You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Countries and their ashamed history
- Thread starter Nethermoor
- Start date
I'm With Stupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 May 2013
- Messages
- 20,537
If you think people don't moan about those other things, you haven't been paying attention. Obviously the vikings is going a bit far back, but Australia, Canada and the US constantly have debates about how they've treated the natives in the past. Japan are constantly called to apologize for war crimes in Korea and other areas of Asia. Turkey are constantly called on to apologize for their actions in Armenia.
When it comes to how far back you go, the first question is whether the people in question are still alive. With Japan's WW2 atrocities, there are still people alive that are due an apology. Native Canadian children have suffered horrendous abuse in living memory. The second question is whether the actions at that time have had a long-term impact on the descendants of those people. In most cases, it hasn't been a case of a bunch of atrocities and then suddenly everything is fine. It is a gradual process of treating these people like equal citizens, that in many cases, arguably isn't finished. Nobody nowadays is suffering because of the viking invasion. Plenty of people are still suffering because of the civil rights abuses in America, which started with slavery, but certainly didn't finish with it.
Obviously it gets a bit more complicated when talking about colonialism, because you have to ask at which point after independence do you have to accept that these countries' plight is their own responsibility. How much of Africa's relative poverty is due to colonialism, and how much is simply due to the realities of the geography and economy of the continent making it more difficult to build wealth? I don't know the answer to that. But arguably Europe wasn't rich because of colonialism, it was colonial because it was rich. Which isn't to say that they didn't abuse that power to further exploit other countries and make themselves richer.
When it comes to how far back you go, the first question is whether the people in question are still alive. With Japan's WW2 atrocities, there are still people alive that are due an apology. Native Canadian children have suffered horrendous abuse in living memory. The second question is whether the actions at that time have had a long-term impact on the descendants of those people. In most cases, it hasn't been a case of a bunch of atrocities and then suddenly everything is fine. It is a gradual process of treating these people like equal citizens, that in many cases, arguably isn't finished. Nobody nowadays is suffering because of the viking invasion. Plenty of people are still suffering because of the civil rights abuses in America, which started with slavery, but certainly didn't finish with it.
Obviously it gets a bit more complicated when talking about colonialism, because you have to ask at which point after independence do you have to accept that these countries' plight is their own responsibility. How much of Africa's relative poverty is due to colonialism, and how much is simply due to the realities of the geography and economy of the continent making it more difficult to build wealth? I don't know the answer to that. But arguably Europe wasn't rich because of colonialism, it was colonial because it was rich. Which isn't to say that they didn't abuse that power to further exploit other countries and make themselves richer.
Resurrection Joe...
Well-Known Member
If you think people don't moan about those other things, you haven't been paying attention. Obviously the vikings is going a bit far back, but Australia, Canada and the US constantly have debates about how they've treated the natives in the past. Japan are constantly called to apologize for war crimes in Korea and other areas of Asia. Turkey are constantly called on to apologize for their actions in Armenia.
When it comes to how far back you go, the first question is whether the people in question are still alive. With Japan's WW2 atrocities, there are still people alive that are due an apology. Native Canadian children have suffered horrendous abuse in living memory. The second question is whether the actions at that time have had a long-term impact on the descendants of those people. In most cases, it hasn't been a case of a bunch of atrocities and then suddenly everything is fine. It is a gradual process of treating these people like equal citizens, that in many cases, arguably isn't finished. . Plenty of people are still suffering because of the civil rights abuses in America, which started with slavery, but certainly didn't finish with it.
Obviously it gets a bit more complicated when talking about colonialism, because you have to ask at which point after independence do you have to accept that these countries' plight is their own responsibility. How much of Africa's relative poverty is due to colonialism, and how much is simply due to the realities of the geography and economy of the continent making it more difficult to build wealth? I don't know the answer to that. But arguably Europe wasn't rich because of colonialism, it was colonial because it was rich. Which isn't to say that they didn't abuse that power to further exploit other countries and make themselves richer.
Nobody nowadays is suffering because of the viking invasion
A few premiership goalkeepers aside.
Metal Biker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 21,336
- Team supported
- Manchester City (and McLaren F1)
By the British, and the Spanish and French in North America.
So the Coronation and the complaints from people about how the UK used to try to take over the world brings the interesting debate.
How far do we go back for each country? I really don't think there's a country going that doesn't have skeletons in their closet, yet somehow we're easy targets due to our past.
We don't moan at Norway about Vikings.
The USA, Australia etc were both taken from the natives.
If there is a completely clean country i'd be interested to know... maybe Greenland? Faroes?
It's a complex issue but generally speaking, you're going to be hard pushed to find anyone who can say with any certainty that they continue to face inequality or oppression as result of the actions of vikings. People can't even trace their lineage back that far. Hence why you only hear people bringing up arguments like that in bad faith and as a way of minimising the grievances of people who only have to go back two or three generations to discover awful tales of suffering and discrimination faced by their relatives. And a certain level of inequality is still quite clearly entrenched from that time that is attributable to the actions of European imperialism.
BimboBob
Well-Known Member
A lot of African countries sold their own people as slaves for hard cash and made shit loads of money.If you think people don't moan about those other things, you haven't been paying attention. Obviously the vikings is going a bit far back, but Australia, Canada and the US constantly have debates about how they've treated the natives in the past. Japan are constantly called to apologize for war crimes in Korea and other areas of Asia. Turkey are constantly called on to apologize for their actions in Armenia.
When it comes to how far back you go, the first question is whether the people in question are still alive. With Japan's WW2 atrocities, there are still people alive that are due an apology. Native Canadian children have suffered horrendous abuse in living memory. The second question is whether the actions at that time have had a long-term impact on the descendants of those people. In most cases, it hasn't been a case of a bunch of atrocities and then suddenly everything is fine. It is a gradual process of treating these people like equal citizens, that in many cases, arguably isn't finished. Nobody nowadays is suffering because of the viking invasion. Plenty of people are still suffering because of the civil rights abuses in America, which started with slavery, but certainly didn't finish with it.
Obviously it gets a bit more complicated when talking about colonialism, because you have to ask at which point after independence do you have to accept that these countries' plight is their own responsibility. How much of Africa's relative poverty is due to colonialism, and how much is simply due to the realities of the geography and economy of the continent making it more difficult to build wealth? I don't know the answer to that. But arguably Europe wasn't rich because of colonialism, it was colonial because it was rich. Which isn't to say that they didn't abuse that power to further exploit other countries and make themselves richer.
threespires
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2019
- Messages
- 6,427
- Team supported
- City
I'd say there was an awful lot of individuals then. Much like other places in Europe, there were plenty of innocent people that didn't have the means to get involved and enrich themselves.
With regards your family I wouldn't go blaming individual families or their descendants (apart from Cromwell and his progeny, fuck them).
Genuinely think lots of English people are clueless about what Cromwell et al did in Ireland. There's a vague understanding that he might have been a bit 'severe' :-(
AlgarveBlu
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Aug 2005
- Messages
- 3,930
Portugal deserves an honourable mention as it was the starting point both historically and geographically of all the European colonisers, Lagos in the Western Algarve was the starting point. Lisbon was also the first European city with a sizeable black population in the 16th century.
Vasco do Gama/Henry the Navigator monuments, squares and shopping malls are everywhere here. I suppose Brazil could easily blame Portugal for its current race problems but they generally get on well together here without any racial tension and likewise the Angolans and Mozambicans. I think that the Portuguese dwell more on the past glories and whilst acknowledging their significant role in the global slave trade just look at it as something that happened in a different era and there's not much you can do about it.
Vasco do Gama/Henry the Navigator monuments, squares and shopping malls are everywhere here. I suppose Brazil could easily blame Portugal for its current race problems but they generally get on well together here without any racial tension and likewise the Angolans and Mozambicans. I think that the Portuguese dwell more on the past glories and whilst acknowledging their significant role in the global slave trade just look at it as something that happened in a different era and there's not much you can do about it.
Scottyboi
Well-Known Member
Ashamed of nothing if our little island conquered yours back in the day blame your ancestors not us. GSTK