Bobby Sands R.I.P. 5th May 1981

OCorcrainn

marienbad wrote: »

''You seem to be saying all empires are always bad and in all times and when asked why you answer because they are immoral. Is that a fair summation ?''

It is a fair summation, subjugation and exploitation are key features of imperialism. Empire-building is based on ideas of superiority and practices of dominance, and involves the extension and imposition of authority and control of one state or people over another.

marienbad

OCorcrainn wrote: »

It is a fair summation, subjugation and exploitation are key features of imperialism. Empire-building is based on ideas of superiority and practices of dominance, and involves the extension and imposition of authority and control of one state or people over another.

And that applies for all time and all empires through time ?

OCorcrainn

marienbad wrote: »

And that applies for all time and all empires through time ?

Can you give me examples of empires that would contradict what I have said?

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

''You seem to be saying all empires are always bad and in all times and when asked why you answer because they are immoral. Is that a fair summation ?''

Yes, in the case where they force the concept of empire building on unwilling populations.

Now will you answer this:

If you are "trying to understand" why someone did something, and then subsequently claimed that you "understood" why they did it, would you change your own pre-existing viewpoint from believing it was wrong to believing it to be right because you claimed to have understood it?

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Yes.

Now will you answer this:

If you mean our pre-existing MORAL viewpoint , then the answer is no.

OCorcrainn

I will take your silence in response to my question as a no then.

marienbad

OCorcrainn wrote: »

I will take your silence in response to my question as a no then.

Apologies ,I didn't see your reply. Answer coming up. And you might answer mine .

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

If you mean our pre-existing MORAL viewpoint , then the answer is no.

I'm not sure I understand you. Last time:

If you claim to have "understood" why the past prevailing opinion on an event justifies that event occurring, i.e believe to be "right", will that change YOUR opinion on that specific event from originally believing it to be wrong to NOW believing it to be right as to agree with the prevailing opinion from that specific era?

OCorcrainn

And that applies for all time and all empires through time?

What do you mean by "for all time" and "through time"?

marienbad

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Can you give me examples of empires that would contradict what I have said?

What you have said is so broad that it can be applied to every power structure since the dawn of time- Any of the Caesars to Brian Boru to Obama.

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand you. Last time:

If you claim to have "understood" why the past prevailing opinion on an event justifies that event occurring, i.e believe to be "right", will that change YOUR opinion on that specific event from originally believing it to be wrong to NOW believing it to be right as to agree with the prevailing opinion from that specific era?

Last Time.

Re read my answer it is perfectly understandable , maybe not what you are looking for but understandable nonetheless.

RandomName2

Well seeing as this has got bogged down in absolutes in the same form as

X: "STEALING IS WRONG"
Y: "But what about Z?"
X: "Yeah, but it's an irreversible fact that stealing is wrong, so it must always be wrong"

Which is complicated by the fact that the argument at the moment is EMPIRE VS ANTI-EMPIRE...

Without anybody having actually having given a definition of what an empire actually is! Hell, people here are actually throwing Ancient Rome into the mix and saying that that somehow has some sort of correlation to Great Britain in the 20th century.

Now, seeing that this whole thing has become a farcical beating around the bush of moral absolutism without any concrete examples I'll throw this one at Mr Cumulonimbus.

Do you think the campaigns of ETA and the PKK are correct, and if so, why, and, if not, why not?

OCorcrainn

marienbad wrote: »

What you have said is so broad that it can be applied to every power structure since the dawn of time- Any of the Caesars to Brian Boru to Obama.

You specifically said empires, I specifically asked for examples of empires that would contradict my point about empires being founded and built on subjugation and exploitation, you can't provide the examples so now you are backtracking and trying to be vague and deflecting by making ridiculous references to "power structures", Barrack Obama and Brian Boru, the fact you put Obama and Brian Boru in the same sentence like that is hilarious. What next? Darth Vader and Bruce Wayne?

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

Last Time.

Re read my answer it is perfectly understandable , maybe not what you are looking for but understandable nonetheless.

No then. So that means you are contradicting your own statement:

we must review the past from a moral standpoint , but the moral standpoint applicable at the time and not our moral standpoint

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

No then. So that means you are contradicting your own statement:



as you have now admitted you continue to have your own opinion on events, regardless of the prevailing viewpoint of the time.

So it wasn't the last time after all

gallag

OCorcrainn wrote: »

It is a fair summation, subjugation and exploitation are key features of imperialism. Empire-building is based on ideas of superiority and practices of dominance, and involves the extension and imposition of authority and control of one state or people over another.

Empire building had nothing to do with morals, superiority or dominance, building empires was an essential part of our species evolution and required only ability, no people capable of building an empire choose not to, if the irish kings of old joined together and had more success in their raids on the welsh would they have stopped there? Of course not. You can hold your head high not being from a race of empire builders and look down your nose at the spanish, french, British etc but the only reason their empires were more successful than the irish is because of ability, not a higher regard for rights and morals.

marienbad

OCorcrainn wrote: »

You specifically said empires, now you are backtracking and trying to be vague and deflecting by making ridiculous references to "power structures", Barrack Obama and Brian Boru, the fact you put Obama and Brian Boru in the same sentence like that is hilarious. What next? Darth Vader and Bruce Wayne?

Not so- you need to look at my argument in its totality and stop cherrypicking the points that suit you . I had actually given you more credit then Mr C.

Empire is only incidental to my point - it could just as easily be freedom fighter,terrorist or nation state for example.

We are debating how one looks at history .

OCorcrainn

gallag wrote: »

Empire building had nothing to do with morals, superiority or dominance, building empires was an essential part of our species evolution and required only ability, no people capable of building an empire choose not to, if the irish kings of old joined together and had more success in their raids on the welsh would they have stopped there? Of course not. You can hold your head high not being from a race of empire builders and look down your nose at the spanish, french, British etc but the only reason their empires were more successful than the irish is because of ability, not a higher regard for rights and morals.

What a load of drivel, so subjugating other people is fine with you? They had more ability alright; there were more content with killing, subjugating, enslaving and exploiting other people that were not their own. If you think empire building had nothing to do with superiority or dominance than you are naive or ignorant. I suppose in British schools they would rather not tell you the grim reality, or what the empires did to the indigenous peoples of the world, but hey there were only mindless savages right, so killing them and subjugating them is ok because they lacked the "ability" or should I put it perceived by the various empires to be racially inferior.

marienbad

OCorcrainn wrote: »

What a load of drivel, so subjugating other people is fine with you? They had more ability alright; there were more content with killing, subjugating, enslaving and exploiting other people that were not their own. If you think empire building had nothing to do with superiority or dominance than you are naive or ignorant. I suppose in British schools they would rather not tell you the grim reality of empire and would father brainwash you into believing how brilliant it i.

So why did the Irish not build an empire ?

Mr Cumulonimbus

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well seeing as this has got bogged down in absolutes in the same form as

X: "STEALING IS WRONG"
Y: "But what about Z?"
X: "Yeah, but it's an irreversible fact that stealing is wrong, so it must always be wrong"

marienbad was originally saying he would render someone's actual opinion as it existed today on a topic secondary, because of what he said here:

we must review the past from a moral standpoint , but the moral standpoint applicable at the time and not our moral standpoint

Now he said no and contradicted this when I asked him:

If you claim to have "understood" why the past prevailing opinion on an event justifies that event occurring, i.e believe to be "right", will that change YOUR opinion on that specific event from originally believing it to be wrong to NOW believing it to be right as to agree with the prevailing opinion from that specific era?

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

marienbad was originally saying he would render someone's actual opinion as it existed today on a topic secondary, because of what he said here:



Now he said no and contradicted this when I asked him:

Incorrect

OCorcrainn

marienbad wrote: »

We are debating how one looks at history .

I am not denying that. But you speak of what was morally acceptable at various times. But tell me, who was it that decided what those morals were and what was acceptable?

Fratton Fred

OCorcrainn wrote: »

What a load of drivel, so subjugating other people is fine with you? They had more ability alright; there were more content with killing, subjugating, enslaving and exploiting other people that were not their own. If you think empire building had nothing to do with superiority or dominance than you are naive or ignorant. I suppose in British schools they would rather not tell you the grim reality, or what the empires did to the indigenous peoples of the world, but hey there were only mindless savages right, so killing them and subjugating them is ok because they lacked the "ability" or should I put it perceived by the various empires to be racially inferior.

You haven't read the post properly.

In short, gallag is pointing out that Ireland would have had its own empire, given the chance.

marienbad

OCorcrainn wrote: »

I am not denying that. But you speak of what was morally acceptable at various times. But tell me, who was it that decided what those morals were?

The same as today , the thinkers, philosophers , opinion formers of all stripes from revolutionaries to reactionaries. Usually with a bias from the most prosperous and educated on down .

OCorcrainn

marienbad wrote: »

The same as today , the thinkers, philosophers , opinion formers of all stripes from revolutionaries to reactionaries. Usually with a bias from the most prosperous and educated on down .

Nonsense, morals were decided by the establishment and hierarchies of the greater powers to suit their agendas.

OCorcrainn

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You haven't read the post properly.

In short, gallag is pointing out that Ireland would have had its own empire, given the chance.

Oh really? What evidence do you have to make that claim?

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

Incorrect

So instead of:

we must review the past from a moral standpoint , but the moral standpoint applicable at the time and not our moral standpoint

So you can then review past events based on what today's moral standpoint is? Yes?

RandomName2

OCorcrainn wrote: »

What a load of drivel, so subjugating other people is fine with you? They had more ability alright; there were more content with killing, subjugating, enslaving and exploiting other people that were not their own. If you think empire building had nothing to do with superiority or dominance than you are naive or ignorant. I suppose in British schools they would rather not tell you the grim reality, or what the empires did to the indigenous peoples of the world, but hey there were only mindless savages right, so killing them and subjugating them is ok because they lacked the "ability" or should I put it perceived by the various empires to be racially inferior.

All that a state is is a monopoly of force.

They all imprison and subjugate in order to impose their rule. Some even kill.

How many people in Ireland are today imprisoned? How many people have been brutalised and abused by the state since independence? How many people have been forced to live in Ireland, and yet do not feel 'Irish' or that they belong to Ireland? How many cultures have had to play second fiddle to the dominant 'Irish' one?

You see, it's waffle. Just waffle. Anything so broad, so unrooted in the particular is just a waste of space. Ireland isn't an empire. Or it is an empire. It really depends on what you mean by empire. And here, at this moment, nobody really means anything.

RandomName2

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

So you can then review past events based on what today's moral standpoint is? Yes?

If you do so in isolation you are likely to be talking garbage however.

marienbad

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Nonsense, morals were decided by the establishment and hierarchies of the greater powers to suit their agendas.

That is true also , but nor exclusively so. What is the old cliché- there is no stopping an idea whose time has come . And so absolutel monarchy, slavery, etc were dispensed with. The American French Russian and Irish revolutions could hardly be decribed as the greater powers . But is some cases they in time morphed into those ''greater powers'' and a new set of oppositions comes along , frequently from within.

Fratton Fred

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Oh really? What evidence do you have to make that claim?

The Irish had created empires on their own island, had raided other countries, taken and traded in slaves and set up a colony long before the Normans arrived. They were also very active in creating the British empire and colonising other countries.

It is unrealistic to presume that the Irish would mot have behaved exactly the same as every other western European country if the Normans hadn't popped over.

OCorcrainn

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Irish had created empires on their own island, had raided other countries, taken and traded in slaves and set up a colony long before the Normans arrived. They were also very active in creating the British empire and colonising other countries.

It is unrealistic to presume that the Irish would mot have behaved exactly the same as every other western European country if the Normans hadn't popped over.

You are absolutely full of it.

You are quick to denounce and condemn Irish nationalists and republicans when they used physical force but when it comes to British imperialism and Irish people serving in the British Army who colonized, subjugated and killed countless people it is perfectly fine then? Enough of your verbal diarrhoea please.

Fratton Fred

OCorcrainn wrote: »

You are absolutely full of it.

You are quick to denounce and condemn Irish nationalists and republicans when they used physical force but when it comes to British imperialism and Irish people serving in the British Army who colonized, subjugated and killed countless people it is perfectly fine then? Enough of your verbal diarrhoea please.

Sorry, would you mind actually engaging in debate rather than personal attacks?

OCorcrainn

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sorry, would you mind actually engaging in debate rather than personal attacks?

I do apologize for the personal attacks but I detest hypocrisy and inconsistency.

Mr Cumulonimbus

RandomName2 wrote: »

If you do so in isolation you are likely to be talking garbage however.

You can make your view point in the context of todays moral values as they have evolved from the past on the concept of "right and "wrong". That would'nt be "in isolation".

Take marienbad's view that:

we must review the past from a moral standpoint , but the moral standpoint applicable at the time and not our moral standpoint

He's forcing you to apply the moral standpoint applicable at the time (say 1850) and if the moral standpoint on empire building said it was "right" at that time, that's the view he's saying you should accept.

Fratton Fred

OCorcrainn wrote: »

I do apologize for the personal attacks but I detest hypocrisy and inconsistency.

How very noble of you.

Any chance of explaining what part of my post was verbal diarrhea?

Or hypocritical/inconsistent for that matter.

gallag

OCorcrainn wrote: »

I do apologize for the personal attacks but I detest hypocrisy and inconsistency.

So why do you think ireland never built an empire? Why did the raid Wales? If they had not been repelled from wales would they have attacked England? Or were they all to nice for that? Does it not stand to reason that ability was the deciding factor?

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Irish had created empires on their own island, had raided other countries, taken and traded in slaves and set up a colony long before the Normans arrived. They were also very active in creating the British empire and colonising other countries.

It is unrealistic to presume that the Irish would mot have behaved exactly the same as every other western European country if the Normans hadn't popped over.

You may very well be right and we will never know, but what must be remembered is that Britain is still engaged in bullying and exploiting areas of the world where it is easy to do, at the expense of their own military cannon fodder. When the rest of the world knew that empire building was a bad thing they clung on until those societies disintegrated and they had to be forced to leave, leaving a mess behind them.

RandomName2

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

You can make your view point in the context of todays moral values as they have evolved from the past on the concept of "right and "wrong". That would'nt be "in isolation".

Er... yes it would!

I can take today's market value of a bag of rice as representative of the value of a bag of rice from 1602, because today's market value has evolved from that original market value.

What's a bag of rice? €8. Wow. Why were so many people dying of starvation back in 1602?

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

He's forcing you to apply the moral standpoint applicable at the time (say 1850) and if the moral standpoint on empire building said it was "right" at that time, that's the view he's saying you should accept.

Tbh I don't care what another poster is saying on the subject - if you are attempting to shoehorn a particular society or philosophy from centuries ago into a contemporary Western viewpoint you are going to be talking nonsense. Did you know the Romans were EVIL? :eek: And don't get me started on the Celts - they performed human sacrifice!

I'll give you another shot at the PKK and ETA question btw.

OCorcrainn

gallag wrote: »

So why do you think ireland never built an empire? Why did the raid Wales? If they had not been repelled from wales would they have attacked England? Or were they all to nice for that? Does it not stand to reason that ability was the deciding factor?

Don't make me laugh, are you seriously equating a unitary state empire that subjugated and exploited hundreds of thousands of people, started countless, unneccessary wars (still at it) to an anarchistic group of pirates from over 1000 years ago?

RandomName2

Happyman42 wrote: »

but what must be remembered is that Britain is still engaged in bullying and exploiting areas of the world where it is easy to do, at the expense of their own military cannon fodder.

Debatable, off-topic and not relevant?

Happyman42 wrote: »

When the rest of the world knew that empire building was a bad thing

Who?

You mean the US?

Happyman42 wrote: »

they clung on until those societies disintegrated and they had to be forced to leave, leaving a mess behind them.

Still unsure what this has to do with NI; but I would say that the degeneration of Rhodesia and South Africa, the civil war of India, etc. all happened as a result of independence, not the other way round. Of course, that ties in with the whole thing about nationalism that any sizeable group of people who are culturally separate from those around them will have to either get independence or be amalgamated. It's the whole reason why we have separate states.

Actually, that's kind of an important point here. Previously you would have different states based on the balance of power (the Russian Empire would grow and shrink depending on its strength and military/economic successes). Today a state will loosely contain a particular 'people'.

Mr Cumulonimbus

RandomName2 wrote: »

Do you think the campaigns of ETA and the PKK are correct, and if so, why, and, if not, why not?

In what context are you asking me say if they are correct or not? You didn't give a reason why such a campaign might have started in the first place, or is this an attempt to swing the thread back to fixate on the methods used to reverse empire building rather than on the reasons for doing it? .

Er... yes it would!

And the moral values of today came from where............

RandomName2

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Don't make me laugh, are you seriously equating a unitary state empire that subjugated and exploited hundreds of thousands of people, started countless, unneccessary wars (still at it) to an anarchistic group of pirates from over 1000 years ago?

What is an empire?

Fratton Fred

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Don't make me laugh, are you seriously equating a unitary state empire that subjugated and exploited hundreds of thousands of people, started countless, unneccessary wars (still at it) to an anarchistic group of pirates from over 1000 years ago?

Remind me again, where was the main slave trading hub in Europe in the 11th century?

What nationality did the soldiers come from that put down the Sepoy rebellion?

What 42 countries make up isaf?

RandomName2

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

In what context are you asking me say if they are correct or not? You didn't give a reason why such a campaign might have started in the first place, or is this an attempt to swing the thread back to fixate on the methods used to reverse empire building rather than on the reasons for doing it? .

For someone who says something as broad as "empire is always wrong" I'm surprised you need more context than the names of two organisations whose motives and means are about as well documented as you can get.

So... do you think that they are right? Do you agree with their philosophies?

gallag

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Don't make me laugh, are you seriously equating a unitary state empire that subjugated and exploited hundreds of thousands of people, started countless, unneccessary wars (still at it) to an anarchistic group of pirates from over 1000 years ago?

All I am saying is that if the anarchistic group of pirates had more success in the welsh raids they would have pushed on, you seem to believe the irish are a more civilised and moral people than the french, British, Spanish etc because they lacked the resources to build an empire.

OCorcrainn

RandomName2 wrote: »

What is an empire?

Google it or just stop being deliberately obtuse, it gets very repetitive.

Fratton Fred

gallag wrote: »

All I am saying is that if the anarchistic group of pirates had more success in the welsh raids they would have pushed on, you seem to believe the irish are a more civilised and moral people than the french, British, Spanish etc because they lacked the resources to build an empire.

I don't think the Irish lacked the resources as such, it is just that they did it under the union flag rather than their own.

Mr Cumulonimbus

RandomName2 wrote: »

motives

Never wanting to consider why a uprising might be in anyway justifiable then?

means

So you are fixated on the methods to correct the supposed problem then, as opposed to the reasons why such campaigns start.

OCorcrainn

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Remind me again, where was the main slave trading hub in Europe in the 11th century?

I don't know please enlighten me oh wise one.

What nationality did the soldiers come from that put down the Sepoy rebellion?

The Sepoy Rebellion, didn't that happen 10 years after the British let over a million Irish people starve to death? I guess it was the British Army who put it down with some of the Anglo-Irish regiments within it perhaps? Because I don't think Ireland was a sovereign nation or had its own army because we were subjugated but please do correct me if I am mistaken.

What 42 countries make up isaf?

Are we talking about the United Nations now? You are a funny fellow.

gallag wrote: »

All I am saying is that if the anarchistic group of pirates had more success in the welsh raids they would have pushed on, you seem to believe the irish are a more civilised and moral people than the french, British, Spanish etc because they lacked the resources to build an empire.

Funny you mention that, it is people like yourself and Fratton Fred who keep telling us that there never was an Irish nation or nationality until the Gaelic Revival and independence yet here you are telling us that Irish people were raiding, colonizing and pillaging people over 1000 years ago.