3 ms·

Chesterton's quote is a nice one, but that doesn't mean that the GP is "spouting nonsense". They may be focused more on outcomes rather than Chesterton's focus

by rsj_hn 5y ago

Chesterton's quote is a nice one, but that doesn't mean that the GP is "spouting nonsense". They may be focused more on outcomes rather than Chesterton's focus on maintaining national traditions and sovereignty. Both are valid views and both can be debated with nuance.

rramadass 5y ago
>Both are valid views and both can be debated with nuance No. When it comes to Colonialism (and ideas of Superior/Inferior races) there is no two ways about it; it is untenable and unacceptable.
- adrianN 5y ago
  One can believe that some people are better at ruling a country than other people without believing that this is due to genetic differences between these people.
  - rramadass 5y ago
    >One can believe that some people are better at ruling a country than other people That is a "belief" without any basis in facts and therefore untenable.
    - adrianN 5y ago
      I'm pretty sure that I'm a worse at ruling countries than Angela Merkel and a better than the heroin addict that lives at my local underground station.
      - rramadass 5y ago
        And yet all three have one vote each under a Democratic system i.e. you are equivalent in that context. The point is that when it comes to sovereignty, there can only be self-determination based on whatever accepted criteria by the people themselves. Relevant: The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude by Étienne de La Boétie - https://mises.org/library/politics-obedience-discourse-voluntary-servitude https://mises.org/library/politics-obedience-discourse-volun...
  - pjc50 5y ago
    .. so you let that be decided by election, right?
- meany 5y ago
  I can appreciate your passion and ideas, but continued rule under a modern western democracy would not be equivalent to the race based colonialism of the past. I think there is nuance to this, and I don't think any of us can speak for all residents of all former colonies. It doesn't seem unreasonable that a situation could get so bad that an individual would prefer continued colony status (which is nothing like it would have been in 1936) under a liberal western democracy over some of the alternatives. For instance, my understanding is that there are some people in Hong Kong, who would prefer British rule to Chinese. From a WSJ article (https://www.wsj.com/articles/some-hong-kongers-want-to-be-british-again-11567770402 https://www.wsj.com/articles/some-hong-kongers-want-to-be-br...): "On Sunday, hundreds of people gathered outside the British consulate in Hong Kong for a rally urging London to take immediate action to protect British nationals in the city and grant them full citizenship. “We’re too British to be Chinese,” said Eric Cheung, a 25-year-old Hong Kong resident at the rally who is a British National (Overseas), or BNO. “We share the same ideology with the U.K. We support democracy, we support freedom, we support the rule of law and of course we support the U.K. government,” he said. “ Boris Johnson, fight for us,” he added, appealing to the British prime minister.
  - rramadass 5y ago
    This argument is somewhat disingenuous with cherry-picked examples which are highly dependent on Time and Context. Colonialism ruined whole countries leaving them poor, rewrote cultural narratives, uprooted entire social structures and in a word, destroyed peoples histories and a sense of their own independent identity. In the bloody aftermath some flourished and some did not; but this cannot be used as an example of the "superiority" of certain forms of government when the existing forms had been destroyed. A good starting point on further research is the book; Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty by Acemoglu and Robinson (be sure to read the Critical Reviews section) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Nations_Fail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Nations_Fail The following two videos though dealing specifically with India under British Colonialism are equally valid as to what had happened to other countries under the British Empire; 1) W.r.t. what British Colonialism did to India, see Dr. Shashi Tharoor's longer speech Looking Back at the British Raj in India - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB5ykS-_-CI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB5ykS-_-CI 2) Shorter version of above at Britain Does Owe Reparations[to India] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4

by rsj_hn 5y ago

rramadass 5y ago

>Both are valid views and both can be debated with nuance No. When it comes to Colonialism (and ideas of Superior/Inferior races) there is no two ways about it; it is untenable and unacceptable.

adrianN 5y ago
One can believe that some people are better at ruling a country than other people without believing that this is due to genetic differences between these people.
- rramadass 5y ago
  >One can believe that some people are better at ruling a country than other people That is a "belief" without any basis in facts and therefore untenable.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    I'm pretty sure that I'm a worse at ruling countries than Angela Merkel and a better than the heroin addict that lives at my local underground station.
    - rramadass 5y ago
      And yet all three have one vote each under a Democratic system i.e. you are equivalent in that context. The point is that when it comes to sovereignty, there can only be self-determination based on whatever accepted criteria by the people themselves. Relevant: The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude by Étienne de La Boétie - https://mises.org/library/politics-obedience-discourse-voluntary-servitude https://mises.org/library/politics-obedience-discourse-volun...
- pjc50 5y ago
  .. so you let that be decided by election, right?
meany 5y ago
I can appreciate your passion and ideas, but continued rule under a modern western democracy would not be equivalent to the race based colonialism of the past. I think there is nuance to this, and I don't think any of us can speak for all residents of all former colonies. It doesn't seem unreasonable that a situation could get so bad that an individual would prefer continued colony status (which is nothing like it would have been in 1936) under a liberal western democracy over some of the alternatives. For instance, my understanding is that there are some people in Hong Kong, who would prefer British rule to Chinese. From a WSJ article (https://www.wsj.com/articles/some-hong-kongers-want-to-be-british-again-11567770402 https://www.wsj.com/articles/some-hong-kongers-want-to-be-br...): "On Sunday, hundreds of people gathered outside the British consulate in Hong Kong for a rally urging London to take immediate action to protect British nationals in the city and grant them full citizenship. “We’re too British to be Chinese,” said Eric Cheung, a 25-year-old Hong Kong resident at the rally who is a British National (Overseas), or BNO. “We share the same ideology with the U.K. We support democracy, we support freedom, we support the rule of law and of course we support the U.K. government,” he said. “ Boris Johnson, fight for us,” he added, appealing to the British prime minister.
- rramadass 5y ago
  This argument is somewhat disingenuous with cherry-picked examples which are highly dependent on Time and Context. Colonialism ruined whole countries leaving them poor, rewrote cultural narratives, uprooted entire social structures and in a word, destroyed peoples histories and a sense of their own independent identity. In the bloody aftermath some flourished and some did not; but this cannot be used as an example of the "superiority" of certain forms of government when the existing forms had been destroyed. A good starting point on further research is the book; Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty by Acemoglu and Robinson (be sure to read the Critical Reviews section) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Nations_Fail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Nations_Fail The following two videos though dealing specifically with India under British Colonialism are equally valid as to what had happened to other countries under the British Empire; 1) W.r.t. what British Colonialism did to India, see Dr. Shashi Tharoor's longer speech Looking Back at the British Raj in India - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB5ykS-_-CI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB5ykS-_-CI 2) Shorter version of above at Britain Does Owe Reparations[to India] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4