7 ms·

I want to know how much the Romans stole from Germania. If we're going to track down every historical wrong (as long as it's a European/British/American histor

• glial 6y ago
  To quote the article: > Reparations? Perhaps – although there is not enough money in all of Britain to cover the sums that Patnaik identifies. In the meantime, we can start by setting the story straight. In your world, do you see a place for this sort of historical investigation of the consequences of past actions, to learn from history?
  • loceng 6y ago
    It depends on if the purpose of bringing these stories to light is wielded as a weapon or as a text book.
    • Imnimo 6y ago
      Would you rather the history be kept secret than be "wielded as a weapon"?
      • damagednoob 6y ago
        You do realise those aren't the only two options? What loceng is talking about is sins of the father being transferred to the children.
        • Imnimo 6y ago
          Yes, but when asked, "do you see a place for this sort of historical investigation of the consequences of past actions?" they said that the answer depends on whether it is "wielded as a weapon", which seems to imply that the answer in that case would be "no" - that if given a choice between only the options of being kept secret or being wielded as a weapon, they would prefer it be kept secret.
          • loceng 6y ago
            You're somehow leaving out the option that I mentioned of "use as a text book." My answer was to highlight the concern that intent/purpose and motives are important, e.g if someone going to use the reminder of history as a weapon to rally anger and hate, or to guide rational, reasonable discussion?
            • Imnimo 6y ago
              Yes, I understand that that's your preferred option. But your answer seems to imply that if people were going to use history as a weapon, then it would be better for it to not be known at all. That is, your order of preferences is Text Book > Secret > Used as Weapon.
              • damagednoob 6y ago
                If the purpose for 'historical investigation of the consequences of past actions' is to rally anger and hate in the present, then no, I would prefer it kept 'secret'. Mainly because I would have no faith that the investigation would be objective or have any redeeming qualities.
                • Imnimo 6y ago
                  Even true facts can be used for bad purposes, and even uncomfortable facts are worth knowing. This philosophy is what leads to things like denying the Armenian genocide, or denying the rape of Nanking.
  • jgowdy 6y ago
    Certainly, I'm pretty sure in my comment, I emphasized that it's the very selective seeking of historical justice, most commonly targeting Europe, England, and the United States which impeaches the credibility of the whole exercise as not just about righting and learning from historical wrongs, but instead advancing an agenda. Of course if we were working to right or at least learn about all historical wrongs without being selective about it, then I would argue that attempting to undo the horrors of human history is quixotic and a fool's errand.
    • scsilver 6y ago
      Maybe because these attrocities were committed by people in recent history and the technology and record keeping have made it possible to quantify the destruction and pillaging. And that the west is open to being held accountable.
      • loveistheanswer 6y ago
        Maybe, maybe not. Why is there never any mention of the horrors of the Arab Slave Trade in these discussions? And why does no one mention that it was the British who spearheaded the global abolition of slavery?
        • karpierz 6y ago
          If you want to start a discussion about the Arab Slave Trade and reparations for it, feel free. But in the meantime, please don't derail discussions about one atrocity with a meta-discussion about every atrocity and how those atrocities rank amongst each other.
          • loveistheanswer 6y ago
            Why are you so anxious to shut down a broader discussion about the reality of human nature and slavery? Perhaps there is a painful reality of the human condition which you do not want to confront?
        • 6y ago
• mytailorisrich 6y ago
  It's worth noting that "India" did not exist at the time, which made it possible for the British to take over by using these divisions. Perhaps the very existence of India is the most important legacy of the British in the region. The weak and divided will always be taken advantage of. That's a historical constant. From the Renaissance onward Europe (yes, it was heavily divided but somehow that seemed to have fostered competition and progress) was unstoppable and miles ahead of everyone else. I think that's key and it's really interesting to study the causes of that. What we've seen starting in the second half of the 19th century is the world trying to catch up. Energies are better used to build a prosperous and well-governed country rather than dwelling on who took what from whom in the past (everyone took whatever they could from everyone else).
  • ksquarekumar 6y ago
    Not a fan of revisionist theories and unsubstantiated fan fictions, but your idea of India being a British creation is utterly misinformed, India is a very old political entity and had been United under multiple nations states & empires throughout its recorded history.
    • mytailorisrich 6y ago
      > Not a fan of revisionist theories and unsubstantiated fan fictions I can understand that Indians feel a degree of humiliation at having been colonised by a comparatively rather small island nation, but bitterness an burying one's head in the sand is not going to change history. Trying to shutdown discussion by basically insulting others won't, either. If what is now India had been a single, unified political entity it would have been much more difficult, if not impossible, for the British to take over the way they did. We can look at China as an example of that: While it was in a state of 'decay' that allowed a level of colonisation and land grab it was still an single, unified country that was able to resist complete takeover. Note that I'm not making any judgment or attempt at justifying anything. I am just pointing out that what happened is what happened everywhere throughout history. The particularity of the period is perhaps what I mentioned in my previous comment: Europe's advance that allowed it to essentially subjugate the world. It is much more useful to learn from the past (and to learn from others) than to stay in the past.
• tetris11 6y ago
  Didnt Germanic tribes eventually overpower and become the defacto rulers of the old Roman empire, taking over the existing hierarchies and heralding in the Roman Catholic Church as they did so?
• stelcodes 6y ago
  Lol funny how you are deprioritizing justice for brown people. Internalized racism much?
• akudha 6y ago
  Many countries refuse to even acknowledge and say sorry for the shit they did as recently as recently as 50-100 years ago. Countries like Japan don't want their young to learn about the atrocities they committed (unit 731, rape of nanking etc).
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• ncmncm 6y ago
  The Roman Empire does not exist anymore. The British Crown does. Stripping the British Crown of its property and returning it all to India would go only a little way to repaying the debt, but it would be a gesture directly from the beneficiaries of the plunder to the robbed.
  • jgowdy 6y ago
    I'm sorry, are you referring to the Kingdom of Great Britain, a country that doesn't exist anymore, or the United Kingdom, a wholly different structure of government and effectively a different nation?
    • ncmncm 6y ago
      I am talking, as I wrote in actual words which you may read all by yourself immediately above, of the assets of the British Crown: what its principals, I gather, refer to as "the Firm". Those are wholly distinct from the United Kingdom, and from Great Britain, and from whatever else you imagine that is not what I wrote or you read.
      • jgowdy 6y ago
        What other families have benefitted from colonialism and slavery? Is this family the worst example or simply the highest profile? It seems like there are a great number of people and even entire families living lives of luxury due in large part to historical wrongs. Would you like to pursue the quixotic quest of righting all of these wrongs through property seizure from their descendants, or are you simply concerned with the highest profile such family to make a point? And if you believe the British Crown isn't a political entity that is part and parcel with the government of the United Kingdom but instead just a culpable family that needs to be stripped of their ill gotten assets, then perhaps the Commonwealth doesn't exist at all.
• naruvimama 6y ago
  In the case of India, the British/European influence still holds. Let us look at some effects of British rule that still lingers 1. The British transferred power to British educated loyalists/elites esp. Nehru, whose family dynasty continues to be dominate politics. 2. Did you know that the word "Caste" can not be found in any Indian languages, because it originates from Europe and was introduced into India by the British and fortified by the Church. The amount of propaganda and weaponisation is so strong that this has be internalised by the society. 3. The culture of British institutions and politics continue to be patronising towards India. So much so that they continue to interfere in the Internal matters of India. None of this has to do with money but treating a civilisation on equal terms. Britain can reverse at least a part of the damage by being honest. 'Soft Power Reparations' [Lecture at British Parliament] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDvNGAQhSYs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDvNGAQhSYs 'Did British Create The Indian Caste System?' [Breaking India at Warwick] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrTUp2mKbWs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrTUp2mKbWs