this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
309 points (97.0% liked)
World News
32352 readers
967 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I agree with that, but a culture needs to own its heritage, both the good and the bad. From what I can tell, that hasn't happened compared, for example, to how German society has handled the Holocaust (an extreme example, but illustrates a point).
Who exactly pays for that. The families that robbed these countries of cash are spread around the globe now. If you can identify families then fine go after those. King Charles would be a good candidate. To expect a country to pay for the crimes of previous residents is just stupid money grabbing. The rank and file who pay the taxes in the western countries were being subjugated also and certainly did not gain from the moneys raised in the colonies. That was kept by the rich families of the time.
Firstly, I said nothing of reparations. I talked about owning the responsibility. That can take the form of education, it can take the form of reparations, it has many forms. All those forms are imperfect, but they are each better than doing nothing because 'hey, it was a long time ago, man.'
Second, to this point:
That's just not true, friend. Just because economic injustice exists in colonizing counties today and existed then, doesn't mean their rank and file aren't still benefitting from the actions of their prodecessors. Their infrastructure, their economies, their sociopolitical systems -- stuff that the enables the rank and file to worry about paying taxes instead of, for example, starving and dying in a civil war -- that is the benefit that has been created. To take that for granted is to bury how that got built.
How is destroying cultural heritage of one culture "owning responsibility" to another culture?
Sorry I don't understand your comment.
I don't understand what's not to understand. Perhaps you (as the tourist, apparently) don't know, but that statue isn't some decoration bought from the local supermarket. :-) It's actually part of the history of that place and quite old. How does destroying or damaging these objects help "evening the karmic scales"?
Not sure where I suggested destroying the statue would even the karmic scales, I just said I didn't feel bad for them (due to their current karmic bank balance). Those are two totally different things.
That's.. even worse. You think they deserve everything happening to them and than this doesn't even tip the scales?
If you think 'a bit of my statue broke' is even a rounding error compared to their legacy in the Congo, I suggest you go look into it and let me know once you've done the research if you think I'm wrong. I'm open to hearing your counter-argument, but from my view the two do not compare.
Yeah, no I won't let you drag me into "you are trying to compare the two". That's actually you who is trying to bring in a broken statue piece as some weird type of karma for crimes.
Following your logic, where do you put an end to how much other people should be allowed to destroy in Belgium before their legacy is revenged? Or do you just think we all should smile smugly whenever something bad happens in Belgium because "they deserve it"? What good can possibly result from this mindset? I would even go further and say by doing this you can create a false comfort zone where people can just suffer through their punishment and then their payment is done.
The only eco systems that were paid for at that time were for the benefit of the rich as I said. Google the poor houses just to see how they were treated. There will have been more money in the economy. But that was to the benefit to anyone who was trading with the English at that time, not just the population.
My family were victims to the potato famine, which suffered probably the highest death rate per capita at the hands of the English. 20% of the population were wiped out or left the country. I would never dream of expecting reparations.
I am wholly with you when it comes to education. I take an interest in history. There is a lot that is just not spoken about or understood in the education curriculum. Germany has adopted the system of education about the holocaust because they lost the war. The Allies made sure they understood what was being done in their name. Prior to the holocaust, it was never an expectation that countries were held to account is such a fashion. That is not to say that reparations were never demanded. Reparations were paid out often by the loosing side, but this was more about making the looser suffer than expecting fair payments.
I disagree. The rich got richer, there's no doubt about that, but (using England as an example), a massive amount of infrastructure was built and paid for through colonial income in part of not whole. Roads, trains, factories, ships, universities. Much of the money that went into long lasting projects like that depended on the continual income from the colonies.
That infrastructure benefits the entire country, even though the poor are still poor. They are poor with trains to take them places and roads to drive on. They are poor with universities to create new medicines to treat them. That benefit is meaningful, it is pervasive, and it didn't just materialize spontaneously -- another group of people somewhere do not have something today as a result of that transfer of resources.
I agree that Germany's hand was forced because they lost the war, but as a counter-example, the Japanese also lost the war, and they have done very little to acknowledge any of the negative actions they committed during WWII -- so losing the war wasn't the only variable here. Turkey lost, but continue to deny their role in the Armenian genocide. Both those nations have made a choice where others have not.
I agree with you that this is not how things have been forever. It probably does go back to the Holocaust. That's not a reason to not do things. We are constantly changing things about human societal structure. Why not include an understanding of how destructive colonialism was and how it impacts the economic and cultural variances between nations today?
Much of how Germany handles their role in WWII in terms of public consciousness was not placed upon them by the Allies. Initially Germany tried to distance itself from responsibility by blaming what happened only on the Nazi party and not on those who were not party members or high ranking party members.
It took time for them to start to instill in their culture the idea that they had to grapple with the Holocaust meaningfully, not because any of them were at fault, but because they still had a responsibility to know and prevent. It's not perfect, and like I said before, nothing is, but it's more than doing nothing.
That culture of ownership, in my mind, is far better than reparations. The resources are gone. You can't (or perhaps, shouldn't) unbuild a railway system. But to ignore the past and pretend nothing happened and that (mostly) European nations have no long lasting responsibility for the state of much of the developing world is, in my opinion, totally wrong.
To your point, do you think the average teenager in England understands how the policies of their leadership caused the Potato Famine? More importantly, do you think it's a good thing that they should never have to learn that and recognize that England has something today because Ireland does not?
Returning to Belgium, statues of Leopold were still present and commemorated until they were attacked by fringe activists fairly recently. That's a signal to me that they don't know their history. I'm sure if they did, it wouldn't be a group of radicals trying to bring attention to this subject, it would be a more widely and normally accepted conversation with their past selves.
Roads and trains were built for transport of goods. Profit is where the driver was (pun not intended). No one travelled much in the 1800's. Travel became more prevalent after WW1. WW1 was a turning point for the rights of the people. This is why we have the unknown soldier. It was an appeasement for the country's masses. As for education how did this benefit the poor. They had kids 5 yrs old working in the mines right up till 1880. Even in 1900 kids were sent to work at 12 years old. None of those went to uni. Uni was for those who could afford it.
The main reason Japan and Turkey were not pushed in the same way as Germany was Racism. The West did not care about the Chinese or what they considered Arabs. They cared about white people being murdered. Germany also had to live in that west and were very dependant on the hand outs due to the Berlin situation. It is not surprising they chose the options they did, however commendable.
The potato famine was caused by ignorance of how what crops needed. The tragedy was the greed of the landlords who still kept food back even though the country was starving. The situation was so bad that India wanted to donate food, but the English government of the time stopped it.
The English education system is very narrow when it comes to history. Potato famine, India and the English role in the other colonies are something I found out for myself. The media had a very bias agenda against the IRA during the troubles of the 70's+. Much of which I bought as being gospel because at a young age you trust what you hear. Teenagers these days are so much more savvy than I was though. The internet is a fantastic aid.