5 ms·

Then who does have responsibility? Surely you're not suggesting that all is forgiven and forgotten once the perpetrators are dead? I'm suggesting that, figurat

by tombh 7y ago

Then who does have responsibility? Surely you're not suggesting that all is forgiven and forgotten once the perpetrators are dead? I'm suggesting that, figuratively, if you actually knew that you lived by a volcano, the emotional shock caused by its eruption could be tempered by some foresight. The Opium Trade and Wars were evil and at a massive scale, I just don't see how that can be spun any other way. How was this ever going to turn out any differently? Like I said the only reason we're so outraged is because we obliterated every other nation to the point that they'll never be able to rise up.

simonh 7y ago
Responsibility for what? Either the people of Hong Kong are entitled to their opinions and freedoms, or they are not. I don't see why the actions of some dead British guys from 150 years ago have anything to do with whether that it true or not? Nobody is spinning the opium wars in any way. You are the one who brought up the topic.
- tombh 7y ago
  Responsibility for justice. Perhaps legally nothing will ever happen, but without moral justice, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". The opinions and freedoms of the Chinese in 1842 were the same as Hong Kong's are now: to remain as they were and not become part of a different nation. So if you believe that Hong Kong deserves independence now, then you need to also believe that it deserved remaining Chinese then. I'm not an apologist for China. For example I strongly believe in the independence of Taiwan, they've clearly demonstrated through their own efforts that they are different to the mainland. They didn't have that sentiment force upon them by guns from a foreign military might.
  - malms 7y ago
    > Responsibility for justice. That's one of the most stupid politically correct ideas of the modern times. Thinking descendants of perpetrators owe anything to descendant of victim fails to account that, in most cases, the victims would actually have done the same than th eperpetrators had they be in the similar position of power (see slavery / natives vs europeans). It's bullshit. It's human nature that people abuse people. It's never a race/ people / specific group issue.
    - tombh 7y ago
      Justice isn't a soppy feel-good, everybody hug now thing. As the quote says, it's about the method of escaping the cycles of history. Of course descendants can't be blamed for the past, and that's not what anybody is saying. It might not be fair but the only way we can build a more peaceful future is by taking responsibility for the past. I can understand how that sounds similar to taking the blame, but it's fundamentally different. Eg; I sure as hell didn't write the buggy code that brought down the production site. I can shout all I want that I don't owe anything to the clients, or I can just take responsibility for the fix and we all move on with our lives.
  - simonh 7y ago
    Justice for who, right now, and on what issue? Most of your comments are very frustratingly vague. I've no real idea what specifically you are actually criticising or advising. >They didn't have that sentiment force upon them by guns from a foreign military might. The current population of Hong Kong didn't have their current status imposed on them by people with guns either. Yet. They, like you and I, were simply born into a political and economic environment not of their making. I think it's reasonable for any of us to have an opinion about whether having anything forced on them by guns now is acceptable or not.
    - tombh 7y ago
      For sure I don't think I've made myself clear enough, that's all on me, I'm sorry. So just for the sake of clarity let me over simplify it. Imagine that my long-term girlfriend who worked in a coffee shop all her life found out her boss was a murderous drug dealer. Instead of quitting she becomes the company accountant thus taking a massive pay raise that I in turn benefit from. The company doesn't directly break the law but we have some vague idea that it wouldn't be as successful as it is if it wasn't for the connections the boss has. Neither I nor my girlfriend ever did or ever will do anything morally wrong. We enjoy the freedoms the extra money gives us. One day the police find out about the boss's illegal activities and it looks like the company will have to be dissolved. In this circumstance I completely agree that I and my girlfriend have a right to feel distressed our quality of life is about to be drastically lowered. However, considering the circumstances, I have no right to be outraged at my government for not supporting my rights to indirectly enjoy the money my girlfriend gets from a company that built its niche through mafia activities.
      - simonh 7y ago
        To counter your example. Suppose your great, great grandchildren found out about that story. How relevant do you think they would find it to their decisions about their lives, assuming they have no knowledge or anything to do with drug dealing or criminal activity themselves?
        tombh 7y ago

by tombh 7y ago

simonh 7y ago

Responsibility for what? Either the people of Hong Kong are entitled to their opinions and freedoms, or they are not. I don't see why the actions of some dead British guys from 150 years ago have anything to do with whether that it true or not? Nobody is spinning the opium wars in any way. You are the one who brought up the topic.

tombh 7y ago
Responsibility for justice. Perhaps legally nothing will ever happen, but without moral justice, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". The opinions and freedoms of the Chinese in 1842 were the same as Hong Kong's are now: to remain as they were and not become part of a different nation. So if you believe that Hong Kong deserves independence now, then you need to also believe that it deserved remaining Chinese then. I'm not an apologist for China. For example I strongly believe in the independence of Taiwan, they've clearly demonstrated through their own efforts that they are different to the mainland. They didn't have that sentiment force upon them by guns from a foreign military might.
- malms 7y ago
  > Responsibility for justice. That's one of the most stupid politically correct ideas of the modern times. Thinking descendants of perpetrators owe anything to descendant of victim fails to account that, in most cases, the victims would actually have done the same than th eperpetrators had they be in the similar position of power (see slavery / natives vs europeans). It's bullshit. It's human nature that people abuse people. It's never a race/ people / specific group issue.
  - tombh 7y ago
    Justice isn't a soppy feel-good, everybody hug now thing. As the quote says, it's about the method of escaping the cycles of history. Of course descendants can't be blamed for the past, and that's not what anybody is saying. It might not be fair but the only way we can build a more peaceful future is by taking responsibility for the past. I can understand how that sounds similar to taking the blame, but it's fundamentally different. Eg; I sure as hell didn't write the buggy code that brought down the production site. I can shout all I want that I don't owe anything to the clients, or I can just take responsibility for the fix and we all move on with our lives.
- simonh 7y ago
  Justice for who, right now, and on what issue? Most of your comments are very frustratingly vague. I've no real idea what specifically you are actually criticising or advising. >They didn't have that sentiment force upon them by guns from a foreign military might. The current population of Hong Kong didn't have their current status imposed on them by people with guns either. Yet. They, like you and I, were simply born into a political and economic environment not of their making. I think it's reasonable for any of us to have an opinion about whether having anything forced on them by guns now is acceptable or not.
  - tombh 7y ago
    For sure I don't think I've made myself clear enough, that's all on me, I'm sorry. So just for the sake of clarity let me over simplify it. Imagine that my long-term girlfriend who worked in a coffee shop all her life found out her boss was a murderous drug dealer. Instead of quitting she becomes the company accountant thus taking a massive pay raise that I in turn benefit from. The company doesn't directly break the law but we have some vague idea that it wouldn't be as successful as it is if it wasn't for the connections the boss has. Neither I nor my girlfriend ever did or ever will do anything morally wrong. We enjoy the freedoms the extra money gives us. One day the police find out about the boss's illegal activities and it looks like the company will have to be dissolved. In this circumstance I completely agree that I and my girlfriend have a right to feel distressed our quality of life is about to be drastically lowered. However, considering the circumstances, I have no right to be outraged at my government for not supporting my rights to indirectly enjoy the money my girlfriend gets from a company that built its niche through mafia activities.
    - simonh 7y ago
      To counter your example. Suppose your great, great grandchildren found out about that story. How relevant do you think they would find it to their decisions about their lives, assuming they have no knowledge or anything to do with drug dealing or criminal activity themselves?
      - tombh 7y ago