English as a universal language

[Lieva]

Exactly that is what i ment. It is part of the natural cycle that has been going on ever since the climat stabalised on the eath. The influence of man on this is minimal and can basically be dismissed. The effect wont change the cycle for more then 5 years which is nothing on the scales we are talking about (10.000 years).
All in all man has done bad things to this world. But temperature and climat wise these are limited in the big spectrum.

hmm

yknow i kinda like the idea we are causing the global warming thing. That means there is something we can do to prevent it.
If it is out of our control then we're kinda up a creak without a paddle in seriously rocky rapid water

but (and please correct me if im wrong - its rare but known to happen ) was not the global warming sposed to have something to do with the hole in the ozone which was specifically caused by humans and is not a natural event?

or are you saying global warming is a natrual occurance but due to human 'help' we have sped up the process?

(soz if you have already said that but my brain isnt as good as it used to be...)

[Ovi]

I think Ovi's point is that the things we did wrong at the time weren't wrongdoings specific to the British empire, they were the norm then and hence to suggest that there is some link between the wrongdoings done at the time and the British empire (or British in general) is a fallacy. Instead to be politically correct people shouldn't say "The wrongdoings carried out by the British empire" they should say "The wrongdoings of the times" because the former infers that it's only the British that were responsible for said wrongdoings.

It's not to say that we shouldn't pretend bad things weren't done back then but to say that the bad things done aren't wholly the responsibility of the British.

Very close.

As Maeloch said in his post others at the time were doing as bad as or, more usually, worse than The British Empire.

So although what the Empire was doing may have been wrong, it was better then the norm at the time.

I competely agree Ambera that a lot of what was done was wrong. I would not even attempt to argue otherwise. There are many lessons to be learnt. That doesn't mean I am ashamed of what The Empire did, because I know they didn't have our moral standards to live up to.

[Sharkith]

Very close.

As Maeloch said in his post others at the time were doing as bad as or, more usually, worse than The British Empire.

So although what the Empire was doing may have been wrong, it was better then the norm at the time.

I competely agree Ambera that a lot of what was done was wrong. I would not even attempt to argue otherwise. There are many lessons to be learnt. That doesn't mean I am ashamed of what The Empire did, because I know they didn't have our moral standards to live up to.

I don't get much of what you guys are actually saying. You see the arguments are very very odd. On the one hand you have argument here to avoid the benefit of hindsight. you are saying do not judge the past because your standards are inappropriate for that purpose. By denying hindsight your risking in some way the denial of our ability as a society to look back and decide if something was rgiht or wrong (which is after all what moral judgement is about). We are being told at the same time to decrease the value of history. Why?

Are you trying to promote a new collective amnesia in the interests of what? Lets face it our values today come from our history - I cannot see what your trying to achieve by denying both history, our current value system and the ability to make a moral call based on current values no matter how much those are in flux. What is to be achieved by doing this? Why do all of this just so we don't feel so guilty anymore.

I find that slightly irresponsible. Sorry.

Finally to Mael, there is some debate on the issue but the Inca's had an empire that spanned most of South America and Mexico there has been very little historical evidence of any genocide. Mind you they stood little chance when the Spanish appeared.

[Xest]

It's not about ignoring the wrongdoings in history, it's about clearing the British empire's name when some people suggest that us British were abnormally brutal. Brutal? Yes. Abnormally so at the time? No.

The point is if you're going to suggest Britain is bad for what they did back then you have to also accept that the rest of the relevant world was bad for what they did back then also.

Some people (ironically mostly the same muslims going round beheading people and blowing up civilians) often try to suggest that the British are a brutal evil group of people because of what we did back then, but if we're to be judged now by what we did back then then everyone has to be judged now by what they did back then.

[Sharkith]

It's not about ignoring the wrongdoings in history, it's about clearing the British empire's name when some people suggest that us British were abnormally brutal. Brutal? Yes. Abnormally so at the time? No.

The point is if you're going to suggest Britain is bad for what they did back then you have to also accept that the rest of the relevant world was bad for what they did back then also.

wouldn't the best way to achieve this perhaps be to simply request a discussion on imperialism as an abstract issue and seperate it from the specific historical case?

In the current line of reasoning all I see is an argument that attempts to deny current values in the face of the past, past values in the face of the present and the importance of history as constructed from the present. I don't know what we can gain socially by doing so?

[Luz]

I just wanted more FG's to RvR

atleast I got some activity on pryd.net

[Xest]

wouldn't the best way to achieve this perhaps be to simply request a discussion on imperialism as an abstract issue and seperate it from the specific historical case?

In the current line of reasoning all I see is an argument that attempts to deny current values in the face of the past, past values in the face of the present and the importance of history as constructed from the present. I don't know what we can gain socially by doing so?

No, people have simply responded to the comments that specifically highlighted the things the British empire did wrong, that's unfair when it's not only the British empire that did things wrong.

It's like saying "muslims blow people up", it's true in one context but it's hardly a fair picture to paint of all muslims is it?

[ambera]

That's a straw man argument Xest. We didn't single out the British Empire because we think it was uniquely evil, we did it because we're British. And because of the language question, which is a post-imperial consequence we are seeing specifically related to English.

@Banana I do want to answer your Q about global warming, but it's a biggie. Still mulling it over.

[Lieva]

I just wanted more FG's to RvR

atleast I got some activity on pryd.net

now its turned into a discussion about the british empire (what it used to be) and global warming!!

ad agree with ambera. discussing british empire cuz we are british. been wracking my brain to think of other empires but seriously cannot simply due to history corses being centred over countries you live in

[Xest]

That's a straw man argument Xest. We didn't single out the British Empire because we think it was uniquely evil, we did it because we're British. And because of the language question, which is a post-imperial consequence we are seeing specifically related to English.

@Banana I do want to answer your Q about global warming, but it's a biggie. Still mulling it over.

That's just it though, a discussion about the spread of the English language due to British imperialism can be had without any judgement of the level of brutality involved - there's no need to judge the British in that discussion, however if the British are being judged as part of that discussion surely a response is equally fair?