOT perfectly and rigorously consistent in my objection to statues. What do you think I am? An omni-sentient computer? As a white Brit living in Britain I am, I confess, more likely to have an objection to a statue of a white British racist situated in Britain (e.g. the Colston one on Bristol) than to a statute of "the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu" located in wherever he hails from (or even here for that matter).
God, I can't believe how I dumb down to humour people sometimes.
Now then, your turn -
How the devil can you justify saying that the British Empire was NOT - along with the various other things it was - a notable example of racist colonialism?
I'm glad we've established the selectivity of your indignation.
On your question: It's complicated, very complicated, but to answer your specific question:
Well, the 'colonialism' bit is tautological, so I'll ignore that, other than to point out that it has now become a loaded word, which it wasn't at the time.
'Notable' - yes, I'll grant that the British Empire was notable, indeed extraordinary in many ways, not only in its extent, but also in that it was built with remarkably little military power. Britain had a hugely powerful navy, but never a huge army, yet ended up ruling half the world - that really is notable, and a key fact you need to keep firmly in view. It was also notable in exporting values such as human rights, the rule of law, and democracy across the world - flawed in many respects of course, but the flaws are less remarkable than the way it spread those values.
What it wasn't was an 'example of racist colonialism'. That is an absurd misrepresentation, both in what it says and more importantly in what it doesn't say. Firstly, it was primarily a trading empire. Secondly the British were so successful -more so than other European powers - partly because they took the trouble understand the cultures of the people they were trading with, and later ruling. All those experts in Arabic and Sanskrit weren't just 'racist colonisers', they were deeply respectful of other cultures - see Kipling for another (much unfairly maligned) example. Thirdly you can't ignore the missionaries. We would denigrate or laugh at them now, but in their worldview they were altruistic, saving the souls of those unfortunate people who had been denied the benefits of a proper Christian upbringing. 'Racism' really didn't come in to it except as an afterthought, and I'm not even sure that the word makes much sense in the context of the times.
Will that do as an answer?
You're working hard (aka waffling) to deflect and obscure. I guess I know why.
It's like this -
The Empire was big and lasted a long time and thus was decidedly notable. The essence of Empire was the colonization of other countries and other peoples. The enterprise was undeniably fueled by a sense of white supremacy - which is racism. This racism was in turn validated and cemented in the consciousness of both exploited and exploiter by the fact of the colonization.
The British Empire was a notable example of racist colonialism.
In italics since now demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt. Although one really should not have to.
The British Empire was an empire, in other words. Everything you say is true, but it works equally well if you substitute Roman, Babylonian or Achaemenid for British. That's human nature for you.
Only one of those empires was largely the product of that great achievement of western civilisation, the Enlightenment. It seems enlightenment was no great guarantee of better, improved empires.
It's all very well Johnson standing up and saying that "people must follow the rules or we will tighten them", but it begs the question as to how it will be judged if people are following the rules. What are they expecting to happen to case numbers? Some people won't follow the rules regardless of what they are so simply tightening them in response won't have much effect.
But equally without setting any objectives, projected outcomes for avoidance of further tightening, how will this be assessed. Case numbers are inevitably going to continue to rise, but this doesn't mean that they will necessarily rise dangerously. And a large amount of the vulnerable population are protecting themselves. If in two weeks time cases have risen to 12,000 will that be evidence that people aren't "following the rules"? What if they rise to 12,000 in 6 weeks? Or 10 weeks?
There have to be some objectives. Dare i say it some forecasts...
I know I've banged on about this before, but were any aims outlined? He'd fail his Ofsted if they weren't put front and centre.
The aim that has been outlined is to curtail the rise in infections. That is getting the R down, same as was said earlier this year.
Obsessing over case numbers misses the fact they're not the issue.
Fair enough. I didn't listen but chose meditation for the sake of my sanity instead. So it is a suppression strategy then.
It's all very well Johnson standing up and saying that "people must follow the rules or we will tighten them", but it begs the question as to how it will be judged if people are following the rules. What are they expecting to happen to case numbers? Some people won't follow the rules regardless of what they are so simply tightening them in response won't have much effect.
But equally without setting any objectives, projected outcomes for avoidance of further tightening, how will this be assessed. Case numbers are inevitably going to continue to rise, but this doesn't mean that they will necessarily rise dangerously. And a large amount of the vulnerable population are protecting themselves. If in two weeks time cases have risen to 12,000 will that be evidence that people aren't "following the rules"? What if they rise to 12,000 in 6 weeks? Or 10 weeks?
There have to be some objectives. Dare i say it some forecasts...
There will be but they won't be in the public domain. But it won't be so much the case numbers themselves that are the critical factor (how trustworthy they are as a metric in isolation is very dubious) but them combined with a great many other factors all together - like the ONS survey, the estimate R rate, the test positivity rate and more.
Why does this need to be secret information? Surely it's helpful for public buy in if they can be treated like adults and be given some of the information about how things are progressing?
For the reason I said, there won't be a clear threshold you need to take it all together.
Lets say the case figure has risen to 12,000 in 2 weeks but in that time the positivity rate has fallen to 0.8% and the ONS is estimating R around 1 etc . . . or in 2 weeks the case figure is 12,000 but in that time the positivity rate has increased to 2%, the R is estimated at 1.6 etc
Which 12,000 case scenario would you prefer? The cases in isolation only tell part of the story.
I'm not saying its simple. But what is the underlying strategy? The aims and objectives? Does it matter if case numbers continue to rise? Does it matter what the rate is? How important are levels of hospitalisations?
We don't need detailed numbers. But you may have confidence that Johnson isn't often acting on a whim. The papers are basically already saying that he has gone against CMO/CSO advice to produce a compromise within the cabinet. Measures have to be given some time to work. There is a bit of a supertanker effect.
But i suspect that for all the talk of "six months", there will be new measures announced within two weeks.
Labour should back removing the Triple Lock - but they won't because it's political suicide.
Pensioners should not be immune, they have been almost entirely protected from austerity whilst young people have been screwed.
Only 10% of pensioners went to university unlike the almost 50% who go now so tuition fees was never an issue for them as most of them never went anyway, plenty of pensioners also rely on social care from the council and most have paid into the system through NI all their lives.
Blair even won pensioners in 1997 so yes you are right it would not be sensible if Labour wants to win and certainly if it wants a chance to win big to scrap the triple lock
The British Empire as Noble Trading Endeavour is certainly a take.
It was Mercantilism writ large. Resources were extracted by force from the colonies. The colonies were prohibited from developing industries to produce finished goods instead forced to buy finished goods from Britain extracting even more wealth from them.
The irony of Tata buying up the ends of the British steel industry given the various prohibitions the British imposed on the industry in India when a colony is hard not to laugh at.
Labour should back removing the Triple Lock - but they won't because it's political suicide.
Pensioners should not be immune, they have been almost entirely protected from austerity whilst young people have been screwed.
Only 10% of pensioners went to university unlike the 40% who go now so tuition fees was never an issue for them as most of them never went anyway, plenty of pensioners also rely on social care from the council and most have paid into the system through NI all their lives
I pay in and get significantly less than they do and they've been protected since 2010 whilst my services have been slashed. Justify it? You can't.
Fair comment. But coming from such a progressive figure of the time the quote does illustrate how deeply embedded racism was in Britain not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, and thus how hopelessly naive or complacent it is to think that the legacy of this does not persist in us today.
In Britain as opposed to where?
Why is this your burning question on the topic?
Because you mentioned Britain specifically. If you had meant to say that racism (as we would now describe it) was universal - which have been true - why mention Britain? Are you trying to say there was something unusually reprehensible about your own country in this?
I know racism is near universal. Of course I do. But -
1. We were discussing a building named after a British racist in Britain. 2. The British Empire was a VERY notable example of racist colonialism. 3. I'm British. 4. This is Britain.
So it does not (to me) seem odd that I mentioned Britain. Should I put "but of course Britain did not have an exclusive on racism" in brackets after every reference to our historical racist crimes? Would that suffice?
1. He's not a "British racist" - he's a leading Scottish philosopher of the enlightenment who held views on that subject that were typical of the time 2. The "British Empire" was very complex and multifaceted, and mainly built around real-politick and trading interests, and the need to defend those interests - not racist ideology (our experiences of Nazi Germany in WWII and its pursuit of scientific racism have coloured our views in hindsight on this) 3. Yes, you are. 4. Yes, it is.
It's still unclear to me what good comes of this. I see no evidence our curriculum is "colonised" - we haven't taught kids to have pride in how much of the world is painted red since at least the 1960s - and my Oxford's Children's History volumes (published 1983 - which I checked to be sure yesterday) have lots of material on the slave trade and sugar plantations.
A better argument would be that the British Empire simply isn't prominent enough in today's history syllabus, which is true, but I'd be concerned that putting it back in again today couldn't be done without heavily politicising it - a true account would list its benefits, reforms and progress in liberal democracy *and* its crimes and exploitation, whilst putting both in the context of the times.
I think we both know that wouldn't happen.
He was both of those things - which was my exact point in an earlier post. That such an enlightened and progressive figure held such views emphasizes how deeply embedded racism was in our past and thus how naive or complacent it is to believe that its legacy is not still with us today and requiring attention.
And of course the Empire is a complex matter with many aspects worth studying and discussing. But so what? That is the case for most such things. History is nuanced and complicated. This is why it's interesting and important. But let's not pretend the British Empire was not, at heart, an exploitative undertaking, informed by a racist sense of the superiority of the white "us" over the various non-white others in faraway lands. It is perfectly possible to cope with complexity - and not make offensive comparisons of Empire with Nazi Germany - but at the same time see the wood from the trees.
Re, school curriculum, let's teach it this way. A fundamentally malign enterprise but not as malign in intent as many other similar undertakings, and although most of the benefits were for Britain and the British, there was some collateral benefit too for the peoples and nations colonized.
That's a non-sequitur. Just because it was a commonly held view in the past doesn't mean that's the reason we still have (some) issues today, nor that raking over that history (or burying it) will make things better.
I don't think you understand the British Empire very well. It was driven by economic and political interests, not racist ideology. To the extent racial attitudes existed they were a correlation not a causation. The peak of scientific racist attitudes (from the 1880s to the 1940s) is the only period for which you could really credibly make that case, and even then it was realpolitik "The Great Game" to protect against Russia, Fashoda incident (France) and oil interests in the middle-east drove its expansion.
I fundamentally disagree with you that it was a malign enterprise. That implies the world would be much better off had it never existed, and there I strongly disagree.
It is not a non-sequitur. It's a rational conclusion. That there is no racist legacy of Empire is by contrast an irrational belief adopted only by those who are uncomfortable with the truth. I do, however, give some respect to your view that delving into it will only make things worse today. That might be true. I personally don't think it is, but it might be.
I think YOU are lacking understanding about the Empire. Or rather you are deliberately misunderstanding in order to avoid an unwanted conclusion. Yes, it was driven by money and power, most things are, but the prevailing racism fueled it. Made the exploitation more justifiable. And then as a double whammy the very fact of the subjugation of these other peoples validated and cemented the sense of white supremacy that helped us do it. A vicious circle of cause and effect. There is no way - no way at all - that one can deem this to be anything but a malign endeavour in its essence. The fact I obviously can't prove this with a convoluted counterfactual which demonstrates that the world would be a better place today if there had been no British Empire means nothing. Such an exercise is impossible for any historical event.
To prove there's a racist legacy of Empire you'd have to show that the cause of racist attitudes in the UK is because of the Empire (and elsewhere) using evidence.
And, yet, evidence shows racist attitudes are most prevalent in Bulgaria and Romania (which had no colonial empire whatsoever) and low in the UK and Netherlands (which did) and Sweden (which did not). In fact, surveys show the UK has some of the most progressive attitudes to race in Europe - as do its former dominions in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. They are worse in parts of India, Pakistan, Nigeria and parts of the Carribean. South Africa is mixed.
So there's no causal link which has been demonstrated. Sorry.
Rather than echoing a fashionable consensus, and asserting it ever more vociferously in order to try to convince me, you'll have to provide me with evidence - not just shout out what you believe to be true.
I think that just demonstrates that we have had multiple ethnic communities in our countries for longer. For some this exacerbates their racism, but for others it gives social contact that gets rid of some or all of their prejudices. So, one of the positives of Empire is that it has created a multicultural Britain, with declining levels of racism. Still room for improvement though.
Personally, I don't get hung up on the French, Portuguese, or Russians being worse in some ways than our own Imperialists. It is more useful and productive to show that we are better people than our historical predecesors. The comparisons should be 21st century Britain vs 19th Century Britain, not 19th Century Britain vs 19th Century Russia or 16th Century Spain.
It's all very well Johnson standing up and saying that "people must follow the rules or we will tighten them", but it begs the question as to how it will be judged if people are following the rules. What are they expecting to happen to case numbers? Some people won't follow the rules regardless of what they are so simply tightening them in response won't have much effect.
But equally without setting any objectives, projected outcomes for avoidance of further tightening, how will this be assessed. Case numbers are inevitably going to continue to rise, but this doesn't mean that they will necessarily rise dangerously. And a large amount of the vulnerable population are protecting themselves. If in two weeks time cases have risen to 12,000 will that be evidence that people aren't "following the rules"? What if they rise to 12,000 in 6 weeks? Or 10 weeks?
There have to be some objectives. Dare i say it some forecasts...
I know I've banged on about this before, but were any aims outlined? He'd fail his Ofsted if they weren't put front and centre.
The aim that has been outlined is to curtail the rise in infections. That is getting the R down, same as was said earlier this year.
Obsessing over case numbers misses the fact they're not the issue.
Labour should back removing the Triple Lock - but they won't because it's political suicide.
Pensioners should not be immune, they have been almost entirely protected from austerity whilst young people have been screwed.
Only 10% of pensioners went to university unlike the 40% who go now so tuition fees was never an issue for them as most of them never went anyway, plenty of pensioners also rely on social care from the council and most have paid into the system through NI all their lives
I pay in and get significantly less than they do and they've been protected since 2010 whilst my services have been slashed. Justify it? You can't.
You won't when you reach pension age and NI was originally set up to fund pensions, healthcare and unemployment insurance only by Lloyd George
This was the same Nigel Farage who surrendered to Boris Johnson last autumn and handed him an 80-seat majority. Instead of whingeing from the side-lines, why doesn't he re-launch the Brexit Party and start fighting the Conservatives in the seats his party's surrender handed to the blue team?
Re: triple lock - it's bad enough with the guaranteed 2.5% rise (which has an enormous cumulative impact with inflation in the doldrums). But i seriously can't believe that a situation where there is an anomolous rise in wages bounce back will not lead to calls for reform. The Treasury will have to put their foot down eventually.
This was the same Nigel Farage who surrendered to Boris Johnson last autumn and handed him an 80-seat majority. Instead of whingeing from the side-lines, why doesn't he re-launch the Brexit Party and start fighting the Conservatives in the seats his party's surrender handed to the blue team?
That's him.
Are you trying to say he surrendered?!
The Brexit Party doesn't need to be relaunched, as I don't think it disbanded. But I would bet odds on they will fight the Conservatives over this issue, and do quite well as the only party representing those who don't wish to be locked up by the Westminster consensus
Labour should back removing the Triple Lock - but they won't because it's political suicide.
Pensioners should not be immune, they have been almost entirely protected from austerity whilst young people have been screwed.
not suspending it for one year is insane, given the odd stats on average wages thanks to covid.
The whole policy is insane, if you apply it continuously within a couple of hundred years over 100% of govt spending would need to go state pensions, and thats based on a stable pensioner base.
A policy that guarantees one group an ever increasing share of the pie regardless of circumstances is clearly wrong. That it gives that ever increasing share to the richest cohort in society makes it insane.
What's really shocking about the COVID rules is the complete lack of debate in the House of Commons. The occasional ministerial statement and questions isn't sufficient. Labour support guarantees that giving Parliament more of a chance to explore the issues won't undermine the Government. In fact, but getting the issues in the open they should welcome debate and the chance to explain their case in depth.
But I am NOT perfectly and rigorously consistent in my objection to statues. What do you think I am? An omni-sentient computer? As a white Brit living in Britain I am, I confess, more likely to have an objection to a statue of a white British racist situated in Britain (e.g. the Colston one on Bristol) than to a statute of "the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu" located in wherever he hails from (or even here for that matter).
God, I can't believe how I dumb down to humour people sometimes.
Now then, your turn -
How the devil can you justify saying that the British Empire was NOT - along with the various other things it was - a notable example of racist colonialism?
I'm glad we've established the selectivity of your indignation.
On your question: It's complicated, very complicated, but to answer your specific question:
Well, the 'colonialism' bit is tautological, so I'll ignore that, other than to point out that it has now become a loaded word, which it wasn't at the time.
'Notable' - yes, I'll grant that the British Empire was notable, indeed extraordinary in many ways, not only in its extent, but also in that it was built with remarkably little military power. Britain had a hugely powerful navy, but never a huge army, yet ended up ruling half the world - that really is notable, and a key fact you need to keep firmly in view. It was also notable in exporting values such as human rights, the rule of law, and democracy across the world - flawed in many respects of course, but the flaws are less remarkable than the way it spread those values.
What it wasn't was an 'example of racist colonialism'. That is an absurd misrepresentation, both in what it says and more importantly in what it doesn't say. Firstly, it was primarily a trading empire. Secondly the British were so successful -more so than other European powers - partly because they took the trouble understand the cultures of the people they were trading with, and later ruling. All those experts in Arabic and Sanskrit weren't just 'racist colonisers', they were deeply respectful of other cultures - see Kipling for another (much unfairly maligned) example. Thirdly you can't ignore the missionaries. We would denigrate or laugh at them now, but in their worldview they were altruistic, saving the souls of those unfortunate people who had been denied the benefits of a proper Christian upbringing. 'Racism' really didn't come in to it except as an afterthought, and I'm not even sure that the word makes much sense in the context of the times.
Will that do as an answer?
You're working hard (aka waffling) to deflect and obscure. I guess I know why.
It's like this -
The Empire was big and lasted a long time and thus was decidedly notable. The essence of Empire was the colonization of other countries and other peoples. The enterprise was undeniably fueled by a sense of white supremacy - which is racism. This racism was in turn validated and cemented in the consciousness of both exploited and exploiter by the fact of the colonization.
The British Empire was a notable example of racist colonialism.
In italics since now demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt. Although one really should not have to.
The British Empire was an empire, in other words. Everything you say is true, but it works equally well if you substitute Roman, Babylonian or Achaemenid for British. That's human nature for you.
Yep. Totally agree with that observation. It was one racist exploitative undertaking amongst many. But it was our racist exploitative undertaking. And it was relatively recent. This to me makes it of particular interest and relevance. Others prefer to re-classify it as something more benign than it objectively was. They use the man-of-the-world phrase "it's complicated" to seek to achieve this. I'm neither fooled nor impressed by such talk.
Departing from the moral issues for a moment, it seems obvious that the raw historical material of the world would be vastly impoverished if all that had ever existed were pacifist social democracies from the start. Wherever they arise in the world, empires seem to inject a sense of well, ambition, not mention flair and grandeur, into a civilization's undertakings, whether those be organizational, technological, military, or artistic. It creates a vast stage for human drama - look at the Russia of Peter or Catherine and compare it to what had gone before.
This is one of the major factors that makes people instinctively resile against the grinding sociological mediocrity of taking the -isms as the measure of all things.
It's all very well Johnson standing up and saying that "people must follow the rules or we will tighten them", but it begs the question as to how it will be judged if people are following the rules. What are they expecting to happen to case numbers? Some people won't follow the rules regardless of what they are so simply tightening them in response won't have much effect.
But equally without setting any objectives, projected outcomes for avoidance of further tightening, how will this be assessed. Case numbers are inevitably going to continue to rise, but this doesn't mean that they will necessarily rise dangerously. And a large amount of the vulnerable population are protecting themselves. If in two weeks time cases have risen to 12,000 will that be evidence that people aren't "following the rules"? What if they rise to 12,000 in 6 weeks? Or 10 weeks?
There have to be some objectives. Dare i say it some forecasts...
I know I've banged on about this before, but were any aims outlined? He'd fail his Ofsted if they weren't put front and centre.
The aim that has been outlined is to curtail the rise in infections. That is getting the R down, same as was said earlier this year.
Obsessing over case numbers misses the fact they're not the issue.
It's all very well Johnson standing up and saying that "people must follow the rules or we will tighten them", but it begs the question as to how it will be judged if people are following the rules. What are they expecting to happen to case numbers? Some people won't follow the rules regardless of what they are so simply tightening them in response won't have much effect.
But equally without setting any objectives, projected outcomes for avoidance of further tightening, how will this be assessed. Case numbers are inevitably going to continue to rise, but this doesn't mean that they will necessarily rise dangerously. And a large amount of the vulnerable population are protecting themselves. If in two weeks time cases have risen to 12,000 will that be evidence that people aren't "following the rules"? What if they rise to 12,000 in 6 weeks? Or 10 weeks?
There have to be some objectives. Dare i say it some forecasts...
I know I've banged on about this before, but were any aims outlined? He'd fail his Ofsted if they weren't put front and centre.
The aim that has been outlined is to curtail the rise in infections. That is getting the R down, same as was said earlier this year.
Obsessing over case numbers misses the fact they're not the issue.
The Brexit Party doesn't need to be relaunched, as I don't think it disbanded. But I would bet odds on they will fight the Conservatives over this issue, and do quite well as the only party representing those who don't wish to be locked up by the Westminster consensus
"Surrender" is perhaps a little excessive - I suppose Farage made the judgement that Johnson could be trusted to deliver Brexit (unlike most other Conservatives) and that getting him back with a majority was infinitely preferable to any other realistic option.
This was the same Nigel Farage who surrendered to Boris Johnson last autumn and handed him an 80-seat majority. Instead of whingeing from the side-lines, why doesn't he re-launch the Brexit Party and start fighting the Conservatives in the seats his party's surrender handed to the blue team?
That's him.
Are you trying to say he surrendered?!
The Brexit Party doesn't need to be relaunched, as I don't think it disbanded. But I would bet odds on they will fight the Conservatives over this issue, and do quite well as the only party representing those who don't wish to be locked up by the Westminster consensus
According to Yougov today 15% of Leavers think the new measures go too far compared to only 9% of Remainers. 15% of Tories think the measures go too far, only 10% of Labour voters and 7% of LDs think they go too far.
A plurality of Scots, Londoners and those in the Midlands and Wales think the measures are about right or go too far, a plurality of Southerners and Northerners however think the measures do not go far enough.
Re: triple lock - it's bad enough with the guaranteed 2.5% rise (which has an enormous cumulative impact with inflation in the doldrums). But i seriously can't believe that a situation where there is an anomolous rise in wages bounce back will not lead to calls for reform. The Treasury will have to put their foot down eventually.
For this reason long term it is probably good if they stick with it. The voting public are collectively too uninterested and mathematically illiterate to understand the problems with the triple lock. They see it as being nice to pensioners and rewarding their hard work.
When they get their 15% rise next year, the British sense of fair play will make the policy toxic and finally ready for repeal.
The Brexit Party doesn't need to be relaunched, as I don't think it disbanded. But I would bet odds on they will fight the Conservatives over this issue, and do quite well as the only party representing those who don't wish to be locked up by the Westminster consensus
"Surrender" is perhaps a little excessive - I suppose Farage made the judgement that Johnson could be trusted to deliver Brexit (unlike most other Conservatives) and that getting him back with a majority was infinitely preferable to any other realistic option.
I think that's right
Actually, your mob, the LDs, seem to be making more noises than any other Westminster party on the matter of whether locking us up is definitely the correct response, good for them (Davey and Cable). Whether it is genuine or as a way of distinguishing themselves from the rest, it is certainly welcome. I have been astonished by the way this has been shoved through unquestioningly
It's all very well Johnson standing up and saying that "people must follow the rules or we will tighten them", but it begs the question as to how it will be judged if people are following the rules. What are they expecting to happen to case numbers? Some people won't follow the rules regardless of what they are so simply tightening them in response won't have much effect.
But equally without setting any objectives, projected outcomes for avoidance of further tightening, how will this be assessed. Case numbers are inevitably going to continue to rise, but this doesn't mean that they will necessarily rise dangerously. And a large amount of the vulnerable population are protecting themselves. If in two weeks time cases have risen to 12,000 will that be evidence that people aren't "following the rules"? What if they rise to 12,000 in 6 weeks? Or 10 weeks?
There have to be some objectives. Dare i say it some forecasts...
I know I've banged on about this before, but were any aims outlined? He'd fail his Ofsted if they weren't put front and centre.
The aim that has been outlined is to curtail the rise in infections. That is getting the R down, same as was said earlier this year.
Obsessing over case numbers misses the fact they're not the issue.
The depressing thing about it all is that the unlocking from the first time round wasn't really finished even as it was, plenty of stuff hadn't even got back to any sort of normal before today, and it won't now for possibly more than 6 more months.
Tried to see what the options were like to go for a swim, half the swimming pools even vaguely near me still not open and the other half only open for a short handful of hours in the day, that is if you can get one of the slots you have to pre-book in advance. Also tried to get a dental checkup, told by my practice not on the NHS but they'll happily do it if I stump 60 quid for a private appointment. Just to do a checkup, not even any specific dental work. I daresay in a year's time we might have solved covid but with a major dental work backlog.
Feel sorry for the other stuff that hadn't even reopened yet before today.
Since the chemicals in swimming pools kill the virus, they're the one thing that should always have remained open.
Fair comment. But coming from such a progressive figure of the time the quote does illustrate how deeply embedded racism was in Britain not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, and thus how hopelessly naive or complacent it is to think that the legacy of this does not persist in us today.
In Britain as opposed to where?
Why is this your burning question on the topic?
Because you mentioned Britain specifically. If you had meant to say that racism (as we would now describe it) was universal - which have been true - why mention Britain? Are you trying to say there was something unusually reprehensible about your own country in this?
I know racism is near universal. Of course I do. But -
1. We were discussing a building named after a British racist in Britain. 2. The British Empire was a VERY notable example of racist colonialism. 3. I'm British. 4. This is Britain.
So it does not (to me) seem odd that I mentioned Britain. Should I put "but of course Britain did not have an exclusive on racism" in brackets after every reference to our historical racist crimes? Would that suffice?
1. He's not a "British racist" - he's a leading Scottish philosopher of the enlightenment who held views on that subject that were typical of the time 2. The "British Empire" was very complex and multifaceted, and mainly built around real-politick and trading interests, and the need to defend those interests - not racist ideology (our experiences of Nazi Germany in WWII and its pursuit of scientific racism have coloured our views in hindsight on this) 3. Yes, you are. 4. Yes, it is.
It's still unclear to me what good comes of this. I see no evidence our curriculum is "colonised" - we haven't taught kids to have pride in how much of the world is painted red since at least the 1960s - and my Oxford's Children's History volumes (published 1983 - which I checked to be sure yesterday) have lots of material on the slave trade and sugar plantations.
A better argument would be that the British Empire simply isn't prominent enough in today's history syllabus, which is true, but I'd be concerned that putting it back in again today couldn't be done without heavily politicising it - a true account would list its benefits, reforms and progress in liberal democracy *and* its crimes and exploitation, whilst putting both in the context of the times.
I think we both know that wouldn't happen.
He was both of those things - which was my exact point in an earlier post. That such an enlightened and progressive figure held such views emphasizes how deeply embedded racism was in our past and thus how naive or complacent it is to believe that its legacy is not still with us today and requiring attention.
And of course the Empire is a complex matter with many aspects worth studying and discussing. But so what? That is the case for most such things. History is nuanced and complicated. This is why it's interesting and important. But let's not pretend the British Empire was not, at heart, an exploitative undertaking, informed by a racist sense of the superiority of the white "us" over the various non-white others in faraway lands. It is perfectly possible to cope with complexity - and not make offensive comparisons of Empire with Nazi Germany - but at the same time see the wood from the trees.
Re, school curriculum, let's teach it this way. A fundamentally malign enterprise but not as malign in intent as many other similar undertakings, and although most of the benefits were for Britain and the British, there was some collateral benefit too for the peoples and nations colonized.
That's a non-sequitur. Just because it was a commonly held view in the past doesn't mean that's the reason we still have (some) issues today, nor that raking over that history (or burying it) will make things better.
I don't think you understand the British Empire very well. It was driven by economic and political interests, not racist ideology. To the extent racial attitudes existed they were a correlation not a causation. The peak of scientific racist attitudes (from the 1880s to the 1940s) is the only period for which you could really credibly make that case, and even then it was realpolitik "The Great Game" to protect against Russia, Fashoda incident (France) and oil interests in the middle-east drove its expansion.
I fundamentally disagree with you that it was a malign enterprise. That implies the world would be much better off had it never existed, and there I strongly disagree.
It is not a non-sequitur. It's a rational conclusion. That there is no racist legacy of Empire is by contrast an irrational belief adopted only by those who are uncomfortable with the truth. I do, however, give some respect to your view that delving into it will only make things worse today. That might be true. I personally don't think it is, but it might be.
I think YOU are lacking understanding about the Empire. Or rather you are deliberately misunderstanding in order to avoid an unwanted conclusion. Yes, it was driven by money and power, most things are, but the prevailing racism fueled it. Made the exploitation more justifiable. And then as a double whammy the very fact of the subjugation of these other peoples validated and cemented the sense of white supremacy that helped us do it. A vicious circle of cause and effect. There is no way - no way at all - that one can deem this to be anything but a malign endeavour in its essence. The fact I obviously can't prove this with a convoluted counterfactual which demonstrates that the world would be a better place today if there had been no British Empire means nothing. Such an exercise is impossible for any historical event.
To prove there's a racist legacy of Empire you'd have to show that the cause of racist attitudes in the UK is because of the Empire (and elsewhere) using evidence.
And, yet, evidence shows racist attitudes are most prevalent in Bulgaria and Romania (which had no colonial empire whatsoever) and low in the UK and Netherlands (which did) and Sweden (which did not). In fact, surveys show the UK has some of the most progressive attitudes to race in Europe - as do its former dominions in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. They are worse in parts of India, Pakistan, Nigeria and parts of the Carribean. South Africa is mixed.
So there's no causal link which has been demonstrated. Sorry.
Rather than echoing a fashionable consensus, and asserting it ever more vociferously in order to try to convince me, you'll have to provide me with evidence - not just shout out what you believe to be true.
I sense you are impervious to reason on this topic due to parochial cognitive bias. You will obviously disagree with this, but such is my genuine feeling. Proof? That is your burden. That there IS a racist legacy from a relatively recent racist undertaking which encompassed a quarter of the world's area and population is the clear and obvious default. It is for someone who dissents from this to attempt to disprove it. The fact that western countries are these days more progressive on matters of race than less developed parts of the world does not come anywhere near doing that. The west is more liberal and progressive on most things and there are many reasons for this, not least affluence and education.
Anyway, if I'm spotted commenting on here again in the near future please remind me to bog off. I'm feeling very down about the situation and need to step away from it. I intend to bake Sachertorte and knit socks. I wish you all well.
The depressing thing about it all is that the unlocking from the first time round wasn't really finished even as it was, plenty of stuff hadn't even got back to any sort of normal before today, and it won't now for possibly more than 6 more months.
Tried to see what the options were like to go for a swim, half the swimming pools even vaguely near me still not open and the other half only open for a short handful of hours in the day, that is if you can get one of the slots you have to pre-book in advance. Also tried to get a dental checkup, told by my practice not on the NHS but they'll happily do it if I stump 60 quid for a private appointment. Just to do a checkup, not even any specific dental work. I daresay in a year's time we might have solved covid but with a major dental work backlog.
Feel sorry for the other stuff that hadn't even reopened yet before today.
Since the chemicals in swimming pools kill the virus, they're the one thing that should always have remained open.
But you need to wear masks in the changing rooms and showers :-)
But I am NOT perfectly and rigorously consistent in my objection to statues. What do you think I am? An omni-sentient computer? As a white Brit living in Britain I am, I confess, more likely to have an objection to a statue of a white British racist situated in Britain (e.g. the Colston one on Bristol) than to a statute of "the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu" located in wherever he hails from (or even here for that matter).
God, I can't believe how I dumb down to humour people sometimes.
Now then, your turn -
How the devil can you justify saying that the British Empire was NOT - along with the various other things it was - a notable example of racist colonialism?
I'm glad we've established the selectivity of your indignation.
On your question: It's complicated, very complicated, but to answer your specific question:
Well, the 'colonialism' bit is tautological, so I'll ignore that, other than to point out that it has now become a loaded word, which it wasn't at the time.
'Notable' - yes, I'll grant that the British Empire was notable, indeed extraordinary in many ways, not only in its extent, but also in that it was built with remarkably little military power. Britain had a hugely powerful navy, but never a huge army, yet ended up ruling half the world - that really is notable, and a key fact you need to keep firmly in view. It was also notable in exporting values such as human rights, the rule of law, and democracy across the world - flawed in many respects of course, but the flaws are less remarkable than the way it spread those values.
What it wasn't was an 'example of racist colonialism'. That is an absurd misrepresentation, both in what it says and more importantly in what it doesn't say. Firstly, it was primarily a trading empire. Secondly the British were so successful -more so than other European powers - partly because they took the trouble understand the cultures of the people they were trading with, and later ruling. All those experts in Arabic and Sanskrit weren't just 'racist colonisers', they were deeply respectful of other cultures - see Kipling for another (much unfairly maligned) example. Thirdly you can't ignore the missionaries. We would denigrate or laugh at them now, but in their worldview they were altruistic, saving the souls of those unfortunate people who had been denied the benefits of a proper Christian upbringing. 'Racism' really didn't come in to it except as an afterthought, and I'm not even sure that the word makes much sense in the context of the times.
Will that do as an answer?
You're working hard (aka waffling) to deflect and obscure. I guess I know why.
It's like this -
The Empire was big and lasted a long time and thus was decidedly notable. The essence of Empire was the colonization of other countries and other peoples. The enterprise was undeniably fueled by a sense of white supremacy - which is racism. This racism was in turn validated and cemented in the consciousness of both exploited and exploiter by the fact of the colonization.
The British Empire was a notable example of racist colonialism.
In italics since now demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt. Although one really should not have to.
It has not been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt.
You continuously asserting this ever more vigorously doesn't make it more convincing or true.
It has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to all those who are free of parochial cognitive bias on this sensitive topic. Which is all I can ever aspire to.
Fair comment. But coming from such a progressive figure of the time the quote does illustrate how deeply embedded racism was in Britain not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, and thus how hopelessly naive or complacent it is to think that the legacy of this does not persist in us today.
In Britain as opposed to where?
Why is this your burning question on the topic?
Because you mentioned Britain specifically. If you had meant to say that racism (as we would now describe it) was universal - which have been true - why mention Britain? Are you trying to say there was something unusually reprehensible about your own country in this?
I know racism is near universal. Of course I do. But -
1. We were discussing a building named after a British racist in Britain. 2. The British Empire was a VERY notable example of racist colonialism. 3. I'm British. 4. This is Britain.
So it does not (to me) seem odd that I mentioned Britain. Should I put "but of course Britain did not have an exclusive on racism" in brackets after every reference to our historical racist crimes? Would that suffice?
1. He's not a "British racist" - he's a leading Scottish philosopher of the enlightenment who held views on that subject that were typical of the time 2. The "British Empire" was very complex and multifaceted, and mainly built around real-politick and trading interests, and the need to defend those interests - not racist ideology (our experiences of Nazi Germany in WWII and its pursuit of scientific racism have coloured our views in hindsight on this) 3. Yes, you are. 4. Yes, it is.
It's still unclear to me what good comes of this. I see no evidence our curriculum is "colonised" - we haven't taught kids to have pride in how much of the world is painted red since at least the 1960s - and my Oxford's Children's History volumes (published 1983 - which I checked to be sure yesterday) have lots of material on the slave trade and sugar plantations.
A better argument would be that the British Empire simply isn't prominent enough in today's history syllabus, which is true, but I'd be concerned that putting it back in again today couldn't be done without heavily politicising it - a true account would list its benefits, reforms and progress in liberal democracy *and* its crimes and exploitation, whilst putting both in the context of the times.
I think we both know that wouldn't happen.
He was both of those things - which was my exact point in an earlier post. That such an enlightened and progressive figure held such views emphasizes how deeply embedded racism was in our past and thus how naive or complacent it is to believe that its legacy is not still with us today and requiring attention.
And of course the Empire is a complex matter with many aspects worth studying and discussing. But so what? That is the case for most such things. History is nuanced and complicated. This is why it's interesting and important. But let's not pretend the British Empire was not, at heart, an exploitative undertaking, informed by a racist sense of the superiority of the white "us" over the various non-white others in faraway lands. It is perfectly possible to cope with complexity - and not make offensive comparisons of Empire with Nazi Germany - but at the same time see the wood from the trees.
Re, school curriculum, let's teach it this way. A fundamentally malign enterprise but not as malign in intent as many other similar undertakings, and although most of the benefits were for Britain and the British, there was some collateral benefit too for the peoples and nations colonized.
That's a non-sequitur. Just because it was a commonly held view in the past doesn't mean that's the reason we still have (some) issues today, nor that raking over that history (or burying it) will make things better.
I don't think you understand the British Empire very well. It was driven by economic and political interests, not racist ideology. To the extent racial attitudes existed they were a correlation not a causation. The peak of scientific racist attitudes (from the 1880s to the 1940s) is the only period for which you could really credibly make that case, and even then it was realpolitik "The Great Game" to protect against Russia, Fashoda incident (France) and oil interests in the middle-east drove its expansion.
I fundamentally disagree with you that it was a malign enterprise. That implies the world would be much better off had it never existed, and there I strongly disagree.
It is not a non-sequitur. It's a rational conclusion. That there is no racist legacy of Empire is by contrast an irrational belief adopted only by those who are uncomfortable with the truth. I do, however, give some respect to your view that delving into it will only make things worse today. That might be true. I personally don't think it is, but it might be.
I think YOU are lacking understanding about the Empire. Or rather you are deliberately misunderstanding in order to avoid an unwanted conclusion. Yes, it was driven by money and power, most things are, but the prevailing racism fueled it. Made the exploitation more justifiable. And then as a double whammy the very fact of the subjugation of these other peoples validated and cemented the sense of white supremacy that helped us do it. A vicious circle of cause and effect. There is no way - no way at all - that one can deem this to be anything but a malign endeavour in its essence. The fact I obviously can't prove this with a convoluted counterfactual which demonstrates that the world would be a better place today if there had been no British Empire means nothing. Such an exercise is impossible for any historical event.
To prove there's a racist legacy of Empire you'd have to show that the cause of racist attitudes in the UK is because of the Empire (and elsewhere) using evidence.
And, yet, evidence shows racist attitudes are most prevalent in Bulgaria and Romania (which had no colonial empire whatsoever) and low in the UK and Netherlands (which did) and Sweden (which did not). In fact, surveys show the UK has some of the most progressive attitudes to race in Europe - as do its former dominions in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. They are worse in parts of India, Pakistan, Nigeria and parts of the Carribean. South Africa is mixed.
So there's no causal link which has been demonstrated. Sorry.
Rather than echoing a fashionable consensus, and asserting it ever more vociferously in order to try to convince me, you'll have to provide me with evidence - not just shout out what you believe to be true.
I think that just demonstrates that we have had multiple ethnic communities in our countries for longer. For some this exacerbates their racism, but for others it gives social contact that gets rid of some or all of their prejudices. So, one of the positives of Empire is that it has created a multicultural Britain, with declining levels of racism. Still room for improvement though.
Personally, I don't get hung up on the French, Portuguese, or Russians being worse in some ways than our own Imperialists. It is more useful and productive to show that we are better people than our historical predecesors. The comparisons should be 21st century Britain vs 19th Century Britain, not 19th Century Britain vs 19th Century Russia or 16th Century Spain.
And just possibly it might be that "colonial guilt" has also contributed something to our now being more liberal on race than some other countries who do not have such a history. So in this sense - if it's true - the legacy of Empire is OTOH racism aplenty, and then OTOH and over time a reduction in same. Which really would be "complicated".
Fair comment. But coming from such a progressive figure of the time the quote does illustrate how deeply embedded racism was in Britain not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, and thus how hopelessly naive or complacent it is to think that the legacy of this does not persist in us today.
In Britain as opposed to where?
Why is this your burning question on the topic?
Because you mentioned Britain specifically. If you had meant to say that racism (as we would now describe it) was universal - which have been true - why mention Britain? Are you trying to say there was something unusually reprehensible about your own country in this?
I know racism is near universal. Of course I do. But -
1. We were discussing a building named after a British racist in Britain. 2. The British Empire was a VERY notable example of racist colonialism. 3. I'm British. 4. This is Britain.
So it does not (to me) seem odd that I mentioned Britain. Should I put "but of course Britain did not have an exclusive on racism" in brackets after every reference to our historical racist crimes? Would that suffice?
1. He's not a "British racist" - he's a leading Scottish philosopher of the enlightenment who held views on that subject that were typical of the time 2. The "British Empire" was very complex and multifaceted, and mainly built around real-politick and trading interests, and the need to defend those interests - not racist ideology (our experiences of Nazi Germany in WWII and its pursuit of scientific racism have coloured our views in hindsight on this) 3. Yes, you are. 4. Yes, it is.
It's still unclear to me what good comes of this. I see no evidence our curriculum is "colonised" - we haven't taught kids to have pride in how much of the world is painted red since at least the 1960s - and my Oxford's Children's History volumes (published 1983 - which I checked to be sure yesterday) have lots of material on the slave trade and sugar plantations.
A better argument would be that the British Empire simply isn't prominent enough in today's history syllabus, which is true, but I'd be concerned that putting it back in again today couldn't be done without heavily politicising it - a true account would list its benefits, reforms and progress in liberal democracy *and* its crimes and exploitation, whilst putting both in the context of the times.
I think we both know that wouldn't happen.
He was both of those things - which was my exact point in an earlier post. That such an enlightened and progressive figure held such views emphasizes how deeply embedded racism was in our past and thus how naive or complacent it is to believe that its legacy is not still with us today and requiring attention.
And of course the Empire is a complex matter with many aspects worth studying and discussing. But so what? That is the case for most such things. History is nuanced and complicated. This is why it's interesting and important. But let's not pretend the British Empire was not, at heart, an exploitative undertaking, informed by a racist sense of the superiority of the white "us" over the various non-white others in faraway lands. It is perfectly possible to cope with complexity - and not make offensive comparisons of Empire with Nazi Germany - but at the same time see the wood from the trees.
Re, school curriculum, let's teach it this way. A fundamentally malign enterprise but not as malign in intent as many other similar undertakings, and although most of the benefits were for Britain and the British, there was some collateral benefit too for the peoples and nations colonized.
That's a non-sequitur. Just because it was a commonly held view in the past doesn't mean that's the reason we still have (some) issues today, nor that raking over that history (or burying it) will make things better.
I don't think you understand the British Empire very well. It was driven by economic and political interests, not racist ideology. To the extent racial attitudes existed they were a correlation not a causation. The peak of scientific racist attitudes (from the 1880s to the 1940s) is the only period for which you could really credibly make that case, and even then it was realpolitik "The Great Game" to protect against Russia, Fashoda incident (France) and oil interests in the middle-east drove its expansion.
I fundamentally disagree with you that it was a malign enterprise. That implies the world would be much better off had it never existed, and there I strongly disagree.
It is not a non-sequitur. It's a rational conclusion. That there is no racist legacy of Empire is by contrast an irrational belief adopted only by those who are uncomfortable with the truth. I do, however, give some respect to your view that delving into it will only make things worse today. That might be true. I personally don't think it is, but it might be.
I think YOU are lacking understanding about the Empire. Or rather you are deliberately misunderstanding in order to avoid an unwanted conclusion. Yes, it was driven by money and power, most things are, but the prevailing racism fueled it. Made the exploitation more justifiable. And then as a double whammy the very fact of the subjugation of these other peoples validated and cemented the sense of white supremacy that helped us do it. A vicious circle of cause and effect. There is no way - no way at all - that one can deem this to be anything but a malign endeavour in its essence. The fact I obviously can't prove this with a convoluted counterfactual which demonstrates that the world would be a better place today if there had been no British Empire means nothing. Such an exercise is impossible for any historical event.
To prove there's a racist legacy of Empire you'd have to show that the cause of racist attitudes in the UK is because of the Empire (and elsewhere) using evidence.
And, yet, evidence shows racist attitudes are most prevalent in Bulgaria and Romania (which had no colonial empire whatsoever) and low in the UK and Netherlands (which did) and Sweden (which did not). In fact, surveys show the UK has some of the most progressive attitudes to race in Europe - as do its former dominions in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. They are worse in parts of India, Pakistan, Nigeria and parts of the Carribean. South Africa is mixed.
So there's no causal link which has been demonstrated. Sorry.
Rather than echoing a fashionable consensus, and asserting it ever more vociferously in order to try to convince me, you'll have to provide me with evidence - not just shout out what you believe to be true.
I sense you are impervious to reason on this topic due to parochial cognitive bias. You will obviously disagree with this, but such is my genuine feeling. Proof? That is your burden. That there IS a racist legacy from a relatively recent racist undertaking which encompassed a quarter of the world's area and population is the clear and obvious default. It is for someone who dissents from this to attempt to disprove it. The fact that western countries are these days more progressive on matters of race than less developed parts of the world does not come anywhere near doing that. The west is more liberal and progressive on most things and there are many reasons for this, not least affluence and education.
Right. It's my job to find the proof. And if I don't I'm guilty of parochial cognitive bias.
But I am NOT perfectly and rigorously consistent in my objection to statues. What do you think I am? An omni-sentient computer? As a white Brit living in Britain I am, I confess, more likely to have an objection to a statue of a white British racist situated in Britain (e.g. the Colston one on Bristol) than to a statute of "the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu" located in wherever he hails from (or even here for that matter).
God, I can't believe how I dumb down to humour people sometimes.
Now then, your turn -
How the devil can you justify saying that the British Empire was NOT - along with the various other things it was - a notable example of racist colonialism?
I'm glad we've established the selectivity of your indignation.
On your question: It's complicated, very complicated, but to answer your specific question:
Well, the 'colonialism' bit is tautological, so I'll ignore that, other than to point out that it has now become a loaded word, which it wasn't at the time.
'Notable' - yes, I'll grant that the British Empire was notable, indeed extraordinary in many ways, not only in its extent, but also in that it was built with remarkably little military power. Britain had a hugely powerful navy, but never a huge army, yet ended up ruling half the world - that really is notable, and a key fact you need to keep firmly in view. It was also notable in exporting values such as human rights, the rule of law, and democracy across the world - flawed in many respects of course, but the flaws are less remarkable than the way it spread those values.
What it wasn't was an 'example of racist colonialism'. That is an absurd misrepresentation, both in what it says and more importantly in what it doesn't say. Firstly, it was primarily a trading empire. Secondly the British were so successful -more so than other European powers - partly because they took the trouble understand the cultures of the people they were trading with, and later ruling. All those experts in Arabic and Sanskrit weren't just 'racist colonisers', they were deeply respectful of other cultures - see Kipling for another (much unfairly maligned) example. Thirdly you can't ignore the missionaries. We would denigrate or laugh at them now, but in their worldview they were altruistic, saving the souls of those unfortunate people who had been denied the benefits of a proper Christian upbringing. 'Racism' really didn't come in to it except as an afterthought, and I'm not even sure that the word makes much sense in the context of the times.
Will that do as an answer?
You're working hard (aka waffling) to deflect and obscure. I guess I know why.
It's like this -
The Empire was big and lasted a long time and thus was decidedly notable. The essence of Empire was the colonization of other countries and other peoples. The enterprise was undeniably fueled by a sense of white supremacy - which is racism. This racism was in turn validated and cemented in the consciousness of both exploited and exploiter by the fact of the colonization.
The British Empire was a notable example of racist colonialism.
In italics since now demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt. Although one really should not have to.
The British Empire was an empire, in other words. Everything you say is true, but it works equally well if you substitute Roman, Babylonian or Achaemenid for British. That's human nature for you.
Yep. Totally agree with that observation. It was one racist exploitative undertaking amongst many. But it was our racist exploitative undertaking. And it was relatively recent. This to me makes it of particular interest and relevance. Others prefer to re-classify it as something more benign than it objectively was. They use the man-of-the-world phrase "it's complicated" to seek to achieve this. I'm neither fooled nor impressed by such talk.
Departing from the moral issues for a moment, it seems obvious that the raw historical material of the world would be vastly impoverished if all that had ever existed were pacifist social democracies from the start. Wherever they arise in the world, empires seem to inject a sense of well, ambition, not mention flair and grandeur, into a civilization's undertakings, whether those be organizational, technological, military, or artistic. It creates a vast stage for human drama - look at the Russia of Peter or Catherine and compare it to what had gone before.
This is one of the major factors that makes people instinctively resile against the grinding sociological mediocrity of taking the -isms as the measure of all things.
You can make this same argument - and imo with more relevance to the world today - for cities over the sticks.
But I am NOT perfectly and rigorously consistent in my objection to statues. What do you think I am? An omni-sentient computer? As a white Brit living in Britain I am, I confess, more likely to have an objection to a statue of a white British racist situated in Britain (e.g. the Colston one on Bristol) than to a statute of "the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu" located in wherever he hails from (or even here for that matter).
God, I can't believe how I dumb down to humour people sometimes.
Now then, your turn -
How the devil can you justify saying that the British Empire was NOT - along with the various other things it was - a notable example of racist colonialism?
I'm glad we've established the selectivity of your indignation.
On your question: It's complicated, very complicated, but to answer your specific question:
Well, the 'colonialism' bit is tautological, so I'll ignore that, other than to point out that it has now become a loaded word, which it wasn't at the time.
'Notable' - yes, I'll grant that the British Empire was notable, indeed extraordinary in many ways, not only in its extent, but also in that it was built with remarkably little military power. Britain had a hugely powerful navy, but never a huge army, yet ended up ruling half the world - that really is notable, and a key fact you need to keep firmly in view. It was also notable in exporting values such as human rights, the rule of law, and democracy across the world - flawed in many respects of course, but the flaws are less remarkable than the way it spread those values.
What it wasn't was an 'example of racist colonialism'. That is an absurd misrepresentation, both in what it says and more importantly in what it doesn't say. Firstly, it was primarily a trading empire. Secondly the British were so successful -more so than other European powers - partly because they took the trouble understand the cultures of the people they were trading with, and later ruling. All those experts in Arabic and Sanskrit weren't just 'racist colonisers', they were deeply respectful of other cultures - see Kipling for another (much unfairly maligned) example. Thirdly you can't ignore the missionaries. We would denigrate or laugh at them now, but in their worldview they were altruistic, saving the souls of those unfortunate people who had been denied the benefits of a proper Christian upbringing. 'Racism' really didn't come in to it except as an afterthought, and I'm not even sure that the word makes much sense in the context of the times.
Will that do as an answer?
You're working hard (aka waffling) to deflect and obscure. I guess I know why.
It's like this -
The Empire was big and lasted a long time and thus was decidedly notable. The essence of Empire was the colonization of other countries and other peoples. The enterprise was undeniably fueled by a sense of white supremacy - which is racism. This racism was in turn validated and cemented in the consciousness of both exploited and exploiter by the fact of the colonization.
The British Empire was a notable example of racist colonialism.
In italics since now demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt. Although one really should not have to.
It has not been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt.
You continuously asserting this ever more vigorously doesn't make it more convincing or true.
It has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to all those who are free of parochial cognitive bias on this sensitive topic. Which is all I can ever aspire to.
We're going round in circles here.
Here's the problem: you can't prove it but you still earnestly believe it to be true.
You have no idea how to respond to those who don't share your dogma so instead you suggest that if they disagree with you then that's their problem.
I'll leave others to decide how convincing they think that is.
The Brexit Party doesn't need to be relaunched, as I don't think it disbanded. But I would bet odds on they will fight the Conservatives over this issue, and do quite well as the only party representing those who don't wish to be locked up by the Westminster consensus
"Surrender" is perhaps a little excessive - I suppose Farage made the judgement that Johnson could be trusted to deliver Brexit (unlike most other Conservatives) and that getting him back with a majority was infinitely preferable to any other realistic option.
I think that's right
Actually, your mob, the LDs, seem to be making more noises than any other Westminster party on the matter of whether locking us up is definitely the correct response, good for them (Davey and Cable). Whether it is genuine or as a way of distinguishing themselves from the rest, it is certainly welcome. I have been astonished by the way this has been shoved through unquestioningly
"Locked up" seems a tad fruity (!) as a description of this sad sad situation.
I'm off to Waitrose tomorrow morning. Then golf in the afternoon.
But I am NOT perfectly and rigorously consistent in my objection to statues. What do you think I am? An omni-sentient computer? As a white Brit living in Britain I am, I confess, more likely to have an objection to a statue of a white British racist situated in Britain (e.g. the Colston one on Bristol) than to a statute of "the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu" located in wherever he hails from (or even here for that matter).
God, I can't believe how I dumb down to humour people sometimes.
Now then, your turn -
How the devil can you justify saying that the British Empire was NOT - along with the various other things it was - a notable example of racist colonialism?
I'm glad we've established the selectivity of your indignation.
On your question: It's complicated, very complicated, but to answer your specific question:
Well, the 'colonialism' bit is tautological, so I'll ignore that, other than to point out that it has now become a loaded word, which it wasn't at the time.
'Notable' - yes, I'll grant that the British Empire was notable, indeed extraordinary in many ways, not only in its extent, but also in that it was built with remarkably little military power. Britain had a hugely powerful navy, but never a huge army, yet ended up ruling half the world - that really is notable, and a key fact you need to keep firmly in view. It was also notable in exporting values such as human rights, the rule of law, and democracy across the world - flawed in many respects of course, but the flaws are less remarkable than the way it spread those values.
What it wasn't was an 'example of racist colonialism'. That is an absurd misrepresentation, both in what it says and more importantly in what it doesn't say. Firstly, it was primarily a trading empire. Secondly the British were so successful -more so than other European powers - partly because they took the trouble understand the cultures of the people they were trading with, and later ruling. All those experts in Arabic and Sanskrit weren't just 'racist colonisers', they were deeply respectful of other cultures - see Kipling for another (much unfairly maligned) example. Thirdly you can't ignore the missionaries. We would denigrate or laugh at them now, but in their worldview they were altruistic, saving the souls of those unfortunate people who had been denied the benefits of a proper Christian upbringing. 'Racism' really didn't come in to it except as an afterthought, and I'm not even sure that the word makes much sense in the context of the times.
Will that do as an answer?
You're working hard (aka waffling) to deflect and obscure. I guess I know why.
It's like this -
The Empire was big and lasted a long time and thus was decidedly notable. The essence of Empire was the colonization of other countries and other peoples. The enterprise was undeniably fueled by a sense of white supremacy - which is racism. This racism was in turn validated and cemented in the consciousness of both exploited and exploiter by the fact of the colonization.
The British Empire was a notable example of racist colonialism.
In italics since now demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt. Although one really should not have to.
It has not been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt.
You continuously asserting this ever more vigorously doesn't make it more convincing or true.
It has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to all those who are free of parochial cognitive bias on this sensitive topic. Which is all I can ever aspire to.
We're going round in circles here.
Here's the problem: you can't prove it but you still earnestly believe it to be true.
You have no idea how to respond to those who don't share your dogma so instead you suggest that if they disagree with you then that's their problem.
I'll leave others to decide how convincing they think that is.
Yep - I am also ok to leave it like that. I'm happy enough with my posts on this topic on this thread. Such is not always the case but it is here.
Comments
You continuously asserting this ever more vigorously doesn't make it more convincing or true.
Tried to see what the options were like to go for a swim, half the swimming pools even vaguely near me still not open and the other half only open for a short handful of hours in the day, that is if you can get one of the slots you have to pre-book in advance. Also tried to get a dental checkup, told by my practice not on the NHS but they'll happily do it if I stump 60 quid for a private appointment. Just to do a checkup, not even any specific dental work. I daresay in a year's time we might have solved covid but with a major dental work backlog.
Feel sorry for the other stuff that hadn't even reopened yet before today.
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1308504632893812737?s=20
Lets say the case figure has risen to 12,000 in 2 weeks but in that time the positivity rate has fallen to 0.8% and the ONS is estimating R around 1 etc . . . or in 2 weeks the case figure is 12,000 but in that time the positivity rate has increased to 2%, the R is estimated at 1.6 etc
Which 12,000 case scenario would you prefer? The cases in isolation only tell part of the story.
He'd fail his Ofsted if they weren't put front and centre.
Obsessing over case numbers misses the fact they're not the issue.
Pensioners should not be immune, they have been almost entirely protected from austerity whilst young people have been screwed.
So it is a suppression strategy then.
We don't need detailed numbers. But you may have confidence that Johnson isn't often acting on a whim. The papers are basically already saying that he has gone against CMO/CSO advice to produce a compromise within the cabinet. Measures have to be given some time to work. There is a bit of a supertanker effect.
But i suspect that for all the talk of "six months", there will be new measures announced within two weeks.
Blair even won pensioners in 1997 so yes you are right it would not be sensible if Labour wants to win and certainly if it wants a chance to win big to scrap the triple lock
It was Mercantilism writ large. Resources were extracted by force from the colonies. The colonies were prohibited from developing industries to produce finished goods instead forced to buy finished goods from Britain extracting even more wealth from them.
The irony of Tata buying up the ends of the British steel industry given the various prohibitions the British imposed on the industry in India when a colony is hard not to laugh at.
Personally, I don't get hung up on the French, Portuguese, or Russians being worse in some ways than our own Imperialists. It is more useful and productive to show that we are better people than our historical predecesors. The comparisons should be 21st century Britain vs 19th Century Britain, not 19th Century Britain vs 19th Century Russia or 16th Century Spain.
“ We have the PPE, we have the beds, we have the Nightingales,”
“We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too,“
That's him.
Are you trying to say he surrendered?!
The Brexit Party doesn't need to be relaunched, as I don't think it disbanded. But I would bet odds on they will fight the Conservatives over this issue, and do quite well as the only party representing those who don't wish to be locked up by the Westminster consensus
A policy that guarantees one group an ever increasing share of the pie regardless of circumstances is clearly wrong. That it gives that ever increasing share to the richest cohort in society makes it insane.
Unless none of them understand it of course...
This is one of the major factors that makes people instinctively resile against the grinding sociological mediocrity of taking the -isms as the measure of all things.
Its next year the anomaly would hit, so next year that it would need to be suspended if so.
I don't believe Vallance or Whitty said any such thing, at least nobody has quoted them as saying any such thing.
A plurality of Scots, Londoners and those in the Midlands and Wales think the measures are about right or go too far, a plurality of Southerners and Northerners however think the measures do not go far enough.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/survey-results/daily/2020/09/22/ffff7/2?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_2
When they get their 15% rise next year, the British sense of fair play will make the policy toxic and finally ready for repeal.
Do people think we should continue doing the same thing irrespective of the situation ?
Actually, your mob, the LDs, seem to be making more noises than any other Westminster party on the matter of whether locking us up is definitely the correct response, good for them (Davey and Cable). Whether it is genuine or as a way of distinguishing themselves from the rest, it is certainly welcome. I have been astonished by the way this has been shoved through unquestioningly
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Got it.
Here's the problem: you can't prove it but you still earnestly believe it to be true.
You have no idea how to respond to those who don't share your dogma so instead you suggest that if they disagree with you then that's their problem.
I'll leave others to decide how convincing they think that is.
I'm off to Waitrose tomorrow morning. Then golf in the afternoon.