Well that will go down well with most of the public I expect but badly with libertarians and Farage and a number of Tory backbenchers but he stresses it is to avoid another full lockdown.
Still hopes for vaccine and mass testing by the Spring
So he is saying we should give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety from the virus?
I'd say it's more like:
"...we should temporarily give up some liberty, to purchase safety from the virus in the interim."
And Ben Franklin would reply: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Ben Franklin an anti-masker? What BS. He was prime founder of America's first public hospital!
Rummaging Bartlett's for seemly apt quotes is NOT as persuasive as some might think.
All it suggests is it is more likely Trump wins the popular vote and Biden wins the EC this time, though I am still of the view Trump will scrape home in the EC.
The main finding from Monmouth was the shy Trumps are most concentrated in high turnout rich voters
We have had ONE poll from ONE pollster giving Trump a lead of one point. Every other poll in the past 8-10 days has shown Biden leading 5-9 points.
@Peter_the_Punter makes the not unreasonable assumption on the weight of polling evidence, 4/5 Biden to win the popular vote doesn't look a bad bet. That doesn't mean that's what WILL happen but at this point, as a betting man (and this is a betting website in case you hadn't noticed) it looks a good bet.
Your view is Trump will do better in 2020 than in 2016 in terms of the popular vote (which he lost 48-46 last time) and that's a view to which you are entitled but the evidence at this time suggests backing Trump to win the popular vote at the odds available doesn't represent value.
There isn't the volume of undecided voters there was last time - yes, Trump will no doubt try so achieve some form of "October surprise" to move the polls and he may succeed but you need that to happen or for every other pollster other than Rasmussen to be wrong which isn't inconceivable but at the odds on offer doesn't represent an attractive bet.
Given Rasmussen and Google were the only pollsters to correctly predict Clinton would win the national popular vote by 2% in 2016 I will stick with Rasmussen and as you say Rasmussen currently has Trump ahead in the national popular vote by 1%
Rasmussen got their vote shares wrong though.
I am struggling to decide whether most I want Biden to win: a) because the future of America depends on it, or: b) to see @HYUFD's smug assertions demolished.
Marginally b) I think.
Mate, we're you here for the French Presidential election where he ceaselessly ramped Le Pen. Even Le Pen's comprehensive loss couldn't slow him down.
You will be gravelly disappointed even if Biden takes everywhere bar Louisiana.
... 2. The British Empire was a VERY notable example of racist colonialism. ...
Ah, I see your mistake. You don't understand the British Empire.
But are you going to answer my question about the Ashanti warrior?
Your question is asinine. Here's a better one -
Does my observation that the British Empire was a notable example of racist colonialism really indicate a lack of understanding of the British Empire?
Or is your saying that it does an example of self-serving and parochial cognitive bias?
I'm being generous btw.
Happy to answer your question, once we've cleared up the question of whether you are consistent in your objection to statues. (Prediction; You are not.)
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?
.. He was a man of his times though, and wrote some quite homophobic bits in his novels, the non-white characters in "Burmese Days" are not very PC, and he openly admits to wrestling with middle class distaste for the working class. A complex character indeed.
Some revisionism creeping in here - it's precisely the quality of the depictions of the non-British characters in Burmese Days that makes it such a great novel, and so much better than E M Forster's rather prissy exploration of a similar theme.
A propos wines, today's discovery here (Scotland) is that the vine in our garden has produced clusters of dark grapes for the first time ever. They are small, the size of forest bilberries but fairly profuse.
Beth Rigby exemplified whats wrong with news coverage...i've been scrolling through twitter to gauge the reaction.
Beth Rigby’s been exemplifying everything that’s wrong with the news coverage since February.
Only February?
I can just about put up with them being crap most of the time.
I really hate it when they’re giving it the usual crap in the middle of a pandemic that’s killing thousands of people, where the public are utterly reliant on them to be factual, accurate and calm.
All it suggests is it is more likely Trump wins the popular vote and Biden wins the EC this time, though I am still of the view Trump will scrape home in the EC.
The main finding from Monmouth was the shy Trumps are most concentrated in high turnout rich voters
We have had ONE poll from ONE pollster giving Trump a lead of one point. Every other poll in the past 8-10 days has shown Biden leading 5-9 points.
@Peter_the_Punter makes the not unreasonable assumption on the weight of polling evidence, 4/5 Biden to win the popular vote doesn't look a bad bet. That doesn't mean that's what WILL happen but at this point, as a betting man (and this is a betting website in case you hadn't noticed) it looks a good bet.
Your view is Trump will do better in 2020 than in 2016 in terms of the popular vote (which he lost 48-46 last time) and that's a view to which you are entitled but the evidence at this time suggests backing Trump to win the popular vote at the odds available doesn't represent value.
There isn't the volume of undecided voters there was last time - yes, Trump will no doubt try so achieve some form of "October surprise" to move the polls and he may succeed but you need that to happen or for every other pollster other than Rasmussen to be wrong which isn't inconceivable but at the odds on offer doesn't represent an attractive bet.
Given Rasmussen and Google were the only pollsters to correctly predict Clinton would win the national popular vote by 2% in 2016 I will stick with Rasmussen and as you say Rasmussen currently has Trump ahead in the national popular vote by 1%
Rasmussen got their vote shares wrong though.
I am struggling to decide whether most I want Biden to win: a) because the future of America depends on it, or: b) to see @HYUFD's smug assertions demolished.
Marginally b) I think.
Mate, we're you here for the French Presidential election where he ceaselessly ramped Le Pen. Even Le Pen's comprehensive loss couldn't slow him down.
You will be gravelly disappointed even if Biden takes everywhere bar Louisiana.
Fair point. But in such a situation I will strive to overcome my disappointment.
All it suggests is it is more likely Trump wins the popular vote and Biden wins the EC this time, though I am still of the view Trump will scrape home in the EC.
The main finding from Monmouth was the shy Trumps are most concentrated in high turnout rich voters
We have had ONE poll from ONE pollster giving Trump a lead of one point. Every other poll in the past 8-10 days has shown Biden leading 5-9 points.
@Peter_the_Punter makes the not unreasonable assumption on the weight of polling evidence, 4/5 Biden to win the popular vote doesn't look a bad bet. That doesn't mean that's what WILL happen but at this point, as a betting man (and this is a betting website in case you hadn't noticed) it looks a good bet.
Your view is Trump will do better in 2020 than in 2016 in terms of the popular vote (which he lost 48-46 last time) and that's a view to which you are entitled but the evidence at this time suggests backing Trump to win the popular vote at the odds available doesn't represent value.
There isn't the volume of undecided voters there was last time - yes, Trump will no doubt try so achieve some form of "October surprise" to move the polls and he may succeed but you need that to happen or for every other pollster other than Rasmussen to be wrong which isn't inconceivable but at the odds on offer doesn't represent an attractive bet.
Given Rasmussen and Google were the only pollsters to correctly predict Clinton would win the national popular vote by 2% in 2016 I will stick with Rasmussen and as you say Rasmussen currently has Trump ahead in the national popular vote by 1%
Rasmussen got their vote shares wrong though.
I am struggling to decide whether most I want Biden to win: a) because the future of America depends on it, or: b) to see @HYUFD's smug assertions demolished.
Marginally b) I think.
Mate, we're you here for the French Presidential election where he ceaselessly ramped Le Pen. Even Le Pen's comprehensive loss couldn't slow him down.
You will be gravelly disappointed even if Biden takes everywhere bar Louisiana.
I said Le Pen might win the first round, she did not, however I never said she would win the run off.
That is one of the few occasions I have been wrong in an election over the last few years, I got UK general election 2019 right, I got Boris being next Tory leader and PM right very much against the PB herd again, I got Trudeau being re elected right, I got Morrison winning right.
In 2016 I actually thought Hillary would win and said so, however she did not and unlike many on here who it seems put who they want to win above learning the lessons of that campaign and saying who will win I am prepared to look at the pollsters who did get that right, ie Rasmussen nationally, Trafalgar in the key swing states and say Trump can still win
A touch hyperbolic. The SC is very important but it does not govern America. Not even close. Plus if a crazily Con judge is rammed through now for a 6/3 bias the Dems will mitigate either with term limits or expansion of the court from 9 to 11.
Term limits would be the best response. A 20 year limit would retire Thomas and Breyer - and leave a 5-4 Republican court, which would be a restoration of the status quo before the Garland affair. A non partisan reform which would justify no retaliation - particularly as it retires a liberal and a conservative.
Then move in the direction of restoring balance to the Senate with statehood for Puerto Rico and North Virginia.
Stir in an exercise of Article III power, and that ought to be more than sufficient payback. In an entirely principled and non partisan manner.
A North Virginia would be safe Dem, leaving the rest of Virginia safe GOP.
With a net result of +2 GOP Senators.
North Virginia is what Washington DC might be called when made a state.
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.
‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’
Oh no. It's the new Godwin - the inappropriate invocation of our Eric.
But back to the point. You seem to hold the absurd view that one cannot take a single statue of a racist down or re-badge a single building named after a racist without having to take ALL statues of racists down or re-badge ALL buildings named after racists, regardless of circumstances (e.g. type and use of building) or genuinely useful context (as opposed to deflection) such as who the racist was, what else did he do, just how racist was he, was it incidental (say) or did he make his living from slavery, did he as it were wallow in his racism?
"Mr X. A great man in many ways but he was VERY racist, he really was, and so we are considering whether we want to have this building named after him."
Nothing wrong or sinister with this. It's healthy. You just dislike the notion and all you're doing is using "extrapolatus ad nauseato" to try and counter it. It won't wash.
Particularly egregious to recruit old Blair to the project of minimising our colonial crimes, given his well documented hatred of British imperialism.
Yes, the way that the populist (far) right currently try to use Orwell is fascinating; there seems to be a lot of this about in recent months. If they'd read Orwell properly, they would realise that he would have had no time for their views at all. A classic example of cultural (mis)appropriation?
His essays on his time in the Burmese Police in the twenties, and his book "Burmese Days" are pretty clear that he hated Imperialism and the Empire. A recurring theme is how the experience of colonisation was as destructive of the good in the British as the Burmese and Indians.
Am excitedly waiting for the inevitable 'Orwell was actually quite keen on the Empire' response.
Really? Not heard that. His worst mistake, other than the one about Billy Bunter, was his "There's more to Kipling than imperialist shit" essay. There isn't.
I was being a tad mischievous, but if I was looking for someone to take on the dirty, logic-defying mission of proving Orwell was an imperialist, PB wouldn't be a bad place to start.
All it suggests is it is more likely Trump wins the popular vote and Biden wins the EC this time, though I am still of the view Trump will scrape home in the EC.
The main finding from Monmouth was the shy Trumps are most concentrated in high turnout rich voters
We have had ONE poll from ONE pollster giving Trump a lead of one point. Every other poll in the past 8-10 days has shown Biden leading 5-9 points.
@Peter_the_Punter makes the not unreasonable assumption on the weight of polling evidence, 4/5 Biden to win the popular vote doesn't look a bad bet. That doesn't mean that's what WILL happen but at this point, as a betting man (and this is a betting website in case you hadn't noticed) it looks a good bet.
Your view is Trump will do better in 2020 than in 2016 in terms of the popular vote (which he lost 48-46 last time) and that's a view to which you are entitled but the evidence at this time suggests backing Trump to win the popular vote at the odds available doesn't represent value.
There isn't the volume of undecided voters there was last time - yes, Trump will no doubt try so achieve some form of "October surprise" to move the polls and he may succeed but you need that to happen or for every other pollster other than Rasmussen to be wrong which isn't inconceivable but at the odds on offer doesn't represent an attractive bet.
Given Rasmussen and Google were the only pollsters to correctly predict Clinton would win the national popular vote by 2% in 2016 I will stick with Rasmussen and as you say Rasmussen currently has Trump ahead in the national popular vote by 1%
Rasmussen got their vote shares wrong though.
I am struggling to decide whether most I want Biden to win: a) because the future of America depends on it, or: b) to see @HYUFD's smug assertions demolished.
Marginally b) I think.
Mate, we're you here for the French Presidential election where he ceaselessly ramped Le Pen. Even Le Pen's comprehensive loss couldn't slow him down.
You will be gravelly disappointed even if Biden takes everywhere bar Louisiana.
A twenty year term limit would fix that. Imposed by an incoming Democratic Congress, it would still allow a 5-4 Republican Court led by Roberts for the entire term of the next Presidency, so would be an entirely even handed reform.
Wouldn't a term limit hit the Democrats more than the Republicans for the next generation? Three of the GOP Justices (by then) were only just inaugurated so the term limit would hit the Democrats sooner.
Not really, as the next two out would be Roberts and Alito. But that would be after the 2024 election, so all to play for.
A twenty year term limit would fix that. Imposed by an incoming Democratic Congress, it would still allow a 5-4 Republican Court led by Roberts for the entire term of the next Presidency, so would be an entirely even handed reform.
Wouldn't a term limit hit the Democrats more than the Republicans for the next generation? Three of the GOP Justices (by then) were only just inaugurated so the term limit would hit the Democrats sooner.
Not really, as the next two out would be Roberts and Alito. But that would be after the 2024 election, so all to play for.
The people who quote this are usually adamant that it doesn’t count in circumstances where they think temporarily giving up some essential liberties for security were correct. Such as during the Blitz and WWII when a bunch of liberties were given up.
I think it causes a clash in their minds between two incompatible beliefs which they think both have to be true.
It's also curious those who protest about giving up liberties and freedoms now didn't say a word as successive Governments brought in draconian surveillance powers and gave more power to the security state in response to terrorism.
It seemed after every outrage there was a call for further restrictions, more powers for the security services etc and those who opposed such measures on the grounds of the erosion of civil liberties were attacked as being friends of terrorists.
I'm left with that paradox given the numbers killed by terrorism in the past 40 years and the numbers killed by Covid-19 in the past 6 months but there's no point pouring any petrol on that perfectly good fire...
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.
‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’
Oh no. It's the new Godwin - the inappropriate invocation of our Eric.
But back to the point. You seem to hold the absurd view that one cannot take a single statue of a racist down or re-badge a single building named after a racist without having to take ALL statues of racists down or re-badge ALL buildings named after racists, regardless of circumstances (e.g. type and use of building) or genuinely useful context (as opposed to deflection) such as who the racist was, what else did he do, just how racist was he, was it incidental (say) or did he make his living from slavery, did he as it were wallow in his racism?
"Mr X. A great man in many ways but he was VERY racist, he really was, and so we are considering whether we want to have this building named after him."
Nothing wrong or sinister with this. It's healthy. You just dislike the notion and all you're doing is using "extrapolatus ad nauseato" to try and counter it. It won't wash.
Particularly egregious to recruit old Blair to the project of minimising our colonial crimes, given his well documented hatred of British imperialism.
Yes, the way that the populist (far) right currently try to use Orwell is fascinating; there seems to be a lot of this about in recent months. If they'd read Orwell properly, they would realise that he would have had no time for their views at all. A classic example of cultural (mis)appropriation?
His essays on his time in the Burmese Police in the twenties, and his book "Burmese Days" are pretty clear that he hated Imperialism and the Empire. A recurring theme is how the experience of colonisation was as destructive of the good in the British as the Burmese and Indians.
Am excitedly waiting for the inevitable 'Orwell was actually quite keen on the Empire' response.
Really? Not heard that. His worst mistake, other than the one about Billy Bunter, was his "There's more to Kipling than imperialist shit" essay. There isn't.
I was being a tad mischievous, but if I was looking for someone to take on the dirty, logic-defying mission of proving Orwell was an imperialist, PB wouldn't be a bad place to start.
He was the archetypal Anglo-British nationalist who denied his own nationalism. He called Ireland a "sham-independent country" and used "stinking Roman Catholic" as an insult.
A twenty year term limit would fix that. Imposed by an incoming Democratic Congress, it would still allow a 5-4 Republican Court led by Roberts for the entire term of the next Presidency, so would be an entirely even handed reform.
Wouldn't a term limit hit the Democrats more than the Republicans for the next generation? Three of the GOP Justices (by then) were only just inaugurated so the term limit would hit the Democrats sooner.
Two of the current justices, Thomas (appointed by Bush 41) and Breyer (appointed by Clinton), already have over twenty years each on the bench. Most likely any move to set term limits would only be applied to new appointments. If the Ds tried to impose a term limit deposing existing justices by statute, it would probably fall foul of the prohibition on ex post facto laws. I think a bipartisan case for a constitutional amendment to set a term limit on SCOTUS justices could be made, but I don't see that getting anywhere unless the existing justices were grandfathered out of it.
Ah further to that, I just had a look at Article III, which establishes the federal courts, and it says that "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour", so it follows that it would require a full-blown constitutional amendment to create a term limit, not just statute.
There is some argument over that - after all, justices leaving the court remain federal judges - Associate Judges of the Supreme Court. It might possibly end up with the SC if put to the test. Roberts, among others, has spoken favourably of term limits in the past - and any of the justices might find the prospect preferable to expansion of the court. Which of course is entirely within Congress’s powers.
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.
This emergency doctor hasn't seen a covid patient in two months.
Well, that could have been said by many Emergency doctors here a month ago.
Hubris is brutal, just as it has been on those PBers who were saying just a few short weeks ago that we had beaten the bug because of our brilliant Test and Trace system.
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.
I said Le Pen might win the first round, she did not, however I never said she would win the run off.
That is one of the few occasions I have been wrong in an election over the last few years, I got UK general election 2019 right, I got Boris being next Tory leader and PM right very much against the PB herd again, I got Trudeau being re elected right, I got Morrison winning right.
I don't want to misquote you but my recollection of your prediction from the 2017 French Presidential election was that Fillon would make it to the second round and would defeat Le Pen. I certainly recall plenty of pro-Fillon posts and especially how he was going to win among the older demographic.
To be fair, you were absolutely correct - Fillon won 65% of the over 70 vote and was narrowly ahead of Macron among the 60-69 age group. However, and I'm sure you would acknowledge that, Fillon's performance among those aged under 60 was awful, and that cost him a place in the second round.
A twenty year term limit would fix that. Imposed by an incoming Democratic Congress, it would still allow a 5-4 Republican Court led by Roberts for the entire term of the next Presidency, so would be an entirely even handed reform.
Wouldn't a term limit hit the Democrats more than the Republicans for the next generation? Three of the GOP Justices (by then) were only just inaugurated so the term limit would hit the Democrats sooner.
Not really, as the next two out would be Roberts and Alito. But that would be after the 2024 election, so all to play for.
It would be a remarkable evenhanded reform.
It wouldn't do anything to solve the problem in the short term and in the long term barring morbidity issues between now and then would make the 2036 election ludicrously important (I believe every Justice chosen this term so far is relatively young).
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.
Most Britons are neither proud nor ashamed of their Empire, the only nation where most are proud of their Empire is the Netherlands.
In Italy, Japan, Spain and Germany more are ashamed than proud of their Empires
Well that will go down well with most of the public I expect but badly with libertarians and Farage and a number of Tory backbenchers but he stresses it is to avoid another full lockdown.
Still hopes for vaccine and mass testing by the Spring
So he is saying we should give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety from the virus?
I'd say it's more like:
"...we should temporarily give up some liberty, to purchase safety from the virus in the interim."
And Ben Franklin would reply: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Ben Franklin an anti-masker? What BS. He was prime founder of America's first public hospital!
Rummaging Bartlett's for seemly apt quotes is NOT as persuasive as some might think.
And a keen amateur scientist. No way he’d be anti mask.
The Unionist parties voted against, the Alliance swung it and most of their voters are soft Unionist UUP Alliance swing voters many of whom voted for Lady Hermon in North Down and who may now switch back to the UUP
I said Le Pen might win the first round, she did not, however I never said she would win the run off.
That is one of the few occasions I have been wrong in an election over the last few years, I got UK general election 2019 right, I got Boris being next Tory leader and PM right very much against the PB herd again, I got Trudeau being re elected right, I got Morrison winning right.
I don't want to misquote you but my recollection of your prediction from the 2017 French Presidential election was that Fillon would make it to the second round and would defeat Le Pen. I certainly recall plenty of pro-Fillon posts and especially how he was going to win among the older demographic.
To be fair, you were absolutely correct - Fillon won 65% of the over 70 vote and was narrowly ahead of Macron among the 60-69 age group. However, and I'm sure you would acknowledge that, Fillon's performance among those aged under 60 was awful, and that cost him a place in the second round.
As I said I got the first round wrong, however as I said I also never said Le Pen would win the run off whether against Fillon or Macron.
If I was French you are correct I would have voted for Fillon in round 1, Macron in round 2 once Fillon was eliminated
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.
‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’
Oh no. It's the new Godwin - the inappropriate invocation of our Eric.
But back to the point. You seem to hold the absurd view that one cannot take a single statue of a racist down or re-badge a single building named after a racist without having to take ALL statues of racists down or re-badge ALL buildings named after racists, regardless of circumstances (e.g. type and use of building) or genuinely useful context (as opposed to deflection) such as who the racist was, what else did he do, just how racist was he, was it incidental (say) or did he make his living from slavery, did he as it were wallow in his racism?
"Mr X. A great man in many ways but he was VERY racist, he really was, and so we are considering whether we want to have this building named after him."
Nothing wrong or sinister with this. It's healthy. You just dislike the notion and all you're doing is using "extrapolatus ad nauseato" to try and counter it. It won't wash.
Particularly egregious to recruit old Blair to the project of minimising our colonial crimes, given his well documented hatred of British imperialism.
Yes, the way that the populist (far) right currently try to use Orwell is fascinating; there seems to be a lot of this about in recent months. If they'd read Orwell properly, they would realise that he would have had no time for their views at all. A classic example of cultural (mis)appropriation?
His essays on his time in the Burmese Police in the twenties, and his book "Burmese Days" are pretty clear that he hated Imperialism and the Empire. A recurring theme is how the experience of colonisation was as destructive of the good in the British as the Burmese and Indians.
Am excitedly waiting for the inevitable 'Orwell was actually quite keen on the Empire' response.
Really? Not heard that. His worst mistake, other than the one about Billy Bunter, was his "There's more to Kipling than imperialist shit" essay. There isn't.
I was being a tad mischievous, but if I was looking for someone to take on the dirty, logic-defying mission of proving Orwell was an imperialist, PB wouldn't be a bad place to start.
He was the archetypal Anglo-British nationalist who denied his own nationalism. He called Ireland a "sham-independent country" and used "stinking Roman Catholic" as an insult.
Oh aye, I agree that he was deeply and/or willfully confused about his Britishness (The Lion and the Unicorn being the prime example). He was similarly scathing about Scottish nationalism and Scotchness though i think that softened latterly; I seem to recall a passage where Orwell compares the braying middle class tones of his London TB doctors unfavourably with those of the docs in the East Kilbride hospital in which he spent some time.
He was a mass of spiky contradictions, much more interesting than, say, Churchill and I imagine very difficult to live with. There's something mysteriously tragic about there being no surviving record of Orwell's speaking voice despite him being a reasonably prolific broadcaster.
A twenty year term limit would fix that. Imposed by an incoming Democratic Congress, it would still allow a 5-4 Republican Court led by Roberts for the entire term of the next Presidency, so would be an entirely even handed reform.
Wouldn't a term limit hit the Democrats more than the Republicans for the next generation? Three of the GOP Justices (by then) were only just inaugurated so the term limit would hit the Democrats sooner.
Not really, as the next two out would be Roberts and Alito. But that would be after the 2024 election, so all to play for.
It would be a remarkable evenhanded reform.
It wouldn't do anything to solve the problem in the short term and in the long term barring morbidity issues between now and then would make the 2036 election ludicrously important (I believe every Justice chosen this term so far is relatively young).
If Breyer and Alito retire, and are replaced by liberals, it indeed solves the problem - we return to a 5-4 court with Roberts the swing vote. Not ideal for either Democrats or Republicans, but something both can live with.
2036 would only be so important because of the Garland shenanigans. That’s the Republicans’ problem.
Well that will go down well with most of the public I expect but badly with libertarians and Farage and a number of Tory backbenchers but he stresses it is to avoid another full lockdown.
Still hopes for vaccine and mass testing by the Spring
So he is saying we should give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety from the virus?
I'd say it's more like:
"...we should temporarily give up some liberty, to purchase safety from the virus in the interim."
And Ben Franklin would reply: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Ben Franklin an anti-masker? What BS. He was prime founder of America's first public hospital!
Rummaging Bartlett's for seemly apt quotes is NOT as persuasive as some might think.
Did I say he was an anti fucking masker? Don't you think that prohibitions of gatherings of more than n people are a more obvious denial of a more obvious liberty than the right not to wear a mask? Who talks about "rummaging Bartlett's" these days? Are you writing in the 1930s?
I am inclined to believe the polls, and they have hardly budged since February, despite all events. Donald is in for a pasting, and I have bet accordingly.
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.
All it suggests is it is more likely Trump wins the popular vote and Biden wins the EC this time, though I am still of the view Trump will scrape home in the EC.
The main finding from Monmouth was the shy Trumps are most concentrated in high turnout rich voters
We have had ONE poll from ONE pollster giving Trump a lead of one point. Every other poll in the past 8-10 days has shown Biden leading 5-9 points.
@Peter_the_Punter makes the not unreasonable assumption on the weight of polling evidence, 4/5 Biden to win the popular vote doesn't look a bad bet. That doesn't mean that's what WILL happen but at this point, as a betting man (and this is a betting website in case you hadn't noticed) it looks a good bet.
Your view is Trump will do better in 2020 than in 2016 in terms of the popular vote (which he lost 48-46 last time) and that's a view to which you are entitled but the evidence at this time suggests backing Trump to win the popular vote at the odds available doesn't represent value.
There isn't the volume of undecided voters there was last time - yes, Trump will no doubt try so achieve some form of "October surprise" to move the polls and he may succeed but you need that to happen or for every other pollster other than Rasmussen to be wrong which isn't inconceivable but at the odds on offer doesn't represent an attractive bet.
Given Rasmussen and Google were the only pollsters to correctly predict Clinton would win the national popular vote by 2% in 2016 I will stick with Rasmussen and as you say Rasmussen currently has Trump ahead in the national popular vote by 1%
Rasmussen got their vote shares wrong though.
I am struggling to decide whether most I want Biden to win: a) because the future of America depends on it, or: b) to see @HYUFD's smug assertions demolished.
Marginally b) I think.
Mate, we're you here for the French Presidential election where he ceaselessly ramped Le Pen. Even Le Pen's comprehensive loss couldn't slow him down.
You will be gravelly disappointed even if Biden takes everywhere bar Louisiana.
I said Le Pen might win the first round, she did not, however I never said she would win the run off.
You were calling the first round for Le Pen as the results were coming in and literally everyone down to SeanT pointing out you were getting over exited about the rural vote being counted first.
Signed up for the flu jab with Lloyds Pharmacy, might as well get myself onto a covid vaccine e-mail list somewhere (Yes I know it doesn't exactly work that way)
A touch hyperbolic. The SC is very important but it does not govern America. Not even close. Plus if a crazily Con judge is rammed through now for a 6/3 bias the Dems will mitigate either with term limits or expansion of the court from 9 to 11.
Term limits would be the best response. A 20 year limit would retire Thomas and Breyer - and leave a 5-4 Republican court, which would be a restoration of the status quo before the Garland affair. A non partisan reform which would justify no retaliation - particularly as it retires a liberal and a conservative.
Then move in the direction of restoring balance to the Senate with statehood for Puerto Rico and North Virginia.
Stir in an exercise of Article III power, and that ought to be more than sufficient payback. In an entirely principled and non partisan manner.
A North Virginia would be safe Dem, leaving the rest of Virginia safe GOP.
With a net result of +2 GOP Senators.
North Virginia is what Washington DC might be called when made a state.
It would be South Maryland.
What actually should happen is that it should be put back into Maryland.
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.
These are all poor polls for Trump - as I mentioned earlier, instead of wondering if MN is going to flip, we should be looking at Georgia, Iowa and Texas as potential Biden pickups.
Vermont is particularly noteworthy. Biden isn't doing as well as Clinton did, so there is no question of him piling up votes uselessly in safe States.
Who was the last Democrat to win Georgia and Texas? I’m guessing it was Carter.
Clinton won Georgia in 1992, but Carter was the last Democrat to win Texas.
Indeed, the 1976 map is almost a reverse of the 2016 map, certainly in the South.
Carter won every southern state except Virginia which went to Ford, Ford also won Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut and New Jersey and every western state except Hawaii, including California and Ford also won Illinois while Carter won Ohio and Missouri and Wisconsin as well as Minnesota and West Virginia
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Reasonable point, but I am not sure what your case is either. If it is racism as part of mainstream 18th century intellectual thought - it wasn't particularly. I had no idea till yesterday about Hume's beliefs about "negroes" despite having studied the man with reasonable diligence at university, but I did know a fair bit about Francis Barber - Samuel Johnson's black servant to whom he left all his books and papers, suggesting that Johnson thought a bit differently. If it is merely general folk belief, why go back to C18th Edinburgh when in our own lifetime it was legal to put "no blacks" in any kind of contract and to call people n*ggers? And frankly I really don't detect any deeply ingrained hereditary taint of racism in myself, and there is no point in telling me I have an unconscious bias because I think by now it would have manifested itself in my actions, and it hasn't.
Ok. But my case is more a reactive one in this instance. I'm opposing the view that any attempt to look critically at our colonial past, and maybe act on it sometimes with taking a statue down or renaming a building, is at best futile or at worst the ushering in of a deeply sinister Orwellian year zero exercise whereby we seek to "cancel" the past.
I just don't get on with the statues and renaming stuff except in very clear cases like the Jimmy Savile tower. I am absolutely with you on the importance of accurately representing our slaving history, but but I would rather we did that by studying history and writing and televising the results than by cost-free gesturing. Its like those Tristrams at Cambridge reacting to the suggestion that turning down the heating is a more effective way of combating warming, than making ostentatiously wankerish demands about disinvestment in BP.
We are not as one but neither are we at loggerheads. Probably when I'm arguing with posters who I think are very wrong on this topic I come over as being a little more keen on removing statues and renaming landmarks than I truly am. But as to the racist legacy of Empire, that's a thing, it really is imo. I struggle to understand how people can deny this and keep a straight face. (Perhaps they aren't, some of them. That's always a possibility.)
On 1st Jan, COVID and Brexit are going to converge in one enormous clusterf*ck singularity, aren’t they?
Oh, I don't think the timing works for that. I think we'd have to be on the downswing from peak number two by that point, or in the trough following.
I'm not sure - remember the flattening the curve graph back in March, but onset was too quick so we had to stop everything. Well, flattening the curve is precisely what we are doing now.
If we carry on averahing R to around 1.15 (around 20 day doubling) by Christmas that would be 1.5 million cases per week and, clearly we have enough people to sustain that in winter conditions. If higher peak is likely earlier, if lower, which we want, possibly later.
Anyway the chance of being near peak in January with current profile is very possible.
And the chance of large rotating queues of infected people trawling the supermarkets for basic provisions, Russia style, is also possible.
Releasing everybody for Christmas may not play well.
Good spot - I used 2 slightly different projections on the same day to illustrate different points.
My central expectation would be slower growth and a later peak, no way they'll allow things to get to 1.5m cases per week without locking down as, even with different age profiles, that is double the height of the March peak and the NHS would be hurting bad.
So an early December lockdown would be at lower rates than the above and any thought of a Christmas exemption and the nature/duration of that exemption (e.g. 2 day rule of six) would be contingent on a degree of suppression (not in the bag at that point).
But at New Year, I'd still expect COVID rates a number of times higher than they are now and not far from peak.
And the principles here apply across other European nations as well.
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...
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.
Empires are created by expansionist wars, rather than defensive ones. They are intrinsically an aggressive act, that places conquerer on top of conquered. That is as true of the British Empire as it is of any other, French, German, Moghal or Zulu.
The others matter less to us, because we are British, and so our history is closer to our culture and national mythology.
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...
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.
Have their been any studies on how many people have tried to improve their health during the last six months - give up smoking, lose weight, more exercise for example ?
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.
Comments
Rummaging Bartlett's for seemly apt quotes is NOT as persuasive as some might think.
You will be gravelly disappointed even if Biden takes everywhere bar Louisiana.
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?
https://twitter.com/FraserWhyte81/status/1308484083673169927?s=20
I really hate it when they’re giving it the usual crap in the middle of a pandemic that’s killing thousands of people, where the public are utterly reliant on them to be factual, accurate and calm.
That is one of the few occasions I have been wrong in an election over the last few years, I got UK general election 2019 right, I got Boris being next Tory leader and PM right very much against the PB herd again, I got Trudeau being re elected right, I got Morrison winning right.
In 2016 I actually thought Hillary would win and said so, however she did not and unlike many on here who it seems put who they want to win above learning the lessons of that campaign and saying who will win I am prepared to look at the pollsters who did get that right, ie Rasmussen nationally, Trafalgar in the key swing states and say Trump can still win
Ah, my coat...
But that would be after the 2024 election, so all to play for.
It would be a remarkable evenhanded reform.
https://sebastianrushworth.com/2020/09/19/covid-19-does-sweden-have-herd-immunity/
This emergency doctor hasn't seen a covid patient in two months.
It seemed after every outrage there was a call for further restrictions, more powers for the security services etc and those who opposed such measures on the grounds of the erosion of civil liberties were attacked as being friends of terrorists.
I'm left with that paradox given the numbers killed by terrorism in the past 40 years and the numbers killed by Covid-19 in the past 6 months but there's no point pouring any petrol on that perfectly good fire...
Roberts, among others, has spoken favourably of term limits in the past - and any of the justices might find the prospect preferable to expansion of the court. Which of course is entirely within Congress’s powers.
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?
Hubris is brutal, just as it has been on those PBers who were saying just a few short weeks ago that we had beaten the bug because of our brilliant Test and Trace system.
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 be fair, you were absolutely correct - Fillon won 65% of the over 70 vote and was narrowly ahead of Macron among the 60-69 age group. However, and I'm sure you would acknowledge that, Fillon's performance among those aged under 60 was awful, and that cost him a place in the second round.
No way he’d be anti mask.
And I wonder who was going to the pub as a civic duty in June?
0/10 must try harder
If I was French you are correct I would have voted for Fillon in round 1, Macron in round 2 once Fillon was eliminated
Typical left wing BB...oh
Video clip here for those who missed it:
https://twitter.com/BritishBakeOff/status/1308485512110510081?s=09
He was a mass of spiky contradictions, much more interesting than, say, Churchill and I imagine very difficult to live with. There's something mysteriously tragic about there being no surviving record of Orwell's speaking voice despite him being a reasonably prolific broadcaster.
UnionConservative Party is to abolish the NI Assembly.2036 would only be so important because of the Garland shenanigans. That’s the Republicans’ problem.
https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1308084615203172352?s=19
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.
What actually should happen is that it should be put back into Maryland.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKDHioNLb4I&ab_channel=AntonPetrov
https://twitter.com/number10cat/status/1308492351904665604?s=21
The Republicans were standard centre-right plus northern liberals plus poor Appalachian hillbillies.
The Democrats were standard centre-left plus southern populists plus KKK.
Sadly the summer lull was marked by a spike in suicides, drug overdoses and alcoholic liver failure.
I don't think full lockdown is possible again, and am in the unusual position of agreeing with the current government restrictions.
My central expectation would be slower growth and a later peak, no way they'll allow things to get to 1.5m cases per week without locking down as, even with different age profiles, that is double the height of the March peak and the NHS would be hurting bad.
So an early December lockdown would be at lower rates than the above and any thought of a Christmas exemption and the nature/duration of that exemption (e.g. 2 day rule of six) would be contingent on a degree of suppression (not in the bag at that point).
But at New Year, I'd still expect COVID rates a number of times higher than they are now and not far from peak.
And the principles here apply across other European nations as well.
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...
https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1308508400507129856
The others matter less to us, because we are British, and so our history is closer to our culture and national mythology.
He's not too good at them.
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.