4 ms·

>>I fail to see the link between the Scandinavians and their current state of welfare and the Vikings, as far as I know the Vikings were no better or worse than

by berntb 14y ago

>>I fail to see the link between the Scandinavians and their current state of welfare and the Vikings, as far as I know the Vikings were no better or worse than what the rest of Europe was up to at the time But according to your previous comment, the West owed the third world an incredibly amount. The Scandinavians are OK because their victims (France farmers, etc) were as bad as themselves. That means the third world was much better than the west from the 14th century forward to modern times...? As ramanujan noted, most others (Huns etc etc) did at least as bad when they had the capacity. Your position seems based more in emotions/politics than reason. (Also, the Scandinavian Viking era had a violent clan society which probably was worse than West Europe even in the "dark" period after Rome's fall.) Edit: Clarity

jacquesm 14y ago
The West still owes, not owed the third world an incredible amount. And that's because we still have the books from those days, the stock of some of those companies is still being traded today, there are still vast fortunes that trace their origins directly back to those crimes. The same does not hold for the Scandinavians and French farmers. My position is mostly based on bookkeeping.
- berntb 14y ago
  There are lots of documentation of atrocities made by states. So, you judge the west with a differently different yard stick because there are corporations here and they are different in quality from e.g. the mass murders of Communist parties (google Great Chinese Hunger etc etc), the Mongol invasion, the Spanish state (South/Latin America), etc...? Here, in the real world, we consider it bad form to blame e.g. Germans (or the Swedes, or...) for their parents/ancestors misdeeds. But YOU blame the west for 600 years old crimes -- because some of the countries had partly free corporations at the time!! Wow... I'll just take one argument here: The western world started science, partly through corporate research. This has increased peoples' food/health/education for centuries. This effect should be much larger than any corporate atrocities can be. (It would surprise me if you think that is relevant... :-) ) I have a conclusion: If you're not trolling, I think you "know" that corporations(/the west) are bad -- and really are willing to make any logical sophisms to keep your faith.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    No, it's simply because I still benefit from those crimes even today.
    - berntb 14y ago
      OK... So, only crimes done by a corporation -- not a state. And the crimes can be 600 years old, no statute of limitations!! And there is no bookkeeping for boons the corporation(s) did for victims (industrialization etc etc etc). Probably billions of identifiable people (Mongols in China, people in Argentina where they slaughtered the locals, etc) enjoy a better life from atrocities the last 600 years. But those that did invasions without corporations has no responsibility!? Now, after at least three explanations, you still argue something that is completely weird -- compared to every similar case in history/law/morality I have heard of/read about. That is enough for me. (If you're e.g. Belgian and rich because of what happened a hundred years ago in Africa, that is unpalatable -- but doesn't reflect more upon you personally than WW II on Germans. And 600 years?! both our ancestors ought to have been on all sides of all atrocities in Europe at that time... I'm not going to beat myself up over that.) Edit: On the other hand... I have played with the thought of keeping track of people whose family fortunes were gotten in an inhuman way (corruption, part of a tyrant regime, etc). The perpetrators should lose motivation when their future rich relatives will be badly shamed. I might agree with that setup, but not only for corporations -- and hardly 600 years back(!).
      - jacquesm 14y ago
        I'm not beating myself up over it. I just notice that there is a debt, and a substantial one and that it is unlikely to be paid back. And these things are still happening today, for instance this man that decided to speak out against the royal Dutch Shell oil company and got murdered for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Saro-Wiwa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Saro-Wiwa
        berntb 14y ago
        You just ignored 90+% of what I wrote as answers to your strange opinions. Sigh... OK. Wiki page says "outspoken critic of the Nigerian government ... hanged in 1995 by the military government" 1995 is not "today" -- and the whole execution might even have been done by the military dictatorship, without Shell even directly asking them to do it. (From what I've read about Nigeria, this doesn't seem unlikely.) If Shell was involved (why would they murder internationally known critics -- the resulting sh-t storm is obvious) -- was any higher up Shell people involved? It is ridiculous how you limit your criticism to corporations. Any of the tyrants worth his own weight in human ears have done worse than most any corporation since 1995. I think I'm being trolled.

by berntb 14y ago

jacquesm 14y ago

The West still owes, not owed the third world an incredible amount. And that's because we still have the books from those days, the stock of some of those companies is still being traded today, there are still vast fortunes that trace their origins directly back to those crimes. The same does not hold for the Scandinavians and French farmers. My position is mostly based on bookkeeping.

berntb 14y ago
There are lots of documentation of atrocities made by states. So, you judge the west with a differently different yard stick because there are corporations here and they are different in quality from e.g. the mass murders of Communist parties (google Great Chinese Hunger etc etc), the Mongol invasion, the Spanish state (South/Latin America), etc...? Here, in the real world, we consider it bad form to blame e.g. Germans (or the Swedes, or...) for their parents/ancestors misdeeds. But YOU blame the west for 600 years old crimes -- because some of the countries had partly free corporations at the time!! Wow... I'll just take one argument here: The western world started science, partly through corporate research. This has increased peoples' food/health/education for centuries. This effect should be much larger than any corporate atrocities can be. (It would surprise me if you think that is relevant... :-) ) I have a conclusion: If you're not trolling, I think you "know" that corporations(/the west) are bad -- and really are willing to make any logical sophisms to keep your faith.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  No, it's simply because I still benefit from those crimes even today.
  - berntb 14y ago
    OK... So, only crimes done by a corporation -- not a state. And the crimes can be 600 years old, no statute of limitations!! And there is no bookkeeping for boons the corporation(s) did for victims (industrialization etc etc etc). Probably billions of identifiable people (Mongols in China, people in Argentina where they slaughtered the locals, etc) enjoy a better life from atrocities the last 600 years. But those that did invasions without corporations has no responsibility!? Now, after at least three explanations, you still argue something that is completely weird -- compared to every similar case in history/law/morality I have heard of/read about. That is enough for me. (If you're e.g. Belgian and rich because of what happened a hundred years ago in Africa, that is unpalatable -- but doesn't reflect more upon you personally than WW II on Germans. And 600 years?! both our ancestors ought to have been on all sides of all atrocities in Europe at that time... I'm not going to beat myself up over that.) Edit: On the other hand... I have played with the thought of keeping track of people whose family fortunes were gotten in an inhuman way (corruption, part of a tyrant regime, etc). The perpetrators should lose motivation when their future rich relatives will be badly shamed. I might agree with that setup, but not only for corporations -- and hardly 600 years back(!).
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      I'm not beating myself up over it. I just notice that there is a debt, and a substantial one and that it is unlikely to be paid back. And these things are still happening today, for instance this man that decided to speak out against the royal Dutch Shell oil company and got murdered for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Saro-Wiwa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Saro-Wiwa
      - berntb 14y ago
        You just ignored 90+% of what I wrote as answers to your strange opinions. Sigh... OK. Wiki page says "outspoken critic of the Nigerian government ... hanged in 1995 by the military government" 1995 is not "today" -- and the whole execution might even have been done by the military dictatorship, without Shell even directly asking them to do it. (From what I've read about Nigeria, this doesn't seem unlikely.) If Shell was involved (why would they murder internationally known critics -- the resulting sh-t storm is obvious) -- was any higher up Shell people involved? It is ridiculous how you limit your criticism to corporations. Any of the tyrants worth his own weight in human ears have done worse than most any corporation since 1995. I think I'm being trolled.