ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Bit rich coming from someone who posted an article on climate change, with no apparent interest in climate change, solely to take potshots at developing countries for calling out colonialism.

The alternative at the time was to not treat humans as equivalents of dogs. But “Indians and dogs not allowed” was a conscious choice. Racism against non-whites in their own homelands was a conscious choice. “Advancement” did not require racism. That was a conscious choice.

And now those pesky Indians and Africans won’t shut up about it.

Nope just thought the open letter was funny but the reparations was just plain greed as they want the best of both worlds wanting them to bankroll the infrastructure plus reparations

Only in return for bankrolling this “Industrial Revolution” with blood.

As greed goes, it pales in comparison with the depths the UK plunged due to its own greed. And still struggles to come to terms with. Literally killing people and treating fellow humans as sub-humans.

Probably why Pearson reacted so strongly. Truth cut too close to home it seems. Guess it hurt.

Which makes it a seperate issue in what we have been saying all along

Difrent time different morals

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Very clearly you aren't discussing, and aren't interested in answereing questioning about point raised concerning climate reparation, and instead redirect every parts of the discussion into colonialism

Maybe read that post again. I’m just referencing what developing countries leaders are themselves saying. The quotes are all there, “colonialism” and all. Don’t like it? Too bad. It isn’t going away.

As to “discussing” any of this, its hard to discuss anything when one thinks colonialism was a free trade agreement with some unfortunate side effects for the colonized - including, evidently, that they weren’t as capable as Koreans and Taiwanese.

I don’t think I’ve read an interpretation of the Opium Wars as absurd as the “it was just about imports and exports”. It’s plainly evident that your knowledge of colonialism precludes any type of “discussing”.

Yes those national leaders are using all sort of excuse to try to benefit themselves. I won't blame them but I would expect any people listening to their speech have reasonable analytical skill to understand how much of those really matter.
It twisted the concept of "colonialism" to include those countries who were never colonized but still underperform in economy, and excluding countries who were previously colonized but overperform others, when counting who are the victim of colonialization.
This would in other word mean what is being argued actually do not have that much correlation with whether a country have been colonized before or not.
And hence it is not appropriate and wrong to discuss the problem under the premise of colonialization.

This all comes back to aid is the best measure to help theses nations not reparations

Pakistan's flood disaster was caused by decades of creating vulnerability through poor governance, inequity, marginalisation, inadequate warning, resource misallocation, and land use choices. In fact, the most lethal freshwater flood disasters in Pakistan since its independence (not including Bangladesh) were in 1965 and 1950--and so Pakistan's population has been increasing at the same time that recorded flood deaths have been decreasing. Yet vulnerability remains high by settling people in floodplains without adequate resources or support to assist them in dealing with flood risk.

https://www.radixonline.org/blog/when-j ... er-science

Also climate activist condemning these poor nation not being able to use these cheaper resource willnot lift them out of poverty

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... g-problem/

Blaming it on colonial past is just an diversion attempt

A101 wrote:

This all comes back to aid is the best measure to help theses nations not reparations

Pakistan's flood disaster was caused by decades of creating vulnerability through poor governance, inequity, marginalisation, inadequate warning, resource misallocation, and land use choices. In fact, the most lethal freshwater flood disasters in Pakistan since its independence (not including Bangladesh) were in 1965 and 1950--and so Pakistan's population has been increasing at the same time that recorded flood deaths have been decreasing. Yet vulnerability remains high by settling people in floodplains without adequate resources or support to assist them in dealing with flood risk.

https://www.radixonline.org/blog/when-j ... er-science

Also climate activist condemning these poor nation not being able to use these cheaper resource willnot lift them out of poverty

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... g-problem/

Blaming it on colonial past is just an diversion attempt

Would it have happened without climate change? One can argue that poor local planning made it worse, but that’s not the same as arguing that it caused it.

That seems to be the general consensus anyway, notwithstanding outrider efforts to blur that distinction. And let’s be clear, it really is only the outriders who refuse to acknowledge that climate change is happening.

But that aside, it’s not climate activists who’re pushing developing countries to give up fossil fuels, it’s the governments themselves. If they back down on that, climate reparations will probably return to the back burner.

Granted that comes with its own costs and benefits, divided by where one stands on climate change and its effects for the wests. The article you cite, for example, is willing to accept the risks associated with unrestrained fossil fuel usage. As the final paragraph notes:

“Climate change is real. But forcing developing countries to abandon fossil fuels — and denying tens of millions the opportunity to join the nascent global middle class — will cost more lives. And no amount of reparations could ever make up for that.”

It’s less about reparations being bad in and of themselves, and more of it being the worse choice between the two available: paying developing countries to slow down development, or letting them develop unchecked.

The level of development that countries find themselves in, of course, goes back to the colonial past, whether one like it or not. Compare India or Chinas economic growth rate now to the days of colony for evidence of that.

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Very clearly you aren't discussing, and aren't interested in answereing questioning about point raised concerning climate reparation, and instead redirect every parts of the discussion into colonialism

Maybe read that post again. I’m just referencing what developing countries leaders are themselves saying. The quotes are all there, “colonialism” and all. Don’t like it? Too bad. It isn’t going away.

As to “discussing” any of this, its hard to discuss anything when one thinks colonialism was a free trade agreement with some unfortunate side effects for the colonized - including, evidently, that they weren’t as capable as Koreans and Taiwanese.

I don’t think I’ve read an interpretation of the Opium Wars as absurd as the “it was just about imports and exports”. It’s plainly evident that your knowledge of colonialism precludes any type of “discussing”.

Yes those national leaders are using all sort of excuse to try to benefit themselves. I won't blame them but I would expect any people listening to their speech have reasonable analytical skill to understand how much of those really matter.
It twisted the concept of "colonialism" to include those countries who were never colonized but still underperform in economy, and excluding countries who were previously colonized but overperform others, when counting who are the victim of colonialization.
This would in other word mean what is being argued actually do not have that much correlation with whether a country have been colonized before or not.
And hence it is not appropriate and wrong to discuss the problem under the premise of colonialization.

Nah, it didn’t do any of that twisting. That’s your strawman.

The developing countries just took the stand that developed countries are at an advantage because of centuries of colonialism. It has nothing to do with their status as former colonies (or not). It has everything to do with the resource extraction that harmed some of them directly, and left others behind.

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Maybe read that post again. I’m just referencing what developing countries leaders are themselves saying. The quotes are all there, “colonialism” and all. Don’t like it? Too bad. It isn’t going away.

As to “discussing” any of this, its hard to discuss anything when one thinks colonialism was a free trade agreement with some unfortunate side effects for the colonized - including, evidently, that they weren’t as capable as Koreans and Taiwanese.

I don’t think I’ve read an interpretation of the Opium Wars as absurd as the “it was just about imports and exports”. It’s plainly evident that your knowledge of colonialism precludes any type of “discussing”.

Yes those national leaders are using all sort of excuse to try to benefit themselves. I won't blame them but I would expect any people listening to their speech have reasonable analytical skill to understand how much of those really matter.
It twisted the concept of "colonialism" to include those countries who were never colonized but still underperform in economy, and excluding countries who were previously colonized but overperform others, when counting who are the victim of colonialization.
This would in other word mean what is being argued actually do not have that much correlation with whether a country have been colonized before or not.
And hence it is not appropriate and wrong to discuss the problem under the premise of colonialization.

Nah, it didn’t do any of that twisting. That’s your strawman.

The developing countries just took the stand that developed countries are at an advantage because of centuries of colonialism. It has nothing to do with their status as former colonies (or not). It has everything to do with the resource extraction that harmed some of them directly, and left others behind.

So, are you saying "developing countries and developed countries", or "colonized nations and colonizing nations"?

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Yes those national leaders are using all sort of excuse to try to benefit themselves. I won't blame them but I would expect any people listening to their speech have reasonable analytical skill to understand how much of those really matter.
It twisted the concept of "colonialism" to include those countries who were never colonized but still underperform in economy, and excluding countries who were previously colonized but overperform others, when counting who are the victim of colonialization.
This would in other word mean what is being argued actually do not have that much correlation with whether a country have been colonized before or not.
And hence it is not appropriate and wrong to discuss the problem under the premise of colonialization.

Nah, it didn’t do any of that twisting. That’s your strawman.

The developing countries just took the stand that developed countries are at an advantage because of centuries of colonialism. It has nothing to do with their status as former colonies (or not). It has everything to do with the resource extraction that harmed some of them directly, and left others behind.

So, are you saying "developing countries and developed countries", or "colonized nations and colonizing nations"?

Whichever floats your boat.

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Nah, it didn’t do any of that twisting. That’s your strawman.

The developing countries just took the stand that developed countries are at an advantage because of centuries of colonialism. It has nothing to do with their status as former colonies (or not). It has everything to do with the resource extraction that harmed some of them directly, and left others behind.

So, are you saying "developing countries and developed countries", or "colonized nations and colonizing nations"?

Whichever floats your boat.

Interesting. How would you classify Norway, Finland, Switzerland in this debate, then?

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Yes those national leaders are using all sort of excuse to try to benefit themselves. I won't blame them but I would expect any people listening to their speech have reasonable analytical skill to understand how much of those really matter.
It twisted the concept of "colonialism" to include those countries who were never colonized but still underperform in economy, and excluding countries who were previously colonized but overperform others, when counting who are the victim of colonialization.
This would in other word mean what is being argued actually do not have that much correlation with whether a country have been colonized before or not.
And hence it is not appropriate and wrong to discuss the problem under the premise of colonialization.

Nah, it didn’t do any of that twisting. That’s your strawman.

The developing countries just took the stand that developed countries are at an advantage because of centuries of colonialism. It has nothing to do with their status as former colonies (or not). It has everything to do with the resource extraction that harmed some of them directly, and left others behind.

So, are you saying "developing countries and developed countries", or "colonized nations and colonizing nations"?

You lost me when you tried to make an argument about relative international development and industrialized economies, and didn't cite one example or reference, just your feelings.

The post also didn't make grammatical sense to me...

bluecrew wrote:

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Nah, it didn’t do any of that twisting. That’s your strawman.

The developing countries just took the stand that developed countries are at an advantage because of centuries of colonialism. It has nothing to do with their status as former colonies (or not). It has everything to do with the resource extraction that harmed some of them directly, and left others behind.

So, are you saying "developing countries and developed countries", or "colonized nations and colonizing nations"?

You lost me when you tried to make an argument about relative international development and industrialized economies, and didn't cite one example or reference, just your feelings.

The post also didn't make grammatical sense to me...

Were you quoting the intended reply? Since the post you quoted didn't involve arguments about relative international development and such.

Phosphorus wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

So, are you saying "developing countries and developed countries", or "colonized nations and colonizing nations"?

Whichever floats your boat.

Interesting. How would you classify Norway, Finland, Switzerland in this debate, then?

North v/s south. East v/s west. Developed v/s developing. Or we could go full 19th century and classify them the way they classified themselves: by race. “White men” v/s their “burden”/“savages” etc.

But what would be the point? We know who belongs in which camp. Exceptions prove the rule etc.

ElPistolero wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Whichever floats your boat.

Interesting. How would you classify Norway, Finland, Switzerland in this debate, then?

North v/s south. East v/s west. Developed v/s developing. Or we could go full 19th century and classify them the way they classified themselves: by race. “White men” v/s their “burden”/“savages” etc.

But what would be the point? We know who belongs in which camp. Exceptions prove the rule etc.

Interesting. So colonialism is apparently a major part of this screaming match. And then it's irrelevant if countries were not participating in colonialism, or were on the receiving end of it (Finland).
Interesting.

Would you have an opinion, as far as colonialism is concerned, in which camp would former Mali Empire core would belong. You know, Mansa Musa and all that.

Phosphorus wrote:

Interesting. So colonialism is apparently a major part of this screaming match. And then it's irrelevant if countries were not participating in colonialism, or were on the receiving end of it (Finland).
Interesting.

Is it? What, exactly, has Finland been asked for?

To the extent that countries are implicated, it’s based on the side they’ve chosen in this screaming match.

Phosphorus wrote:

Would you have an opinion, as far as colonialism is concerned, in which camp would former Mali Empire core would belong. You know, Mansa Musa and all that.

You’ll have to ask those still feeling the effects of the Malian empire whether they believe it warrants reparation.

I know Indians view the Afghan-origin Mughal empire as their own, but that’s probably got something to do with the fact that they integrated into India, married Indians, and invested their lives in India. Quite unlike the Europeans with their deliberate segregation, “Indians and dogs not allowed” etc.

Maybe that’s the answer. European colonialism was based on, well, racism, which still cuts deep. Was Mansa Musa’s empire divided along racial lines?

I know the Ancients - Greeks and Romans - didn’t care much about race-based superiority/inferiority. Neither did the Mongols, for that matter.

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

This all comes back to aid is the best measure to help theses nations not reparations

Pakistan's flood disaster was caused by decades of creating vulnerability through poor governance, inequity, marginalisation, inadequate warning, resource misallocation, and land use choices. In fact, the most lethal freshwater flood disasters in Pakistan since its independence (not including Bangladesh) were in 1965 and 1950--and so Pakistan's population has been increasing at the same time that recorded flood deaths have been decreasing. Yet vulnerability remains high by settling people in floodplains without adequate resources or support to assist them in dealing with flood risk.

https://www.radixonline.org/blog/when-j ... er-science

Also climate activist condemning these poor nation not being able to use these cheaper resource willnot lift them out of poverty

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... g-problem/

Blaming it on colonial past is just an diversion attempt

Would it have happened without climate change? One can argue that poor local planning made it worse, but that’s not the same as arguing that it caused it.

That seems to be the general consensus anyway, notwithstanding outrider efforts to blur that distinction. And let’s be clear, it really is only the outriders who refuse to acknowledge that climate change is happening.

But that aside, it’s not climate activists who’re pushing developing countries to give up fossil fuels, it’s the governments themselves. If they back down on that, climate reparations will probably return to the back burner.

Granted that comes with its own costs and benefits, divided by where one stands on climate change and its effects for the wests. The article you cite, for example, is willing to accept the risks associated with unrestrained fossil fuel usage. As the final paragraph notes:

“Climate change is real. But forcing developing countries to abandon fossil fuels — and denying tens of millions the opportunity to join the nascent global middle class — will cost more lives. And no amount of reparations could ever make up for that.”

It’s less about reparations being bad in and of themselves, and more of it being the worse choice between the two available: paying developing countries to slow down development, or letting them develop unchecked.

The level of development that countries find themselves in, of course, goes back to the colonial past, whether one like it or not. Compare India or Chinas economic growth rate now to the days of colony for evidence of that.

Irrespective if one believes the floods were caused by climate change or not does not take away from the fact that disaster management is more about preparedness than response, in this case Pakistan has not heeded past lessons learned. These events are not just happening within the day but over several months enough time to implement the crisis action plan

Pakistan’s and the general area history is littered major flooding events dating way back before the 1800’s, with 28 classified super flood events by the Pakistan flood commission. Before an event can become a disastrous the vulnerability of the area has to taken into account let and create the disaster to unfold.

The population of Pakistan in 1950 was just under38 million with the latest information being at just shy of236million there is more to Pakistan woes than historical colonialism

As for government support for carbon neutral cause they are preaching to the choir.

Indian PM is on record about the continuing use of fossil fuels and only hopes to be carbon neutral by 2070 well after even China stated its goals by a decade. But the more important aspect of the reparations debate is that in the final text for reparations it was that they agreed to include “low emission” energy whilst at the same time demanding aid for renewable energy infrastructure plus reparations. One also has to remember that these nations have been independent and receive copious amounts of aid for over 70 years


But unfortunately you want to turn it into something it’s not colonialism and racism from your posts

A101 wrote:

Irrespective if one believes the floods were caused by climate change or not does not take away from the fact that disaster management is more about preparedness than response, in this case Pakistan has not heeded past lessons learned. These events are not just happening within the day but over several months enough time to implement the crisis action plan

Pakistan’s and the general area history is littered major flooding events dating way back before the 1800’s, with 28 classified super flood events by the Pakistan flood commission. Before an event can become a disastrous the vulnerability of the area has to taken into account let and create the disaster to unfold.

And… what? Disaster preparedness costs money too. Pakistan’s hardly the first country to have poor disaster planning and a poor response. A certain developed country had a hard time dealing with a hurricane in the not so distant past.

A101 wrote:

The population of Pakistan in 1950 was just under38 million with the latest information being at just shy of236million there is more to Pakistan woes than historical colonialism

A good point. Let’s get to the bottom of it, shall we:

Pakistan infant mortality rate in 1950: 280/1000
Pakistan infant mortality rate in 2020: 61 /1000

https://www.statista.com/statistics/107 ... istorical/

Now let’s compare that to the UK infant mortality rate in 1950: 31.7 / 1000

https://www.statista.com/statistics/104 ... lity-rate/

Life expectancy in Pakistan in 1950: 30.9
https://www.statista.com/statistics/107 ... istorical/

Life Expectancy in the UK in 1950: 68
https://www.statista.com/statistics/104 ... -all-time/

A couple of things stand out here:

- we’ve seen a vast improvement in life metrics since the end of colonialism. See the trend lines. That goes some way to explaining the larger population - more babies surviving, people living longer etc.

- the vast discrepancy between colonizer and colonized makes it clear that it’s not a question of science or medicine; it’s a question of resources. The science and medicine existed during British rule to improve outcomes - to literally save lives - of these “subjects”. The resources, however, weren’t; they were being shipped off to the UK to boost quality of life metrics there. That is a real cost for many people living there today. Within their living memory.

And let’s be clear here: those were all lives lost early and unnecessarily- due to colonialism. Hence the …err.. anger.

A101 wrote:

As for government support for carbon neutral cause they are preaching to the choir.

Indian PM is on record about the continuing use of fossil fuels and only hopes to be carbon neutral by 2070 well after even China stated its goals by a decade. But the more important aspect of the reparations debate is that in the final text for reparations it was that they agreed to include “low emission” energy whilst at the same time demanding aid for renewable energy infrastructure plus reparations. One also has to remember that these nations have been independent and receive copious amounts of aid for over 70 years

The aid given is paltry compared to the resources extracted and the lives it cost (see above). But yes, 70 years on, they’re increasingly willing to push back, make demands and do their own thing (something they were literally unable to don70 years ago).

Their decision to shine the light on colonialism rather seems to be the problem here, no?

A101 wrote:

But unfortunately you want to turn it into something it’s not colonialism and racism from your posts

Again, not me. The governments of those countries. Given the devastating human toll of colonialism - see above - can’t really blame them, can we?

Alternatively, we could claim that certain races are just superior to others when it comes to survival. As, I’m sure, the colonialists once did. Not that the data supports them.

To paraphrase the great English philosopher William of Oakham, the simplest explanation is often the best one.

ElPistolero wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Interesting. So colonialism is apparently a major part of this screaming match. And then it's irrelevant if countries were not participating in colonialism, or were on the receiving end of it (Finland).
Interesting.

Is it? What, exactly, has Finland been asked for?

To the extent that countries are implicated, it’s based on the side they’ve chosen in this screaming match.

Finland is a developed countries.
Given that the climate reparation fund is to have developed countries funding developing countries, Finland will be asked to take part in funding it.

Phosphorus wrote:

Would you have an opinion, as far as colonialism is concerned, in which camp would former Mali Empire core would belong. You know, Mansa Musa and all that.

You’ll have to ask those still feeling the effects of the Malian empire whether they believe it warrants reparation.

I know Indians view the Afghan-origin Mughal empire as their own, but that’s probably got something to do with the fact that they integrated into India, married Indians, and invested their lives in India. Quite unlike the Europeans with their deliberate segregation, “Indians and dogs not allowed” etc.

Maybe that’s the answer. European colonialism was based on, well, racism, which still cuts deep. Was Mansa Musa’s empire divided along racial lines?

I know the Ancients - Greeks and Romans - didn’t care much about race-based superiority/inferiority. Neither did the Mongols, for that matter.

So you think colonialism from Western countries is bad, only because Indian culture fail to assumilate Western countries throughout the period, unlike other colonizers no matter what those others have done?

And are you joking when you say race based hierarchy is not concerned by other groups? There are even caste system within India due to history of different groups interacting within it. Not to mention for example Mongol and Roman and Arabic and so on.

c933103 wrote:

Finland is a developed countries.
Given that the climate reparation fund is to have developed countries funding developing countries, Finland will be asked to take part in funding it.

There, you found the one that floats your boat. Good for you.

Now Finland can negotiate its fair share with the group it’s chosen.

c933103 wrote:

So you think colonialism from Western countries is bad, only because Indian culture fail to assumilate Western countries throughout the period, unlike other colonizers no matter what those others have done?

Indian culture “failed” to assimilate people who thought they were racially superior? Haha - I’ll be charitable and assume that reflects a lack of knowledge of the language (which is fine, it’s probably your second or third language), and you meant to say the opposite - that it’s bad because the western countries refused to afford any respect to their colonies - and the basic rights of people who lived their, which had very negative consequences for the manner in which they invested in it. See, for example, the life expectancy stats above: the colonizers lived twice as long as the colonized, so it certainly wasn’t about the general availability of medicine. Just where, and to whom, it was made available. Based, evidently, on race. Facts, eh? The darnedest thing.

If that’s an incorrect interpretation, then I assume you think it’s logical to blame a victim of a robbery for failing to talk the robber out of robbing him. Which is its own type of faith system.

c933103 wrote:

And are you joking when you say race based hierarchy is not concerned by other groups? There are even caste system within India due to history of different groups interacting within it. Not to mention for example Mongol and Roman and Arabic and so on.

The caste system isn’t based on race. Think that’s self-evident. It’s also been rectified by the Indian constitution, which affords equal rights to everyone regardless of caste, creed, religion etc. Very distinct from the British governance system that preceded it., which drew a clear line between the rights of white people, and the rights of colored peoples. This is, sadly, a matter of historical record.

The Mongols, Romans, Greeks etc did not assign any value to biological race. Skin color had no bearing on their social standing or ability to achieve high office. African Roman emperors, Persian Prime Ministers in the Mongol empire, Rajput queens in the Mughal empire and so on. Even the Koreans apparently had an Indian queen (not related to any type of colonization though).

This heavy emphasis on biological race is rather a recent phenomenon, used to devastating effect to justify colonialism.

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Finland is a developed countries.
Given that the climate reparation fund is to have developed countries funding developing countries, Finland will be asked to take part in funding it.

There, you found the one that floats your boat. Good for you.

Now Finland can negotiate its fair share with the group it’s chosen.

What do you mean by the group FInland have "chosen"? They choose to be a developed country hence they need to pay the price for it?
Not to mention there are tons of countries who are developed but not colonizer, and also tons of developing countries who weren't being colonized before

c933103 wrote:

So you think colonialism from Western countries is bad, only because Indian culture fail to assumilate Western countries throughout the period, unlike other colonizers no matter what those others have done?

Indian culture “failed” to assimilate people who thought they were racially superior? Haha - I’ll be charitable and assume that reflects a lack of knowledge of the language (which is fine, it’s probably your second or third language), and you meant to say the opposite - that it’s bad because the western countries refused to afford any respect to their colonies - and the basic rights of people who lived their, which had very negative consequences for the manner in which they invested in it. See, for example, the life expectancy stats above: the colonizers lived twice as long as the colonized, so it certainly wasn’t about the general availability of medicine. Just where, and to whom, it was made available. Based, evidently, on race. Facts, eh? The darnedest thing.

If that’s an incorrect interpretation, then I assume you think it’s logical to blame a victim of a robbery for failing to talk the robber out of robbing him. Which is its own type of faith system.

No your assumption is wrong, I mean it seems like you are simply dissatisified that Western people didn't end up integrated into inside being part of India, instead for what they did during that period of time, as you think other groups are good for eventually becoming and assimulating into become part of India.

Data you cited, for example colonizing group have longer life span, reflect the more advanced technology and medicine of those groups. People who were colonized didn't have or couldn't afford the cost for this, thus their life span didn't increase despite the technology have been invented elsewhere, and there're no obligation that whenever a technology become invented it must be open up to the whole world for free. Same problem also happen to poor countries that are not being colonized.

c933103 wrote:

And are you joking when you say race based hierarchy is not concerned by other groups? There are even caste system within India due to history of different groups interacting within it. Not to mention for example Mongol and Roman and Arabic and so on.

The caste system isn’t based on race. Think that’s self-evident. It’s also been rectified by the Indian constitution, which affords equal rights to everyone regardless of caste, creed, religion etc. Very distinct from the British governance system that preceded it., which drew a clear line between the rights of white people, and the rights of colored peoples. This is, sadly, a matter of historical record.

The Mongols, Romans, Greeks etc did not assign any value to biological race. Skin color had no bearing on their social standing or ability to achieve high office. African Roman emperors, Persian Prime Ministers in the Mongol empire, Rajput queens in the Mughal empire and so on. Even the Koreans apparently had an Indian queen (not related to any type of colonization though).

This heavy emphasis on biological race is rather a recent phenomenon, used to devastating effect to justify colonialism.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blo ... on-racism/

c933103 wrote:

What do you mean by the group FInland have "chosen"? They choose to be a developed country hence they need to pay the price for it?
Not to mention there are tons of countries who are developed but not colonizer, and also tons of developing countries who weren't being colonized before

Exactly that. They have the option of telling their fellow colonizing developed countries to pay more - or, in fact, all of it. Their choice really.

c933103 wrote:

No your assumption is wrong, I mean it seems like you are simply dissatisified that Western people didn't end up integrated into inside being part of India, instead for what they did during that period of time, as you think other groups are good for eventually becoming and assimulating into become part of India.

No, I’m dissatisfied that they treated them like subhumans - “no Indians and dogs allowed” at establishments in India. Or anywhere, for that matter. And that attitude, of course, bled into all other aspects of life. Like healthcare.

Should I not be?

Or, simply put, do you believe there’s nothing to be “dissatisfied” about with respect to the plainly racist attitude adopted by colonizers?

c933103 wrote:

Data you cited, for example colonizing group have longer life span, reflect the more advanced technology and medicine of those groups. People who were colonized didn't have or couldn't afford the cost for this, thus their life span didn't increase despite the technology have been invented elsewhere, and there're no obligation that whenever a technology become invented it must be open up to the whole world for free. Same problem also happen to poor countries that are not being colonized.

Which is to say that the British governing India had both access to the technology, and the funds to make it available to everyone. They were taxing Indians, after all. Even for essential goods like salt. They chose to use that money make it available to their own, but not to their “colonial subjects”.

Suffice it to say, when the Indian government took over and reallocated those resources, well, you can see how everything improved dramatically.

Notwithstanding how lowly you view Indians (and I don’t think that’s in question here anymore - given your apparent disbursed that one might be “dissatisfied” with racist behaviour and policies towards Indians), the effects of colonialism are plainly apparent in those stats. To deny them suggests a real lack of objectivity.

c933103 wrote:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blo ... on-racism/

Technically it’s based on profession. It cuts across the same race. You can have all 5 categories within the same biological race. But that’s rather besides the point. It’s an abomination. And it’s being addressed.

The Indian constitution is, after all, far superior to the racist colonial garbage that preceded it.

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

What do you mean by the group FInland have "chosen"? They choose to be a developed country hence they need to pay the price for it?
Not to mention there are tons of countries who are developed but not colonizer, and also tons of developing countries who weren't being colonized before

Exactly that. They have the option of telling their fellow colonizing developed countries to pay more - or, in fact, all of it. Their choice really.

So you think Finland is a "fellow colonizing developed countries"?

c933103 wrote:

No your assumption is wrong, I mean it seems like you are simply dissatisified that Western people didn't end up integrated into inside being part of India, instead for what they did during that period of time, as you think other groups are good for eventually becoming and assimulating into become part of India.

No, I’m dissatisfied that they treated them like subhumans - “no Indians and dogs allowed” at establishments in India. Or anywhere, for that matter. And that attitude, of course, bled into all other aspects of life. Like healthcare.

Should I not be?

Or, simply put, do you believe there’s nothing to be “dissatisfied” about with respect to the plainly racist attitude adopted by colonizers?

Last I heard about the saying it was "no Chinese and dogs allowed" and then it was proven to be fabricated.
Healthcare not being equal is just a reflection of wealth not being equal. And of course wealth aren't equal. Why do you think this is caused by "racist attitude"?

c933103 wrote:

Data you cited, for example colonizing group have longer life span, reflect the more advanced technology and medicine of those groups. People who were colonized didn't have or couldn't afford the cost for this, thus their life span didn't increase despite the technology have been invented elsewhere, and there're no obligation that whenever a technology become invented it must be open up to the whole world for free. Same problem also happen to poor countries that are not being colonized.

Which is to say that the British governing India had both access to the technology, and the funds to make it available to everyone. They were taxing Indians, after all. Even for essential goods like salt. They chose to use that money make it available to their own, but not to their “colonial subjects”.

Suffice it to say, when the Indian government took over and reallocated those resources, well, you can see how everything improved dramatically.

Notwithstanding how lowly you view Indians (and I don’t think that’s in question here anymore - given your apparent disbursed that one might be “dissatisfied” with racist behaviour and policies towards Indians), the effects of colonialism are plainly apparent in those stats. To deny them suggests a real lack of objectivity.

Record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_o ... ritish_Raj do not agree with your claim

c933103 wrote:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blo ... on-racism/

Technically it’s based on profession. It cuts across the same race. You can have all 5 categories within the same biological race. But that’s rather besides the point. It’s an abomination. And it’s being addressed.

The Indian constitution is, after all, far superior to the racist colonial garbage that preceded it.

"Technically"
It's like what those jewish hating anti semitists would like to say

Indian constitution, the text, say all caste and race should be equal. Like most countries round the world have included racial equality. Yet racial discrimination is still wide spread around the world. It's bullshit to try to claim a place is now better just because they have a text that claim so. North Korea is nominally a democratic people's republic.

c933103 wrote:

So you think Finland is a "fellow colonizing developed countries"?

I don’t think anything. It’s for them to figure out how they fit in the developed world, and what their share, if any, should be. They can take that up with the Belgians, Germans, French, Brits, Spaniards and so on.

c933103 wrote:

Last I heard about the saying it was "no Chinese and dogs allowed" and then it was proven to be fabricated.

Which, of course, is your cue for assuming that everything to do with racism is fabricated. Rather than, you know, just doing a little bit of research. Here, since a picture is worth a thousand words:

https://theconversation.com/amp/no-dogs ... ures-82489

So, again, do you believe there’s nothing to be “dissatisfied” about with respect to the plainly racist attitude adopted by colonizers?

c933103 wrote:

Healthcare not being equal is just a reflection of wealth not being equal. And of course wealth aren't equal. Why do you think this is caused by "racist attitude"?

See above. We’re not talking a few years here or there, we’re talking about the colonized having a life expectancy 50% lower than the colonizers. That kind of discrepancy doesn’t develop unnoticed under any government. It was a choice. Like the Bengal famine.

c933103 wrote:

Record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_o ... ritish_Raj do not agree with your claim

Where does this Wikipedia page disagree with me?Heres a wiki page for you. Read the section on south Asians, for example. It disagrees heavily with you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_ ... ed_Kingdom

I really don’t understand what you’re trying to argue here: that racism didn’t exist? Or that it was justified against certain races?

c933103 wrote:

"Technically"
It's like what those jewish hating anti semitists would like to say

Explain that. The caste system is clearly defined. What does its technical definition have to do with anti-semitism.

c933103 wrote:

Indian constitution, the text, say all caste and race should be equal. Like most countries round the world have included racial equality. Yet racial discrimination is still wide spread around the world.

Indeed. Takes a lot to break old habits. We’ve still got closet racists running around pretending not to be racist, when their post indicate otherwise.

Doesn’t change the facts that laws discriminating against “colored” peoples.

c933103 wrote:

It's bullshit to try to claim a place is now better just because they have a text that claim so. North Korea is nominally a democratic people's republic.

Citing North Korea as a representative example haha. Now I’ve seen it all. Really grasping for straws there aren’t you. Might as well make a list of failed states to prove that no former colony can possibly succeed.

The data on life outcomes is right there. Show me how Pakistanis dont have a higher quality of life than they did during the good old days of colonialism.

Go ahead. Or don’t. Perhaps we can just agree here that you don’t see anything wrong with past (or present) racism towards certain people (like, say, South Asians), and we can leave it at that.

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

So you think Finland is a "fellow colonizing developed countries"?

I don’t think anything. It’s for them to figure out how they fit in the developed world, and what their share, if any, should be. They can take that up with the Belgians, Germans, French, Brits, Spaniards and so on.

How should they fit then?

c933103 wrote:

Last I heard about the saying it was "no Chinese and dogs allowed" and then it was proven to be fabricated.

Which, of course, is your cue for assuming that everything to do with racism is fabricated. Rather than, you know, just doing a little bit of research. Here, since a picture is worth a thousand words:

https://theconversation.com/amp/no-dogs ... ures-82489

So, again, do you believe there’s nothing to be “dissatisfied” about with respect to the plainly racist attitude adopted by colonizers?

Right in the comment section of the article you linked it's already pointed out that the sign is from a 2015 TV drama that didn't existed in India in the past.

c933103 wrote:

Healthcare not being equal is just a reflection of wealth not being equal. And of course wealth aren't equal. Why do you think this is caused by "racist attitude"?

See above. We’re not talking a few years here or there, we’re talking about the colonized having a life expectancy 50% lower than the colonizers. That kind of discrepancy doesn’t develop unnoticed under any government. It was a choice. Like the Bengal famine.

This is just how massive modern technology have improved human life. Even in today's world there are countries with less than 50% average life span of those with the highest life expectancy.

c933103 wrote:

Record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_o ... ritish_Raj do not agree with your claim

Where does this Wikipedia page disagree with me?Heres a wiki page for you. Read the section on south Asians, for example. It disagrees heavily with you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_ ... ed_Kingdom

I really don’t understand what you’re trying to argue here: that racism didn’t exist? Or that it was justified against certain races?

The wiki page disagree with your view of history of UK didn't grow Indian economy before its independence.

c933103 wrote:

"Technically"
It's like what those jewish hating anti semitists would like to say

Explain that. The caste system is clearly defined. What does its technical definition have to do with anti-semitism.

c933103 wrote:

Indian constitution, the text, say all caste and race should be equal. Like most countries round the world have included racial equality. Yet racial discrimination is still wide spread around the world.

Indeed. Takes a lot to break old habits. We’ve still got closet racists running around pretending not to be racist, when their post indicate otherwise.

Doesn’t change the facts that laws discriminating against “colored” peoples.

c933103 wrote:

It's bullshit to try to claim a place is now better just because they have a text that claim so. North Korea is nominally a democratic people's republic.

Citing North Korea as a representative example haha. Now I’ve seen it all. Really grasping for straws there aren’t you. Might as well make a list of failed states to prove that no former colony can possibly succeed.

The data on life outcomes is right there. Show me how Pakistanis dont have a higher quality of life than they did during the good old days of colonialism.

Go ahead. Or don’t. Perhaps we can just agree here that you don’t see anything wrong with past (or present) racism towards certain people (like, say, South Asians), and we can leave it at that.

My texts mean "Just because the text say otherwise doesn't because fact do not exists in reality", for example discrimination with respect to the caste system, and its racial connection, and that it isn't something only existed during colonization in the era of industrialization. You think proving North Korea is an outliner can invalidate the point?

c933103 wrote:

How should they fit then?

Ask them.

c933103 wrote:

Right in the comment section of the article you linked it's already pointed out that the sign is from a 2015 TV drama that didn't existed in India in the past.

Shrug. I wonder where they got the idea from. Anyway, I don’t know why we’re arguing about since these clubs were literally targeted by revolutionaries for their blatant racism. It’s a matter of record.

“In 1932, they decided to attack the Pahartali European Club (a social club for Europeans). This club was targeted primarily for its racial and discriminatory practices. It had a signboard that read “Dogs and Indians not allowed”.”

https://indianculture.gov.in/node/2790410

Just a pity that they destroyed those boards instead of keeping them.

But sure, if one believes all Indians are liars, then, well, there’s no changing that.

c933103 wrote:

This is just how massive modern technology have improved human life. Even in today's world there are countries with less than 50% average life span of those with the highest life expectancy.

Nah, can’t compare two countries governed by the same government to different countries governed by different governments.

Pakistan and the UK were under the same government at that point of time. Life expectancy was less than half in the former, compared to the latter.

Nothing to do with technology. Everything to do with resource allocation. Some “subjects” just didn’t matter.

c933103 wrote:

The wiki page disagree with your view of history of UK didn't grow Indian economy before its independence.

Nope, they actually shrank it for a century and a half when accounting for natural population growth driven economic growth , before it began an upward swing in the early 1900s, and took off - literally - after independence. Wonder what changed there.

Here’s a wiki page that makes rather a mockery of what you claim:

“India experienced deindustrialisation and cessation of various craft industries under British rule,[14] which along with fast economic and population growth in the Western world, resulted in India's share of the world economy declining from 24.4% in 1700 to 4.2% in 1950,[15] and its share of global industrial output declining from 25% in 1750 to 2% in 1900.[14]”
…
During the period 1780–1860 India changed from an exporter of processed goods paid for in bullion to an exporter of raw materials and a buyer of manufactured goods.[97]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi ... y_of_India

Took them over 150 years to get back to 17th century levels in 1900.

c933103 wrote:

My texts mean "Just because the text say otherwise doesn't because fact do not exists in reality", for example discrimination with respect to the caste system, and its racial connection, and that it isn't something only existed during colonization in the era of industrialization. You think proving North Korea is an outliner can invalidate the point?

Well, for one, you’re confusing class systems with race-based systems.

And using North Korea as a representative example of anything beggars belief. It’s not a valid example for any other country.

Anyway, we’re going in circles now. I don’t know what South Asians have done to earn your poorly-disguised contempt but that’s for you to make your peace with.

The facts don’t change. You still haven’t shown one quality of life metric on which Pakistan hasn’t improved since British rule.

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

How should they fit then?

Ask them.

c933103 wrote:

Right in the comment section of the article you linked it's already pointed out that the sign is from a 2015 TV drama that didn't existed in India in the past.

Shrug. I wonder where they got the idea from. Anyway, I don’t know why we’re arguing about since these clubs were literally targeted by revolutionaries for their blatant racism. It’s a matter of record.

“In 1932, they decided to attack the Pahartali European Club (a social club for Europeans). This club was targeted primarily for its racial and discriminatory practices. It had a signboard that read “Dogs and Indians not allowed”.”

https://indianculture.gov.in/node/2790410

Just a pity that they destroyed those boards instead of keeping them.

But sure, if one believes all Indians are liars, then, well, there’s no changing that.

c933103 wrote:

This is just how massive modern technology have improved human life. Even in today's world there are countries with less than 50% average life span of those with the highest life expectancy.

Nah, can’t compare two countries governed by the same government to different countries governed by different governments.

Pakistan and the UK were under the same government at that point of time. Life expectancy was less than half in the former, compared to the latter.

Nothing to do with technology. Everything to do with resource allocation. Some “subjects” just didn’t matter.

c933103 wrote:

The wiki page disagree with your view of history of UK didn't grow Indian economy before its independence.

Nope, they actually shrank it for a century and a half when accounting for natural population growth driven economic growth , before it began an upward swing in the early 1900s, and took off - literally - after independence. Wonder what changed there.

Here’s a wiki page that makes rather a mockery of what you claim:

“India experienced deindustrialisation and cessation of various craft industries under British rule,[14] which along with fast economic and population growth in the Western world, resulted in India's share of the world economy declining from 24.4% in 1700 to 4.2% in 1950,[15] and its share of global industrial output declining from 25% in 1750 to 2% in 1900.[14]”
…
During the period 1780–1860 India changed from an exporter of processed goods paid for in bullion to an exporter of raw materials and a buyer of manufactured goods.[97]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi ... y_of_India

Took them over 150 years to get back to 17th century levels in 1900.

c933103 wrote:

My texts mean "Just because the text say otherwise doesn't because fact do not exists in reality", for example discrimination with respect to the caste system, and its racial connection, and that it isn't something only existed during colonization in the era of industrialization. You think proving North Korea is an outliner can invalidate the point?

Well, for one, you’re confusing class systems with race-based systems.

And using North Korea as a representative example of anything beggars belief. It’s not a valid example for any other country.

Anyway, we’re going in circles now. I don’t know what South Asians have done to earn your poorly-disguised contempt but that’s for you to make your peace with.

The facts don’t change. You still haven’t shown one quality of life metric on which Pakistan hasn’t improved since British rule.

Sorry that's too absurd to even make sense

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

How should they fit then?

Ask them.

c933103 wrote:

Right in the comment section of the article you linked it's already pointed out that the sign is from a 2015 TV drama that didn't existed in India in the past.

Shrug. I wonder where they got the idea from. Anyway, I don’t know why we’re arguing about since these clubs were literally targeted by revolutionaries for their blatant racism. It’s a matter of record.

“In 1932, they decided to attack the Pahartali European Club (a social club for Europeans). This club was targeted primarily for its racial and discriminatory practices. It had a signboard that read “Dogs and Indians not allowed”.”

https://indianculture.gov.in/node/2790410

Just a pity that they destroyed those boards instead of keeping them.

But sure, if one believes all Indians are liars, then, well, there’s no changing that.

c933103 wrote:

This is just how massive modern technology have improved human life. Even in today's world there are countries with less than 50% average life span of those with the highest life expectancy.

Nah, can’t compare two countries governed by the same government to different countries governed by different governments.

Pakistan and the UK were under the same government at that point of time. Life expectancy was less than half in the former, compared to the latter.

Nothing to do with technology. Everything to do with resource allocation. Some “subjects” just didn’t matter.

c933103 wrote:

The wiki page disagree with your view of history of UK didn't grow Indian economy before its independence.

Nope, they actually shrank it for a century and a half when accounting for natural population growth driven economic growth , before it began an upward swing in the early 1900s, and took off - literally - after independence. Wonder what changed there.

Here’s a wiki page that makes rather a mockery of what you claim:

“India experienced deindustrialisation and cessation of various craft industries under British rule,[14] which along with fast economic and population growth in the Western world, resulted in India's share of the world economy declining from 24.4% in 1700 to 4.2% in 1950,[15] and its share of global industrial output declining from 25% in 1750 to 2% in 1900.[14]”
…
During the period 1780–1860 India changed from an exporter of processed goods paid for in bullion to an exporter of raw materials and a buyer of manufactured goods.[97]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi ... y_of_India

Took them over 150 years to get back to 17th century levels in 1900.

c933103 wrote:

My texts mean "Just because the text say otherwise doesn't because fact do not exists in reality", for example discrimination with respect to the caste system, and its racial connection, and that it isn't something only existed during colonization in the era of industrialization. You think proving North Korea is an outliner can invalidate the point?

Well, for one, you’re confusing class systems with race-based systems.

And using North Korea as a representative example of anything beggars belief. It’s not a valid example for any other country.

Anyway, we’re going in circles now. I don’t know what South Asians have done to earn your poorly-disguised contempt but that’s for you to make your peace with.

The facts don’t change. You still haven’t shown one quality of life metric on which Pakistan hasn’t improved since British rule.

Sorry that's too absurd to even make sense

Yes, I imagine it would be, if one’s entire worldview is based on lazy colonial tropes about entire countries.

Perhaps if India was full of Koreans, you might have a different view. But then again, 6 million Koreans trace their lineage back to an Indian queen, so who knows.

These multiple levels at play must be overwhelming.

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

How should they fit then?

Ask them.

c933103 wrote:

Right in the comment section of the article you linked it's already pointed out that the sign is from a 2015 TV drama that didn't existed in India in the past.

Shrug. I wonder where they got the idea from. Anyway, I don’t know why we’re arguing about since these clubs were literally targeted by revolutionaries for their blatant racism. It’s a matter of record.

“In 1932, they decided to attack the Pahartali European Club (a social club for Europeans). This club was targeted primarily for its racial and discriminatory practices. It had a signboard that read “Dogs and Indians not allowed”.”

https://indianculture.gov.in/node/2790410

Just a pity that they destroyed those boards instead of keeping them.

But sure, if one believes all Indians are liars, then, well, there’s no changing that.

c933103 wrote:

This is just how massive modern technology have improved human life. Even in today's world there are countries with less than 50% average life span of those with the highest life expectancy.

Nah, can’t compare two countries governed by the same government to different countries governed by different governments.

Pakistan and the UK were under the same government at that point of time. Life expectancy was less than half in the former, compared to the latter.

Nothing to do with technology. Everything to do with resource allocation. Some “subjects” just didn’t matter.

c933103 wrote:

The wiki page disagree with your view of history of UK didn't grow Indian economy before its independence.

Nope, they actually shrank it for a century and a half when accounting for natural population growth driven economic growth , before it began an upward swing in the early 1900s, and took off - literally - after independence. Wonder what changed there.

Here’s a wiki page that makes rather a mockery of what you claim:

“India experienced deindustrialisation and cessation of various craft industries under British rule,[14] which along with fast economic and population growth in the Western world, resulted in India's share of the world economy declining from 24.4% in 1700 to 4.2% in 1950,[15] and its share of global industrial output declining from 25% in 1750 to 2% in 1900.[14]”
…
During the period 1780–1860 India changed from an exporter of processed goods paid for in bullion to an exporter of raw materials and a buyer of manufactured goods.[97]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi ... y_of_India

Took them over 150 years to get back to 17th century levels in 1900.

c933103 wrote:

My texts mean "Just because the text say otherwise doesn't because fact do not exists in reality", for example discrimination with respect to the caste system, and its racial connection, and that it isn't something only existed during colonization in the era of industrialization. You think proving North Korea is an outliner can invalidate the point?

Well, for one, you’re confusing class systems with race-based systems.

And using North Korea as a representative example of anything beggars belief. It’s not a valid example for any other country.

Anyway, we’re going in circles now. I don’t know what South Asians have done to earn your poorly-disguised contempt but that’s for you to make your peace with.

The facts don’t change. You still haven’t shown one quality of life metric on which Pakistan hasn’t improved since British rule.

Sorry that's too absurd to even make sense

Here you go, I'll extract the most important part for you:

El Pistolero wrote:

“India experienced deindustrialisation and cessation of various craft industries under British rule,[14] which along with fast economic and population growth in the Western world, resulted in India's share of the world economy declining from 24.4% in 1700 to 4.2% in 1950,[15] and its share of global industrial output declining from 25% in 1750 to 2% in 1900.[14]”
…
During the period 1780–1860 India changed from an exporter of processed goods paid for in bullion to an exporter of raw materials and a buyer of manufactured goods.[97]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi ... y_of_India

Took them over 150 years to get back to 17th century levels in 1900.

The major economic impact of colonialism was to take large, traditional economies and break them down into resource extraction operations to power European industry.

Now, obviously, nobody wants to be told your farm products will now exclusively be sold to the East India Company, or some Belgian chap, so there was resistance to this all across the world, which was crushed by the advanced colonial powers with virtual impunity.

The colonizing powers weren't benevolent - this was an unprecedented wealth transfer to power European industry. Yes, colonial powers began to industrialize and develop colonies later on (in most cases, India and Vietnam as good examples, the early 20th century), but the overall impact on the economies of exploited countries was catastrophic, and the impacts are still felt today.

Is it an accident that all of the countries extensively colonized in the 18th and 19th century aren't really doing too hot? Or does that not fit with your narrative?

Phosphorus wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Interesting. How would you classify Norway, Finland, Switzerland in this debate, then?

North v/s south. East v/s west. Developed v/s developing. Or we could go full 19th century and classify them the way they classified themselves: by race. “White men” v/s their “burden”/“savages” etc.

But what would be the point? We know who belongs in which camp. Exceptions prove the rule etc.

Interesting. So colonialism is apparently a major part of this screaming match. And then it's irrelevant if countries were not participating in colonialism, or were on the receiving end of it (Finland).
Interesting.

Would you have an opinion, as far as colonialism is concerned, in which camp would former Mali Empire core would belong. You know, Mansa Musa and all that.

If Finland was colonised then so was Norway, it only became independent in 1905. Finland was ruled by Sweden then Russia from the 1300’s until 1918, it’s a bit difficult to call that colonisation it was just ruled from affair, it was integrated with Sweden for 400 plus years. With a few exceptions a big chunk of Europe has been colonised at some point in time, you don’t really see Europeans complaining about it.

Kiwirob wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

North v/s south. East v/s west. Developed v/s developing. Or we could go full 19th century and classify them the way they classified themselves: by race. “White men” v/s their “burden”/“savages” etc.

But what would be the point? We know who belongs in which camp. Exceptions prove the rule etc.

Interesting. So colonialism is apparently a major part of this screaming match. And then it's irrelevant if countries were not participating in colonialism, or were on the receiving end of it (Finland).
Interesting.

Would you have an opinion, as far as colonialism is concerned, in which camp would former Mali Empire core would belong. You know, Mansa Musa and all that.

If Finland was colonised then so was Norway, it only became independent in 1905. Finland was ruled by Sweden then Russia from the 1300’s until 1918, it’s a bit difficult to call that colonisation it was just ruled from affair, it was integrated with Sweden for 400 plus years. With a few exceptions a big chunk of Europe has been colonised at some point in time, you don’t really see Europeans complaining about it.

Well, that was my question:

How would you classify Norway, Finland, Switzerland in this debate, then?

Apparently (difficult to figure out, discourse is quite complicated here), they were all expected to pay for the sins of colonialism. Even though they, if ever party to colonialism, were on the receiving end of it.

And if you believe Finland was "just ruled from afar", I suggest reading up on this fellow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Schauman
And why did he do it? Because of a colonialist and subjugationary program, trying to integrate Finnish nation into Russian Empire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Bobrikov

Kiwirob wrote:

If Finland was colonised then so was Norway, it only became independent in 1905. Finland was ruled by Sweden then Russia from the 1300’s until 1918, it’s a bit difficult to call that colonisation it was just ruled from affair, it was integrated with Sweden for 400 plus years. With a few exceptions a big chunk of Europe has been colonised at some point in time, you don’t really see Europeans complaining about it.

A couple of things stand out there.

- this notion that Europeans don’t “complain” about it… is debunked by the Treaty of Versailles. It was literally about reparations driven by historical grievances and complaints - occupation and the like - and it was so badly managed, it plunged us into a Second World War. Its factually incorrect, so let’s put that aside.

- That said, yes European colonialisation - in particular - seems to provoke much stronger sentiments than, say, the Mughal invasion of India, or China and Mongolia swapping land. Why the difference? IMHO it’s just about the level of integration and investment. Europeans occupying other European lands generally didn’t go out of their way to de-humanize the locals on the basis of race (with the noteworthy exception of the Nazis who simply took that type of thinking to its inevitable conclusion). They were swapping the governance of land, but people were largely treated the same with in it. 200 years of French rule in Alsace, for example, didn’t have wildly different health outcomes relative to those in other parts of France. Nor did they go out of their way to suppress local industries. The Mughals became Indian. The European colonizers never integrated on any level - it was segregation all the way. And it was based exclusively on race, which cut (and continues to cut) very deep. Throw in the regular human rights atrocity and, well, you’ve got this toxic mess.

Granted, we’re at a tipping point right now, where the long-standing western narrative is coming under sharper scrutiny. And not holding up particularly well.

ElPistolero wrote:

The Mughals became Indian. The colonizers never integrated on any level - it was segregation all the way.

So you believe that segretationary type of colonialism is bad, and integrationary kind of colonialism is good? The first demands justice, retribution, reparations. The other doesn't.
Correct?

Phosphorus wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

The Mughals became Indian. The colonizers never integrated on any level - it was segregation all the way.

So you believe that segretationary type of colonialism is bad, and integrationary kind of colonialism is good? The first demands justice, retribution, reparations. The other doesn't.
Correct?

I wouldn't say good, but there is a marked difference in the outcomes of countries where the colonialist approach was integration and resettlement, versus outright exploitation.

India and New Zealand are pretty decent foils here. The Treaty of Waitangi, imperfect as it was, established the concept of Maori ownership of lands and some resources, while ceding sovereignty to the British, and even with a gold rush in the 1860s, the Brits certainly never treated them like the inexhaustible pool of slave labor they ruled over in India. On contrast, the British Empire raped and pillaged India for natural resources, and presided over a pretty brutal and exploitative colonial regime for nearly 200 years.

I think the differences speak for themselves.

Phosphorus wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

The Mughals became Indian. The colonizers never integrated on any level - it was segregation all the way.

So you believe that segretationary type of colonialism is bad, and integrationary kind of colonialism is good? The first demands justice, retribution, reparations. The other doesn't.
Correct?

Good? Bad?

No, I think foreign invasions are “bad” in general.

As to the question you pose, it seems to be based on a false premise. Specifically:

If a foreign-born leader takes control (by force or otherwise) but proceeds to marry local, have locally born children, employ locals in high office, and, crucially, put the interests of his newly invaded country and its locals above all, including his old one, does (s)he qualify as a colonizer?

I don’t think so. In fact it strikes me as a bit of a straw man. A “colony” seizes to be a colony the moment it starts acting in its own interests, rather than that of the colonizing country.

The proof, as always, is in eating the pudding: did the imperial government of India ever put the interests of Indians (that is to say, the people they were governing) ahead of the UK’s interests? I think we both know the answer to that, given that they didn’t even afford them the same rights.

So, no, I don’t believe that there are “good” and “bad” types of colonizations; just that a lot of the whataboutery is based either on false premises and silly comparisons, or reflects a lack of knowledge of what colonialism actually is.

ElPistolero wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

The Mughals became Indian. The colonizers never integrated on any level - it was segregation all the way.

So you believe that segretationary type of colonialism is bad, and integrationary kind of colonialism is good? The first demands justice, retribution, reparations. The other doesn't.
Correct?

Good? Bad?

No, I think foreign invasions are “bad” in general.

As to the question you pose, it seems to be based on a false premise. Specifically:

If a foreign-born leader takes control (by force or otherwise) but proceeds to marry local, have locally born children, employ locals in high office, and, crucially, put the interests of his newly invaded country and its locals above all, including his old one, does (s)he qualify as a colonizer?

I don’t think so. In fact it strikes me as a bit of a straw man. A “colony” seizes to be a colony the moment it starts acting in its own interests, rather than that of the colonizing country.

The proof, as always, is in eating the pudding: did the imperial government of India ever put the interests of Indians (that is to say, the people they were governing) ahead of the UK’s interests? I think we both know the answer to that, given that they didn’t even afford them the same rights.

So, no, I don’t believe that there are “good” and “bad” types of colonizations; just that a lot of the whataboutery is based either on false premises and silly comparisons, or reflects a lack of knowledge of what colonialism actually is.

John Rolfe married Pocahontas, they had issue.
Americans put interests of their new country above their old country, it was no longer a colony.
Was native population happier in the bargain?

Latvians were deported by Soviets to Siberia, in some number. Some were shot. Large influx of Russian settlers was brought in, to dissolve locals and colonize the land. Was there naked racism? No.
Was native population happier in the bargain?

There is injustice in this world beyond British Empire history on Indian subcontinent, don't you agree?
Also, the fact that invader chooses to settle the land, bringing his scum along -- rather than export the wealth -- is not better, to any measurable degree. If you accept this as "better" -- up to you, but displacement of population by imported plants is generally viewed a horrible thing, and meets some definitions of genocide.

bluecrew wrote:

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Ask them.



Shrug. I wonder where they got the idea from. Anyway, I don’t know why we’re arguing about since these clubs were literally targeted by revolutionaries for their blatant racism. It’s a matter of record.

“In 1932, they decided to attack the Pahartali European Club (a social club for Europeans). This club was targeted primarily for its racial and discriminatory practices. It had a signboard that read “Dogs and Indians not allowed”.”

https://indianculture.gov.in/node/2790410

Just a pity that they destroyed those boards instead of keeping them.

But sure, if one believes all Indians are liars, then, well, there’s no changing that.



Nah, can’t compare two countries governed by the same government to different countries governed by different governments.

Pakistan and the UK were under the same government at that point of time. Life expectancy was less than half in the former, compared to the latter.

Nothing to do with technology. Everything to do with resource allocation. Some “subjects” just didn’t matter.



Nope, they actually shrank it for a century and a half when accounting for natural population growth driven economic growth , before it began an upward swing in the early 1900s, and took off - literally - after independence. Wonder what changed there.

Here’s a wiki page that makes rather a mockery of what you claim:

“India experienced deindustrialisation and cessation of various craft industries under British rule,[14] which along with fast economic and population growth in the Western world, resulted in India's share of the world economy declining from 24.4% in 1700 to 4.2% in 1950,[15] and its share of global industrial output declining from 25% in 1750 to 2% in 1900.[14]”
…
During the period 1780–1860 India changed from an exporter of processed goods paid for in bullion to an exporter of raw materials and a buyer of manufactured goods.[97]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi ... y_of_India

Took them over 150 years to get back to 17th century levels in 1900.



Well, for one, you’re confusing class systems with race-based systems.

And using North Korea as a representative example of anything beggars belief. It’s not a valid example for any other country.

Anyway, we’re going in circles now. I don’t know what South Asians have done to earn your poorly-disguised contempt but that’s for you to make your peace with.

The facts don’t change. You still haven’t shown one quality of life metric on which Pakistan hasn’t improved since British rule.

Sorry that's too absurd to even make sense

Here you go, I'll extract the most important part for you:

El Pistolero wrote:

“India experienced deindustrialisation and cessation of various craft industries under British rule,[14] which along with fast economic and population growth in the Western world, resulted in India's share of the world economy declining from 24.4% in 1700 to 4.2% in 1950,[15] and its share of global industrial output declining from 25% in 1750 to 2% in 1900.[14]”
…
During the period 1780–1860 India changed from an exporter of processed goods paid for in bullion to an exporter of raw materials and a buyer of manufactured goods.[97]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi ... y_of_India

Took them over 150 years to get back to 17th century levels in 1900.

The major economic impact of colonialism was to take large, traditional economies and break them down into resource extraction operations to power European industry.

Now, obviously, nobody wants to be told your farm products will now exclusively be sold to the East India Company, or some Belgian chap, so there was resistance to this all across the world, which was crushed by the advanced colonial powers with virtual impunity.

The colonizing powers weren't benevolent - this was an unprecedented wealth transfer to power European industry. Yes, colonial powers began to industrialize and develop colonies later on (in most cases, India and Vietnam as good examples, the early 20th century), but the overall impact on the economies of exploited countries was catastrophic, and the impacts are still felt today.

Is it an accident that all of the countries extensively colonized in the 18th and 19th century aren't really doing too hot? Or does that not fit with your narrative?

Of course nations suffered under colonialism but what that have to do with climate reparation? We aren't asking colonized nation to be compensated by colonizing nations are we?

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Ask them.



Shrug. I wonder where they got the idea from. Anyway, I don’t know why we’re arguing about since these clubs were literally targeted by revolutionaries for their blatant racism. It’s a matter of record.

“In 1932, they decided to attack the Pahartali European Club (a social club for Europeans). This club was targeted primarily for its racial and discriminatory practices. It had a signboard that read “Dogs and Indians not allowed”.”

https://indianculture.gov.in/node/2790410

Just a pity that they destroyed those boards instead of keeping them.

But sure, if one believes all Indians are liars, then, well, there’s no changing that.



Nah, can’t compare two countries governed by the same government to different countries governed by different governments.

Pakistan and the UK were under the same government at that point of time. Life expectancy was less than half in the former, compared to the latter.

Nothing to do with technology. Everything to do with resource allocation. Some “subjects” just didn’t matter.



Nope, they actually shrank it for a century and a half when accounting for natural population growth driven economic growth , before it began an upward swing in the early 1900s, and took off - literally - after independence. Wonder what changed there.

Here’s a wiki page that makes rather a mockery of what you claim:

“India experienced deindustrialisation and cessation of various craft industries under British rule,[14] which along with fast economic and population growth in the Western world, resulted in India's share of the world economy declining from 24.4% in 1700 to 4.2% in 1950,[15] and its share of global industrial output declining from 25% in 1750 to 2% in 1900.[14]”
…
During the period 1780–1860 India changed from an exporter of processed goods paid for in bullion to an exporter of raw materials and a buyer of manufactured goods.[97]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi ... y_of_India

Took them over 150 years to get back to 17th century levels in 1900.



Well, for one, you’re confusing class systems with race-based systems.

And using North Korea as a representative example of anything beggars belief. It’s not a valid example for any other country.

Anyway, we’re going in circles now. I don’t know what South Asians have done to earn your poorly-disguised contempt but that’s for you to make your peace with.

The facts don’t change. You still haven’t shown one quality of life metric on which Pakistan hasn’t improved since British rule.

Sorry that's too absurd to even make sense

Yes, I imagine it would be, if one’s entire worldview is based on lazy colonial tropes about entire countries.

Perhaps if India was full of Koreans, you might have a different view. But then again, 6 million Koreans trace their lineage back to an Indian queen, so who knows.

These multiple levels at play must be overwhelming.

All the generalization you used, projecting comments on countries as if they are on all the people living in countries, yet you try to be the one calling out "lazy colonial tropes about entire countries"

It is as if when one describe anything less than positive about a country like France then you would think it's somehow an attack against all French people.

Phosphorus wrote:

John Rolfe married Pocahontas, they had issue.
Americans put interests of their new country above their old country, it was no longer a colony.
Was native population happier in the bargain?

Latvians were deported by Soviets to Siberia, in some number. Some were shot. Large influx of Russian settlers was brought in, to dissolve locals and colonize the land. Was there naked racism? No.
Was native population happier in the bargain?

There is injustice in this world beyond British Empire history on Indian subcontinent, don't you agree?
Also, the fact that invader chooses to settle the land, bringing his scum along -- rather than export the wealth -- is not better, to any measurable degree. If you accept this as "better" -- up to you, but displacement of population by imported plants is generally viewed a horrible thing, and meets some definitions of genocide.

I mean I literally said all foreign invasions are bad. It’s right there. And I don’t deny that others have also suffered grave injustices. Admittedly got dragged into that India rabbit hole responding to someone who, it turns out, probably couldn’t find it on a map.

Doesn’t change the fact that all of these whataboutery games are based on false premises. The distinctions between these various negative actions are clear. Some are, objectively speaking, worse than others. To be fair to the British, the French and Belgians were even worse on the scale of colonial evils. Doesn’t make the British “good”.

I dont think anyone here would argue vehemently against Latvians making reparation claims. I mean, they’ve literally gone and lined up military against those who inflicted that on them.

***

EDIT: Out of sheer curiosity, I looked up Latvia. Turns out they’ve already started talking about reparations:

“Russia has dismissed Latvian claims that the Baltic country is owed over $200 billion in damages caused by its forced entry into the Soviet Union after the Second World War.

When calculating the damages to the country as a result of the Soviet occupations of 1940 and 1945, members of Latvia's state commission said that the Baltic state had lost $210 billion, Latvian news agency Leta reports.”

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-dismiss ... 9555?amp=1

And I don’t want to access or post RT links here, but if you Google it, you’ll find an article on RT from 17 August 2022 with a summary (on the Google search page) saying Russia believes that “fair accounting” will see Latvia owe Russia money rather than the other way round. Can’t make this up.

I guess we know where Allison Pearson and her fans here got their cue from haha.

(Let’s file this under the “you don’t hear Europeans complaining” nonsense).

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Sorry that's too absurd to even make sense

Yes, I imagine it would be, if one’s entire worldview is based on lazy colonial tropes about entire countries.

Perhaps if India was full of Koreans, you might have a different view. But then again, 6 million Koreans trace their lineage back to an Indian queen, so who knows.

These multiple levels at play must be overwhelming.

All the generalization you used, projecting comments on countries as if they are on all the people living in countries, yet you try to be the one calling out "lazy colonial tropes about entire countries"

It is as if when one describe anything less than positive about a country like France then you would think it's somehow an attack against all French people.

Bit rich coming from someone who lazily characterized the Opium Wars as something about “exports”.

The Chinese themselves consider it to be a key part of their “Century of Humiliation”. Because it went well beyond trade.

No points for guessing how that influences their interactions with the west. On everything, including climate change.

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Yes, I imagine it would be, if one’s entire worldview is based on lazy colonial tropes about entire countries.

Perhaps if India was full of Koreans, you might have a different view. But then again, 6 million Koreans trace their lineage back to an Indian queen, so who knows.

These multiple levels at play must be overwhelming.

All the generalization you used, projecting comments on countries as if they are on all the people living in countries, yet you try to be the one calling out "lazy colonial tropes about entire countries"

It is as if when one describe anything less than positive about a country like France then you would think it's somehow an attack against all French people.

Bit rich coming from someone who lazily characterized the Opium Wars as something about “exports”.

The Chinese themselves consider it to be a key part of their “Century of Humiliation”. Because it went well beyond trade.

No points for guessing how that influences their interactions with the west. On everything, including climate change.

It's called "Century of Humiliation" because China lost its glory and is no longer able to exert colonial influence over its surrounding, losing its hitorical role of dominance.

Opium war ceded Hong Kong, a place where China emptied multiple times over decades together with vast stretch of Chinese coast in order to prevent civilian contact with pirates or the government in exile in Taiwan, a place that weren't even named by the Chinese government. If it were a war elsewhere during 19th century that cause similar result then it likely won't even be remembered.
The only reason why it shocked whole of China and being called "Century of humiliation". Is because that is the first time China lose to a foreign power, and such kind of defeat repeat throughout the next whole century. The Chinese people cannot accept the pride and glory of their country being shattered by military failure. They cannot tolerate the past day of China as a Middle Kingdom which used to enjoy the honor of master above all the countries around is then being toppled. They cannot accept that as a result of their own military defeat they are being forced to open up ports to foreigners and being forced to allow foreigners living in cities specified in treaties and deem those treaties unfair.

This is a result of nationalism and racism of Chinese people who refuse to believe they aren't superior to other countries or other people, and can subject to military defeat just like other countries.
Nowadays not even common people in China would use the term "Century of humiliation". The only place where they're relevant is in propaganda when those in power want to restore China's past glory and dominance over surrounding countries.

And such being deemed as "humiliation" weren't even unique in Chinese history, with other examples include the 16 kingdoms abd Northern and Southern dynasty period where "Five barbarians (tribes) meddled China", the end of Northern Song dynasty when Liao dynasty defeated the Song and caused what was known as "Humiliation of Jingkang".

And I fail to see how allowing China taking part of the world will either be fair to those other countries involved, or be contributory to emission reduction or mitigation of climate change effect, given that despite the ebtire rise in power, the places that can mitigate extreme weather events the best are still places which were governed by other countries in rhe past, for example in Manchuria or Qingdao. Population in these area continue to benefit from pre-WWII infrastrue and urban planning that's noticeably above rest of China when facing extreme weather events. Another indication that giving developing countries money won't solve either cause or effect of climate change.

Phosphorus wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Interesting. So colonialism is apparently a major part of this screaming match. And then it's irrelevant if countries were not participating in colonialism, or were on the receiving end of it (Finland).
Interesting.

Would you have an opinion, as far as colonialism is concerned, in which camp would former Mali Empire core would belong. You know, Mansa Musa and all that.

If Finland was colonised then so was Norway, it only became independent in 1905. Finland was ruled by Sweden then Russia from the 1300’s until 1918, it’s a bit difficult to call that colonisation it was just ruled from affair, it was integrated with Sweden for 400 plus years. With a few exceptions a big chunk of Europe has been colonised at some point in time, you don’t really see Europeans complaining about it.

Well, that was my question:

How would you classify Norway, Finland, Switzerland in this debate, then?

Apparently (difficult to figure out, discourse is quite complicated here), they were all expected to pay for the sins of colonialism. Even though they, if ever party to colonialism, were on the receiving end of it.

And if you believe Finland was "just ruled from afar", I suggest reading up on this fellow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Schauman
And why did he do it? Because of a colonialist and subjugationary program, trying to integrate Finnish nation into Russian Empire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Bobrikov

The irony is Eugen was a Swedish speaking Finn.

bluecrew wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

The Mughals became Indian. The colonizers never integrated on any level - it was segregation all the way.

So you believe that segretationary type of colonialism is bad, and integrationary kind of colonialism is good? The first demands justice, retribution, reparations. The other doesn't.
Correct?

I wouldn't say good, but there is a marked difference in the outcomes of countries where the colonialist approach was integration and resettlement, versus outright exploitation.

India and New Zealand are pretty decent foils here. The Treaty of Waitangi, imperfect as it was, established the concept of Maori ownership of lands and some resources, while ceding sovereignty to the British, and even with a gold rush in the 1860s, the Brits certainly never treated them like the inexhaustible pool of slave labor they ruled over in India. On contrast, the British Empire raped and pillaged India for natural resources, and presided over a pretty brutal and exploitative colonial regime for nearly 200 years.

I think the differences speak for themselves.

It all depends on which Maori you speak too, many maori in NZ believe the British instigated a genocide against them, raped and pillaged there lands. Ask them when this happened, nobody can give an answer, but they still believe this to be true.

ElPistolero wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

John Rolfe married Pocahontas, they had issue.
Americans put interests of their new country above their old country, it was no longer a colony.
Was native population happier in the bargain?

Latvians were deported by Soviets to Siberia, in some number. Some were shot. Large influx of Russian settlers was brought in, to dissolve locals and colonize the land. Was there naked racism? No.
Was native population happier in the bargain?

There is injustice in this world beyond British Empire history on Indian subcontinent, don't you agree?
Also, the fact that invader chooses to settle the land, bringing his scum along -- rather than export the wealth -- is not better, to any measurable degree. If you accept this as "better" -- up to you, but displacement of population by imported plants is generally viewed a horrible thing, and meets some definitions of genocide.

I mean I literally said all foreign invasions are bad. It’s right there. And I don’t deny that others have also suffered grave injustices. Admittedly got dragged into that India rabbit hole responding to someone who, it turns out, probably couldn’t find it on a map.

Doesn’t change the fact that all of these whataboutery games are based on false premises. The distinctions between these various negative actions are clear. Some are, objectively speaking, worse than others. To be fair to the British, the French and Belgians were even worse on the scale of colonial evils. Doesn’t make the British “good”.

I dont think anyone here would argue vehemently against Latvians making reparation claims. I mean, they’ve literally gone and lined up military against those who inflicted that on them.

***

EDIT: Out of sheer curiosity, I looked up Latvia. Turns out they’ve already started talking about reparations:

“Russia has dismissed Latvian claims that the Baltic country is owed over $200 billion in damages caused by its forced entry into the Soviet Union after the Second World War.

When calculating the damages to the country as a result of the Soviet occupations of 1940 and 1945, members of Latvia's state commission said that the Baltic state had lost $210 billion, Latvian news agency Leta reports.”

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-dismiss ... 9555?amp=1

And I don’t want to access or post RT links here, but if you Google it, you’ll find an article on RT from 17 August 2022 with a summary (on the Google search page) saying Russia believes that “fair accounting” will see Latvia owe Russia money rather than the other way round. Can’t make this up.

I guess we know where Allison Pearson and her fans here got their cue from haha.

(Let’s file this under the “you don’t hear Europeans complaining” nonsense).

You see? Suddenly this whole "white people, from countries with indoor plumbing, are all guilty of colonial injustices, they all owe reparations to the rest of the world" narrative doesn't seem too reasonable anymore, does it?

Phosphorus wrote:

You see? Suddenly this whole "white people, from countries with indoor plumbing, are all guilty of colonial injustices, they all owe reparations to the rest of the world" narrative doesn't seem too reasonable anymore, does it?

No, I don’t.

I see two very different attitudes to claims for reparations based on… errr…race.

It boosts the reparation narrative, if anything. Soo…. well, frankly not sure we’re you’re going with that.

ElPistolero wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

You see? Suddenly this whole "white people, from countries with indoor plumbing, are all guilty of colonial injustices, they all owe reparations to the rest of the world" narrative doesn't seem too reasonable anymore, does it?

No, I don’t.

I see two very different attitudes to claims for reparations based on… errr…race.

It boosts the reparation narrative, if anything. Soo…. well, frankly not sure we’re you’re going with that.

Can you please spell these "two very different attitudes"? (I'm seeing so many angles on this, that I envy your clarity of seeing just two).

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

All the generalization you used, projecting comments on countries as if they are on all the people living in countries, yet you try to be the one calling out "lazy colonial tropes about entire countries"

It is as if when one describe anything less than positive about a country like France then you would think it's somehow an attack against all French people.

Bit rich coming from someone who lazily characterized the Opium Wars as something about “exports”.

The Chinese themselves consider it to be a key part of their “Century of Humiliation”. Because it went well beyond trade.

No points for guessing how that influences their interactions with the west. On everything, including climate change.

It's called "Century of Humiliation" because China lost its glory and is no longer able to exert colonial influence over its surrounding, losing its hitorical role of dominance.

Opium war ceded Hong Kong, a place where China emptied multiple times over decades together with vast stretch of Chinese coast in order to prevent civilian contact with pirates or the government in exile in Taiwan, a place that weren't even named by the Chinese government. If it were a war elsewhere during 19th century that cause similar result then it likely won't even be remembered.
The only reason why it shocked whole of China and being called "Century of humiliation". Is because that is the first time China lose to a foreign power, and such kind of defeat repeat throughout the next whole century. The Chinese people cannot accept the pride and glory of their country being shattered by military failure. They cannot tolerate the past day of China as a Middle Kingdom which used to enjoy the honor of master above all the countries around is then being toppled. They cannot accept that as a result of their own military defeat they are being forced to open up ports to foreigners and being forced to allow foreigners living in cities specified in treaties and deem those treaties unfair.

This is a result of nationalism and racism of Chinese people who refuse to believe they aren't superior to other countries or other people, and can subject to military defeat just like other countries.
Nowadays not even common people in China would use the term "Century of humiliation". The only place where they're relevant is in propaganda when those in power want to restore China's past glory and dominance over surrounding countries.

And such being deemed as "humiliation" weren't even unique in Chinese history, with other examples include the 16 kingdoms abd Northern and Southern dynasty period where "Five barbarians (tribes) meddled China", the end of Northern Song dynasty when Liao dynasty defeated the Song and caused what was known as "Humiliation of Jingkang".

And I fail to see how allowing China taking part of the world will either be fair to those other countries involved, or be contributory to emission reduction or mitigation of climate change effect, given that despite the ebtire rise in power, the places that can mitigate extreme weather events the best are still places which were governed by other countries in rhe past, for example in Manchuria or Qingdao. Population in these area continue to benefit from pre-WWII infrastrue and urban planning that's noticeably above rest of China when facing extreme weather events. Another indication that giving developing countries money won't solve either cause or effect of climate change.

Yeah, I think we understand your belief system now.

Colonization was India and China’s (and every other colonies) fault because they lost militarily. What followed - social/racial, cultural and economic destruction- is on that basis, acceptable.

Particularly enjoyed this but, but I tweaked it a bit:

“The Ukraine people cannot accept the pride and glory of their country being shattered by military failure. They cannot tolerate the past day of Ukraine a as a country which used to enjoy the honor of all the countries around is then being toppled. They cannot accept that as a result of their own military defeat they are being forced to give up ports to Russians and being forced to cede cities specified in referendums and deem those referendums unfair.”

Sounds like garbage, no? Well, what can I say. Garbage in, garbage out.

Phosphorus wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

You see? Suddenly this whole "white people, from countries with indoor plumbing, are all guilty of colonial injustices, they all owe reparations to the rest of the world" narrative doesn't seem too reasonable anymore, does it?

No, I don’t.

I see two very different attitudes to claims for reparations based on… errr…race.

It boosts the reparation narrative, if anything. Soo…. well, frankly not sure we’re you’re going with that.

Can you please spell these "two very different attitudes"? (I'm seeing so many angles on this, that I envy your clarity of seeing just two).

Read the rest of the thread.

ElPistolero wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

No, I don’t.

I see two very different attitudes to claims for reparations based on… errr…race.

It boosts the reparation narrative, if anything. Soo…. well, frankly not sure we’re you’re going with that.

Can you please spell these "two very different attitudes"? (I'm seeing so many angles on this, that I envy your clarity of seeing just two).

Read the rest of the thread.

It's hopeless, I'd need to dedicate several workdays for that. I tried, and I'm not seeing two, I'm seeing more. Not to mention filtering away innuendos and other such. With English my third language, I'm sorry to be unable to do that in a reasonable amount of time.
Is it too much to ask to condense this into two points? That you've mentioned.

Phosphorus wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Can you please spell these "two very different attitudes"? (I'm seeing so many angles on this, that I envy your clarity of seeing just two).

Read the rest of the thread.

It's hopeless, I'd need to dedicate several workdays for that. I tried, and I'm not seeing two, I'm seeing more. Not to mention filtering away innuendos and other such. With English my third language, I'm sorry to be unable to do that in a reasonable amount of time.
Is it too much to ask to condense this into two points? That you've mentioned.

Sure.

- read the article and apply the logic to the Baltic claims.
- find the thread on Baltic claims for reparation. If one exists.

I think this thread would be more productive by 'following the money'. What is needed and how much will it cost for much of the 3rd world to adapt to global warming? I worry that it is all bad news. I suggest looking at what it is costing the US to move native American villages up-elevation. Here in Washington State we have two tribes facing existential threats. It may cost $1 million a person for those moves. Alaska has several villages/small cities facing equal threats. Even the US does not have the resources to make things right. I see catastrophic costs for rescuing the warm/hot climate countries closer to the equator. The wealthy nations are the ones mostly responsible for the coming catastrophic effects of global warming/sea rise and coming uninhabitability of big pieces of our world. They need to help those poorer countries who will suffer the most. Since the mid 1990s I have been mostly pessimistic that the world economy can survive it all. We have the technology, we have the ability to alleviate much of the suffering ahead, but do not the the political will or wisdom to do so. Obviously I hope to be wrong, and there are paths ahead which, if taken, will provide some solutions.

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Bit rich coming from someone who lazily characterized the Opium Wars as something about “exports”.

The Chinese themselves consider it to be a key part of their “Century of Humiliation”. Because it went well beyond trade.

No points for guessing how that influences their interactions with the west. On everything, including climate change.

It's called "Century of Humiliation" because China lost its glory and is no longer able to exert colonial influence over its surrounding, losing its hitorical role of dominance.

Opium war ceded Hong Kong, a place where China emptied multiple times over decades together with vast stretch of Chinese coast in order to prevent civilian contact with pirates or the government in exile in Taiwan, a place that weren't even named by the Chinese government. If it were a war elsewhere during 19th century that cause similar result then it likely won't even be remembered.
The only reason why it shocked whole of China and being called "Century of humiliation". Is because that is the first time China lose to a foreign power, and such kind of defeat repeat throughout the next whole century. The Chinese people cannot accept the pride and glory of their country being shattered by military failure. They cannot tolerate the past day of China as a Middle Kingdom which used to enjoy the honor of master above all the countries around is then being toppled. They cannot accept that as a result of their own military defeat they are being forced to open up ports to foreigners and being forced to allow foreigners living in cities specified in treaties and deem those treaties unfair.

This is a result of nationalism and racism of Chinese people who refuse to believe they aren't superior to other countries or other people, and can subject to military defeat just like other countries.
Nowadays not even common people in China would use the term "Century of humiliation". The only place where they're relevant is in propaganda when those in power want to restore China's past glory and dominance over surrounding countries.

And such being deemed as "humiliation" weren't even unique in Chinese history, with other examples include the 16 kingdoms abd Northern and Southern dynasty period where "Five barbarians (tribes) meddled China", the end of Northern Song dynasty when Liao dynasty defeated the Song and caused what was known as "Humiliation of Jingkang".

And I fail to see how allowing China taking part of the world will either be fair to those other countries involved, or be contributory to emission reduction or mitigation of climate change effect, given that despite the ebtire rise in power, the places that can mitigate extreme weather events the best are still places which were governed by other countries in rhe past, for example in Manchuria or Qingdao. Population in these area continue to benefit from pre-WWII infrastrue and urban planning that's noticeably above rest of China when facing extreme weather events. Another indication that giving developing countries money won't solve either cause or effect of climate change.

Yeah, I think we understand your belief system now.

Colonization was India and China’s (and every other colonies) fault because they lost militarily. What followed - social/racial, cultural and economic destruction- is on that basis, acceptable.

Particularly enjoyed this but, but I tweaked it a bit:

“The Ukraine people cannot accept the pride and glory of their country being shattered by military failure. They cannot tolerate the past day of Ukraine a as a country which used to enjoy the honor of all the countries around is then being toppled. They cannot accept that as a result of their own military defeat they are being forced to give up ports to Russians and being forced to cede cities specified in referendums and deem those referendums unfair.”

Sounds like garbage, no? Well, what can I say. Garbage in, garbage out.

When were Ukrainian people enjoying controlling other countries, for that equivalent to make sense?
You can disregard it by claiming it is a "believe system" but that's just how thing is from the perspective from China. Even in official propaganda you will never see them claiming how bad foreigners were treating Chinese people instead you would ony see anger of foreigners having the ability to influence how China operate. The most significant event in the "century of humiliation" was China being defeated by Japan in the 1894 First Sino Japan War, because it signal not even "foreign barbarians" but also formerly submissive countries have toppled the Confucian order of Middle Kingdom being the order that lead all countries around, and that's the point when predecessor of China Nationalist Party was created which openly state in their slogan they want to "Remove the Manchurian to restore China" as they think the Manchurian court was source of such failure and humiliation faced by China at the time, which end up creating Republic of China.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I think this thread would be more productive by 'following the money'. What is needed and how much will it cost for much of the 3rd world to adapt to global warming? I worry that it is all bad news. I suggest looking at what it is costing the US to move native American villages up-elevation. Here in Washington State we have two tribes facing existential threats. It may cost $1 million a person for those moves. Alaska has several villages/small cities facing equal threats. Even the US does not have the resources to make things right. I see catastrophic costs for rescuing the warm/hot climate countries closer to the equator. The wealthy nations are the ones mostly responsible for the coming catastrophic effects of global warming/sea rise and coming uninhabitability of big pieces of our world. They need to help those poorer countries who will suffer the most. Since the mid 1990s I have been mostly pessimistic that the world economy can survive it all. We have the technology, we have the ability to alleviate much of the suffering ahead, but do not the the political will or wisdom to do so. Obviously I hope to be wrong, and there are paths ahead which, if taken, will provide some solutions.

It's probably in fact easier to help most part of the world than helping US of A.
In most of the world, especially in developing countries, urbanization are fast. Which mean you only need to focus your money at where population concebtrate. On the other hand the US have low residential density spreaded out everywhere and in the extreme case they have been stretched thin to the point that they can't support their own plumbing system. How can they be expected to deal with extreme weather events if they can't even pay for plumbing?

Now, for rest of the world. Rising water level actual is not end of the world but they stack up in an invisible way. There will be no dramatic point when suddenly all water flood into a city and the city then become gone forever because we have ways to draw out flooding water even from cities that are below water level. Think of New Orleans as an example. After disaster occur, and after clean up, most people will restore and business will resume.On the surface it appears this recovery cost the most but in fact there are bigger cost. That's the risk of it happening again. It will not just cost money in prevent and recovery, it will also make people reconsider whether they should live in or move their business into such area. Such economic lost is something the current world cannot compensate.

Also, for Pacific Island countries, there're proposal for moving them to new islands if their islands are flooded, but to be honest the world didn't have a good track record with it. See for example US moving residents of Bikini Atoll or Chagos Archipelagoes away for the purpose of nuclear test or building military base, or relocation of Native American Tribes for farming purposes, relocation of black people to Liberia to "make them have their own country", or relocation of Jewish people to Israel. None of these worked.