Apologies for slavery?

[Absinthe]

Err...didn't Jews build the pyramids?

Then why aren't they bitching?

Seriously, everybody else should learn a thing or two from them and just take their historical shit with stride.

 

[xcellerate]

Err...didn't Jews build the pyramids?

A person can't be Egyptian and Jewish?

 

[Steve]

Then why aren't they bitching?

They kind of were, up until the Camp David Accords or whatever they're called in the 70s. Also it was like 3,000 years ago. Kind of hard to hold a grudge when you're not still in a socio-economic rut like the blacks are.

A person can't be Egyptian and Jewish?

Most Jews don't live in Arab states, no. And I doubt (though I admit I have no way of knowing) that the enslaved Israelites considered themselves citizens of Egypt.

 

[Vigilante]

EDIT: Damn, apparently IMG tags don't work anymore.

I don't owe an apology for slavery.

 

[theotherguy]

There definatley needs to be an official recognition by all the nations of the world who once participated in slavery. Not necissarily an apology to the living people of today, but an official recognition of regret by the government (Since the government is a timeless instititution)

The government also needs to apologize to the native americans who gather every year on the anniversary of the "battle" of wounded knee and demand an apology from the government (something they have been doing since the 1880's, but which the government has not officially recognized)

 

[theotherguy]

Actually, the conflicts in Africa are the fault of the people starting the conflicts - the Africans.
Except, of course, in your world, where big bad whitey is always to blame for everything wrong with the planet.

I disagree entirely. The conflicts in Africa are because of sociological, economic and geopolitical resons. one of the largest (if not the absolutley largest reason) was that Europeans divided their colonial holdings and carved the continent into nation states that are not the traditional boundaries of people's cultures. It would be like france and germany occupying the same country, with different languages and cultures, and expecting them not to fight.

 

[Qonfused]

There definatley needs to be an official recognition by all the nations of the world who once participated in slavery. Not necissarily an apology to the living people of today, but an official recognition of regret by the government (Since the government is a timeless instititution)

The government also needs to apologize to the native americans who gather every year on the anniversary of the "battle" of wounded knee and demand an apology from the government (something they have been doing since the 1880's, but which the government has not officially recognized)

The United States has done this time and time again. Reparations for the blacks and free land/casinos etc. for the Indians. If that's not a recognition/apology then I don't know what is.

 

[Steve]

I've never heard of any official government reparations for blacks. I've heard plenty of government officials apologizing, but no reparations.

 

[theotherguy]

The United States has done this time and time again. Reparations for the blacks and free land/casinos etc. for the Indians. If that's not a recognition/apology then I don't know what is.

no, I'm saying they should officially apologize for the battle of wounded knee to the sioux who have gathered there for the past 130 years demanding one.

 

[Qonfused]

I've never heard of any official government reparations for blacks. I've heard plenty of government officials apologizing, but no reparations.

No reparations to the blacks down South, just the Southwest.

 

[Steve]

Er....what?

 

[Qonfused]

Hoped you would catch on. Nevermind.

 

[Steve]

Texas is not a part of the South, douche. Also I hate you.

 

[xcellerate]

I've never heard of any official government reparations for blacks.

What would we give them reparations for? Being black?

 

[lePobz]

The people who work this **** out need a good hard slap in the face. They're the same people that think celebrating christmas is wrong because it's disrespecting the ethnic minorities.

Seriously, why the **** does anyone listen to these ****wits?

 

[Jintor]

BECAUSE NOONE WANTS TO OFFEND ANYBODY!

Uh huh. Sure!

 

[Tagaziel]

I don't get why do people get so offended by the notion of their country apologising for the bad deeds. Take note, it's the state, the government that apologises, not the citizen.
It really takes courage to stand up and say "We acknowledge that our country (...) and we apologise for it."
We can act all proud and state "Get over it." and get offended, but that doesn't help relations.

 

[Xendance]

If they really want to apologise, just cancel out Africa's debts.

 

[Tagaziel]

Good point.

 

[CyberPitz]

As if THEY have a right. "LOOK AT ME I'M AN ATTENTION WHORE!!" is all I hear.

 

[Geogaddi]

No need for you guys to apologize, I take full responisbility for slavery.

 

[Qonfused]

It's ok.

 

[gick]

They're the same people that think celebrating christmas is wrong because it's disrespecting the ethnic minorities.

You do realize that nobody actually thinks that dont you?

 

[Solaris]

Why do you need evidence?
Highly advanced civilisation takes control of a regressive country - what exactly do you think the result would be?
Likewise, we have the Romans to thank for the massive advancements they gave us thousands of years ago. They transformed this country, and they transformed the world. As we have.

I need evidence because you made a point that just isn't true. It's very hard indeed to argue that British imperialism has done, say the African continent any good, arguably it's a reason why it's so ****ed up today.

 

[repiV]

The same can be said for any individual, yet we still condemn and jail those that go to far like killing. That is no excuse nor does it justify the actions of a country. Fact is, it was wrong, and disgusting what Britain did. Weather or not a colony benefited in the end, had more to do with incidental circumstances then true intentions by Britain, all historical evidance point to the British ruthlessly exploiting the people of it's colonies.

Yes, of course, it's a complete coincidence that almost all the desirable countries to live in outside of Europe - and the only semi-developed country in sub-Saharan Africa are former British empire. Give me a break.

And it's certainly not something to be proud of.
Oh and, when mentioning British colonies, try to include all. Not just the ones that you think support your twisted argument.

What twisted argument? My argument was that virtually all prosperous countries outside of Europe are former British empire - and that's not an argument, it's a fact. Meanwhile, former Spanish colonies are horrendously poor and decrepit. Just another coincidence?

The Africans themselves do carry a great deal of the blame I would never deny that,but you basically proudly flaunt with the positive effects of colonial rule and totally disregard the bad.
Sudan and rewanda are very good examples what happens when two ethnically and religiously different people are forced to live in one country and represent itself to the world in that way.

Let me guess...despite the above statement, you also champion multiculturalism?

You have absolutely no real basis for your assertion. And seeing your simplistic reasoning and childish view of the world, I believe it applies much more to you then me.

No, being rabidly anti-West is simplistic and childish. It's pure idiocy to claim that the British empire contributed nothing to the world.
As they say, when the Roman empire fell, it set the world back a thousand years.

That's true, but it's also a fact that many groups who didn't agree with each other suddenly were put in a country together and they started fighting for the political power (and thus the country). We kinda added fuel to the lumbering fire.

I guess we're adding fuel to the lumbering fire by letting people come here from the Middle East, too. I don't see any of you guys pointing out what a bad idea that is.

I disagree entirely. The conflicts in Africa are because of sociological, economic and geopolitical resons. one of the largest (if not the absolutley largest reason) was that Europeans divided their colonial holdings and carved the continent into nation states that are not the traditional boundaries of people's cultures. It would be like france and germany occupying the same country, with different languages and cultures, and expecting them not to fight.

Yes, noone is to blame for their actions. Unless they're white and rich. We get it already.

I need evidence because you made a point that just isn't true. It's very hard indeed to argue that British imperialism has done, say the African continent any good, arguably it's a reason why it's so ****ed up today.

We didn't "civilise" Africa or attempt to spread our wisdom there, as we did elsewhere, we exploited it for raw materials. What exactly do you expect?

 

[Beerdude26]

I guess we're adding fuel to the lumbering fire by letting people come here from the Middle East, too. I don't see any of you guys pointing out what a bad idea that is.

Thus why I promote integration so much

 

[repiV]

Thus why I promote integration so much

I thought you were one of those pro-multiculturalism guys. Now I'm confused. :|

 

[Steve]

Integration is promoting multiculturalism. You must be thinking he mean segregation.

 

[repiV]

Integration is promoting multiculturalism. You must be thinking he mean segregation.

No - multiculturalism encourages segregation. Integration is the opposite of multiculturalism.
'60s Chicago was a very multicultural place...

 

[Jintor]

You mean, combining them into one SUPERCULTURE?

 

[Gray Fox]

Yes, of course, it's a complete coincidence that almost all the desirable countries to live in outside of Europe - and the only semi-developed country in sub-Saharan Africa are former British empire. Give me a break.

First that is highly dependent on ones opinion of what a desirable country to live is.
Second, most of the former colonies did not start to thrive until they got rid of you.
Third, if someone tries to kill me and fails, he may make me stronger and smarter, but that does not mean that trying to kill someone is a good thing. You have no basis to be so proud of that part of the history or to claim it's something britain should be thanked for.

What twisted argument? My argument was that virtually all prosperous countries outside of Europe are former British empire - and that's not an argument, it's a fact. Meanwhile, former Spanish colonies are horrendously poor and decrepit. Just another coincidence?

Thats quite a statement, now prove that, prove it has to do with former British occupation, give evidence of what Britain did that gave them such an advantage, that spain did not. And prove to me that that was done out of Britain's good heart, and not just so they could be exploited better.

One could argue that the natural resources, and socio political status of the colonies before the British came in was what made them such attractive colonies in the first place.

Now that I think about it, you should be grateful for all of those thousand of slaves that worked their butt of so Britain could accumulate such wealth, for all those colonies. Britain would be so much less without them. At least if we go by your line of thinking.

Let me guess...despite the above statement, you also champion multiculturalism?

No I don't.

No, being rabidly anti-West is simplistic and childish. It's pure idiocy to claim that the British empire contributed nothing to the world.
As they say, when the Roman empire fell, it set the world back a thousand years.

First, I'm not rabidly anti-westerns, I simply resent your right wing fascist ideas.

Second, I did not claim the British empire did not contribute anything to the world, if I sounded like that it was either due to your misunderstanding, or due to my poor English writing skills. I simply do not believe we should be thankfull or proud of since any good that came form it was unintentional.

 

[Solaris]

We didn't "civilise" Africa or attempt to spread our wisdom there, as we did elsewhere, we exploited it for raw materials. What exactly do you expect?

Quite right.

So go on, saying I'm right with that point doesn't help your argument.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

The Abolishment of Slavery is infact a national apology. Feeling any personal obligation or guilt in the matter, at which, you choose to personally apologize is of your own will.

No rewards or special services should be provided other then the freedom to succeed like the rest of us who participate and function in routine daily life; whether in Britain or America.

 

[Steve]

No - multiculturalism encourages segregation. Integration is the opposite of multiculturalism.
'60s Chicago was a very multicultural place...

And '00s Los Angeles is a very multicultural place, but that doesn't make it segregated. Races and cultures mix and mingle, for lack of a better phrase, but keep their cultural identity.

Multiculturalism, if the influx of cultures happens very rapidly, can create a natural segregation, but it doesn't encourage an institutionalized segregation.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Multiculturalism, if the influx of cultures happens very rapidly, can create a natural segregation,

One that of course exists fictionally to the mind, because people merely choose the divide to exist.

Good point Steve.

 

[Gray Fox]

And '00s Los Angeles is a very multicultural place, but that doesn't make it segregated. Races and cultures mix and mingle, for lack of a better phrase, but keep their cultural identity.

Multiculturalism, if the influx of cultures happens very rapidly, can create a natural segregation, but it doesn't encourage an institutionalized segregation.

Weather or not cultures can mix depends on the cultures, and how far people are willing to bend to accomodate one another. I do not believe in multiculturalism, since I do not believe that it can work in most cases, today what often go's for multiculturalisms is simply one dominating culture that lets other cultures express themselves in a limited way, one that does not interfere with the dominant culture.

But that is not true multiculturalisms, and it gives the wrong impression to immigrants.

Basically you can't really say we welcome multiculturalism.
For example we welcome Islam, well we welcome half of it you know, but not the half that we think it's bad.

Fact is other cultures often threaten our way of life, and advocating multiculturalism is bad for us and immigrants, since the only logical conclusion when multiculturalisms is allowed, is to not allow immigrants in, since no nation wants to bend to the will of the people it helped by letting them in.

 

[repiV]

First that is highly dependent on ones opinion of what a desirable country to live is.

Not really. Would you rather live in Canada or Mexico?
Australia or Vietnam?
Hong Kong or Macau?
...

Second, most of the former colonies did not start to thrive until they got rid of you.
Third, if someone tries to kill me and fails, he may make me stronger and smarter, but that does not mean that trying to kill someone is a good thing. You have no basis to be so proud of that part of the history or to claim it's something britain should be thanked for.

Yes, because we were so obviously trying to "kill" all the colonies we controlled. What an inane comparison.

Thats quite a statement, now prove that, prove it has to do with former British occupation, give evidence of what Britain did that gave them such an advantage, that spain did not. And prove to me that that was done out of Britain's good heart, and not just so they could be exploited better.

It's not "quite a statement", it takes merely a few dozen braincells to recognise that it's statistically practically impossible for it to be a coincidence. Although, the first thing that comes to mind is British common law. A good judicial system is generally a prerequisite for civilised society.
Where did I say anything was done out of Britain's "good heart"? I told you, nation-states don't do anything out of the goodness of their hearts. The world is a cold, brutal place - the sooner you realise that the better.

One could argue that the natural resources, and socio political status of the colonies before the British came in was what made them such attractive colonies in the first place.

Yes, because the United States' economy is evidently a labour-based economy and not a high-tech service economy. And the completely undeveloped land had such a high socio-political standing within the world.
Unlike China, a very poor country which has been one of the world's leading civilisations for several thousand years.
Guess again.

Now that I think about it, you should be grateful for all of those thousand of slaves that worked their butt of so Britain could accumulate such wealth, for all those colonies. Britain would be so much less without them. At least if we go by your line of thinking.

Not really - Britain didn't suddenly become poor when we stopped using slaves. It wasn't Rome.

No I don't.

First, I'm not rabidly anti-westerns, I simply resent your right wing fascist ideas.

Right-wing fascist?

I'm neither right-wing nor left-wing, which would be like choosing between gonorrhea and syphilis. The real extremist here is you, with your "yay positive discrimination" nonsense.

Second, I did not claim the British empire did not contribute anything to the world, if I sounded like that it was either due to your misunderstanding, or due to my poor English writing skills. I simply do not believe we should be thankfull or proud of since any good that came form it was unintentional.

Name me one benevolent nation on earth. Hint: there are none.

Quite right.

So go on, saying I'm right with that point doesn't help your argument.

You're not right at all - you used Africa of an example as to why our guiding influence didn't benefit anybody, when we didn't even try there. You made a nonsensical argument.

And '00s Los Angeles is a very multicultural place, but that doesn't make it segregated. Races and cultures mix and mingle, for lack of a better phrase, but keep their cultural identity.

Spanish becoming the second language? Mexican ghettos? Sounds pretty segregated to me.

Multiculturalism, if the influx of cultures happens very rapidly, can create a natural segregation, but it doesn't encourage an institutionalized segregation.

Yes it does - it conflicts with integration, and where you don't have integration you have segregation. People need to be able to relate to each other - it's a fundamental rule of a functional society.

 

[Steve]

Do you understand the word "institutionalized"?

 

[repiV]

Do you understand the word "institutionalized"?

Ah, oversight.
How is whether it's institutionalised relevant? We've never had institutionalised segregation over here, but London is a pretty damn segregated place.

 

[Jintor]

It's been built in.