| Herr Trump you say? on 12:16 - Jan 11 with 1274 views | Dubtractor |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:25 - Jan 10 by lowhouseblue |
that slavery happened and was appalling in terms of the morality of today needs to be shown. understanding how it was justified at the time - by people who saw themselves as moral and decent and good is one thing that should also be shown. an understanding of people in different times doing things we wouldn't do today is intellectually enriching - it makes us aware of our own subjectivity. placing slavery at one point of time in the context of slavery at others times and in other places is also significant. equally interpreting the significance of historical slavery to today is hugely debatable. the long-term socioeconomic consequences and how it affected economic and political development to get us to today is hugely disputed. a good presentation of slavery should reflect those debates about how we understand its implications today not present only one side of that debate. |
What happened to you? I'm sure you used to be a decent poster on here, but you seem to exist here now purely to write contrary nonsense.
Sad to see tbh. |  |
|  |
| Herr Trump you say? on 12:18 - Jan 11 with 1273 views | iamatractorboy |
| Herr Trump you say? on 11:32 - Jan 11 by lowhouseblue |
there you go, you're engaging in a debate about how we should interpret history. well done. strength of feeling, very good. use of 'repugnant' and 'moron', nice work you. "If an academic entertains the idea that it was a benefit to economic development, it doesn't legitimize the argument, it just makes said academic sound like a moron." - oh dear. |
So you think there is a valid historical interpretation that says that the slave trade was not an abomination? Or am I putting words in your mouth? |  | | |
| Herr Trump you say? on 12:51 - Jan 11 with 1215 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:58 - Jan 10 by lowhouseblue |
history is a debate. there are alternative views on how events should be interpreted and their historical significance. that debate is particularly important when it comes to how a nation understands itself and how it produces a shared understanding of where the nation has come from and what holds it together. so at a time of a national anniversary it's particularly important to reflect that debate and the different ways of reading history and explaining the nation. that debate and disagreement should be shown as live and on-going. the criticism of institutions such as the smithsonian is of course that they have been captured by one side in that debate. the state shouldn't be dictating how history is presented by such institutions, but institutions should be more diverse and should be reflecting multiple competing readings of history not giving dominance to one. if they fail to do that they are open to political criticism. equally at the time of a national anniversary the state can decide what form the celebrations take and what story is told - eg how the uk opened the olympics. but something has gone badly wrong is the state dictates the detail of museum exhibitions. |
You can't debate facts. That's all we should concern ourselves with.
If you forget (or ignore) historical fact, then you are doomed to repeat it. |  |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:03 - Jan 11 with 1182 views | BlueNomad |
| Herr Trump you say? on 12:41 - Jan 10 by The_Flashing_Smile |
You said, "The question for us in the UK is what will our government do to stand up to it. It looks like the current answer is very little". You then went on to talking about military bases. I didn't realise you were specifically meaning about military bases in that quote, I thought it was a general point and the bases were an example.
But nevertheless, pulling the plug on US bases would attract immediate and crippling sanctions. I agree we can't be seen to be supporting them but it's very tricky, because you don't want to plunge our country into more economic plight than it already is either. A tough one, and I'm glad I'm not in charge! |
Unfortunately it would also see the end of NATO which we (Europe) are not prepared for. It would play directly into Putin’s hands. Ultimately we are in a bind because the gut feeling many of us have about the US is that they are unreliable “allies” now. |  | | |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:11 - Jan 11 with 1160 views | WeWereZombies |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:03 - Jan 11 by BlueNomad |
Unfortunately it would also see the end of NATO which we (Europe) are not prepared for. It would play directly into Putin’s hands. Ultimately we are in a bind because the gut feeling many of us have about the US is that they are unreliable “allies” now. |
If the United States withdrew from NATO then the existing allies could still continue but a further expansion would probably be necessary. How acceptable would, for example, full NATO membership for Egypt be (given that Turkey already enjoys that privilege) ? A quick Google tells me that this is the current situation:
'Not a Member: Egypt does not have full NATO membership, which is primarily a transatlantic defense alliance for Europe and North America.
Mediterranean Dialogue Partner: Egypt is part of NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue, a forum to promote stability and understanding in the region.
Non-Aligned Policy: Egypt maintains a non-aligned foreign policy, focusing on its strategic location in Africa, Asia, and the Mediterranean, rather than joining military blocs like NATO. ' |  |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:17 - Jan 11 with 1132 views | leitrimblue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:25 - Jan 10 by lowhouseblue |
that slavery happened and was appalling in terms of the morality of today needs to be shown. understanding how it was justified at the time - by people who saw themselves as moral and decent and good is one thing that should also be shown. an understanding of people in different times doing things we wouldn't do today is intellectually enriching - it makes us aware of our own subjectivity. placing slavery at one point of time in the context of slavery at others times and in other places is also significant. equally interpreting the significance of historical slavery to today is hugely debatable. the long-term socioeconomic consequences and how it affected economic and political development to get us to today is hugely disputed. a good presentation of slavery should reflect those debates about how we understand its implications today not present only one side of that debate. |
Slave owners may well have convinced themselves they were 'moral and decent and good'. But they were obviously immoral scumbags who had managed to do the mental gymnastics involved with convincing themselves they were moral and decent and good while seeing themselves as superior to other humans that they were free to brutalise and abuse.
'The long term socioeconomic consequences and how it affected economic and political development' is not hugely disputed is it?
Most sane people see it as repugnant and unjustifiable. A few misguided p1ss poor 'academics' such as Baptist and Fogel etc have attempted and failed to justify the use of slavery as a mechanism to create wealth will ignoring the human costs. They do not deserve their poorly researched views to be giving the same respect.
The idea that the use of slavery as a mechanism to generate wealth amongst the super rich is somehow justifiable and should be giving equal validity and presented as an part of the debate is absolute nonsense |  | | |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:19 - Jan 11 with 1122 views | Leaky |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:54 - Jan 10 by redrickstuhaart |
We need to start taking steps on those military bases. We cannot have a hostile state basing military within our borders.
Trump is a bully. If Greenland is defended he will not pursue it. If it is not, he will press on. He is not interested in wars, he is interested in rolling people over. Europe is quite capable of putting a viable defence in place that would would deter. |
My son works on a US military base, he fells that the impression he gets from people he deals with support for Trump is pretty low |  | | |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:20 - Jan 11 with 1105 views | lowhouseblue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 12:16 - Jan 11 by Dubtractor |
What happened to you? I'm sure you used to be a decent poster on here, but you seem to exist here now purely to write contrary nonsense.
Sad to see tbh. |
what happened to me is that i read widely and diversely, i don't get fed stuff from social media, i don't get fed stuff by any algorithms, i try to maintain an open mind and curiosity, i don't rely on twtd for information on politics, i don't accept things just because that's the line of a certain tribe, and i'm aware of debates and opinions beyond the narrow confines of the dominant twtd set. it's known as independent thinking and throughout my private and professional life i've found it to be a very good thing. it's perfectly possible think differently from you and still be decent tbh. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:25 - Jan 11 with 1085 views | lowhouseblue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:17 - Jan 11 by leitrimblue |
Slave owners may well have convinced themselves they were 'moral and decent and good'. But they were obviously immoral scumbags who had managed to do the mental gymnastics involved with convincing themselves they were moral and decent and good while seeing themselves as superior to other humans that they were free to brutalise and abuse.
'The long term socioeconomic consequences and how it affected economic and political development' is not hugely disputed is it?
Most sane people see it as repugnant and unjustifiable. A few misguided p1ss poor 'academics' such as Baptist and Fogel etc have attempted and failed to justify the use of slavery as a mechanism to create wealth will ignoring the human costs. They do not deserve their poorly researched views to be giving the same respect.
The idea that the use of slavery as a mechanism to generate wealth amongst the super rich is somehow justifiable and should be giving equal validity and presented as an part of the debate is absolute nonsense |
yes the CONSEQUENCES are hugely disputed. that it was repugnant and unjustifiable is a MORAL JUDGEMENT which i would not wish to dispute. discussing the consequences of some historical event is separate from morally judging that event. the extent to which economic prosperity today is a consequence of slavery 200 years ago is hugely disputed. it's not a question of 'justifying' it, it's a question of determining its long-term impact. you're muddling stuff up rather than responding to what was said. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:59 - Jan 11 with 1039 views | leitrimblue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:25 - Jan 11 by lowhouseblue |
yes the CONSEQUENCES are hugely disputed. that it was repugnant and unjustifiable is a MORAL JUDGEMENT which i would not wish to dispute. discussing the consequences of some historical event is separate from morally judging that event. the extent to which economic prosperity today is a consequence of slavery 200 years ago is hugely disputed. it's not a question of 'justifying' it, it's a question of determining its long-term impact. you're muddling stuff up rather than responding to what was said. |
' Yes the consequences are hugely disputed'. By who and where? Outside of your mind, white supremicists and a few academic lightweights from the school of the New History of Capitalism.
The majority of us do not believe the use of human slavery to generate wealth is justifiable in any form, whatever the future economic benefits.
'Discussing the consequences of some historical event' in this case slavery is not separate from morrally judging it. Its part and parcel of considering and weighing up said historical event. The 2 are entwined, whenever we look at historical events we are judging, and weighing up the consequences.
Do you for example believe a presentation on the use of slave labour in industry by the Nazis should be reinterpreted to take into account the economic and prosperity advantages this slave labour produced or do you think quite rightly that any exhibition on this subject would concentrate on the human suffering and horrific consequences of the Nazis actions? | | | |
| Herr Trump you say? on 14:02 - Jan 11 with 1022 views | Dubtractor |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:59 - Jan 11 by leitrimblue |
' Yes the consequences are hugely disputed'. By who and where? Outside of your mind, white supremicists and a few academic lightweights from the school of the New History of Capitalism.
The majority of us do not believe the use of human slavery to generate wealth is justifiable in any form, whatever the future economic benefits.
'Discussing the consequences of some historical event' in this case slavery is not separate from morrally judging it. Its part and parcel of considering and weighing up said historical event. The 2 are entwined, whenever we look at historical events we are judging, and weighing up the consequences.
Do you for example believe a presentation on the use of slave labour in industry by the Nazis should be reinterpreted to take into account the economic and prosperity advantages this slave labour produced or do you think quite rightly that any exhibition on this subject would concentrate on the human suffering and horrific consequences of the Nazis actions? |
I doubt he genuinely believes any of it, he just enjoys arguing the toss with a certain 'tribe' (his word) on the internet. | |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 14:05 - Jan 11 with 1014 views | WeWereZombies |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:25 - Jan 11 by lowhouseblue |
yes the CONSEQUENCES are hugely disputed. that it was repugnant and unjustifiable is a MORAL JUDGEMENT which i would not wish to dispute. discussing the consequences of some historical event is separate from morally judging that event. the extent to which economic prosperity today is a consequence of slavery 200 years ago is hugely disputed. it's not a question of 'justifying' it, it's a question of determining its long-term impact. you're muddling stuff up rather than responding to what was said. |
In a previous post you claimed that you read widely from multiple sources.
Let's test that.
How would you say the industrialised cross Atlantic slave trade pioneered by John Hawkins that became widespread as a source of labour for the sugar and cotton plantations of the New World in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries compared with the feudal system ? Were serfs better off than slaves ?
And following the outlawing of British involvement in the slave trade did former slaves have significantly better prospects under indentured servitude ? | |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 14:17 - Jan 11 with 963 views | lowhouseblue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:59 - Jan 11 by leitrimblue |
' Yes the consequences are hugely disputed'. By who and where? Outside of your mind, white supremicists and a few academic lightweights from the school of the New History of Capitalism.
The majority of us do not believe the use of human slavery to generate wealth is justifiable in any form, whatever the future economic benefits.
'Discussing the consequences of some historical event' in this case slavery is not separate from morrally judging it. Its part and parcel of considering and weighing up said historical event. The 2 are entwined, whenever we look at historical events we are judging, and weighing up the consequences.
Do you for example believe a presentation on the use of slave labour in industry by the Nazis should be reinterpreted to take into account the economic and prosperity advantages this slave labour produced or do you think quite rightly that any exhibition on this subject would concentrate on the human suffering and horrific consequences of the Nazis actions? |
to be clear, i obviously don't think slavery was in anyway justifiable. whatever the future consequences, it would never be morally justifiable.
but you are muddling up moral condemnation with a discussion of consequences.
"The majority of us do not believe the use of human slavery to generate wealth is justifiable in any form, whatever the future economic benefits". well quite. to be clear, i am not suggesting the economic 'benefits' ever justified slavery, and there is no credible reading of what i have posted to suggest that. that does not alter the fact that the economic consequences and their relevance to today are hugely disputed. for example see debates about the effects in britain around the work of, eg, engerman.
to be clear, one final time, the moral condemnation is clear, as is the horrific human suffering. what is debated is quantifying the significance of its economic legacies.
i'll leave it there. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 14:24 - Jan 11 with 937 views | lowhouseblue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 14:02 - Jan 11 by Dubtractor |
I doubt he genuinely believes any of it, he just enjoys arguing the toss with a certain 'tribe' (his word) on the internet. |
yes i believe everything i have posted in the thread. the fact i don't agree with you doesn't make me a liar, or un-genuine, or question my motivation in posting. i just have genuinely held different opinions to you. perhaps coming to terms with people thinking differently to you might be good.
anyway this thread is like pushing treacle up hill and i give up. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 23:56 - Jan 11 with 787 views | WeWereZombies |
| Herr Trump you say? on 14:24 - Jan 11 by lowhouseblue |
yes i believe everything i have posted in the thread. the fact i don't agree with you doesn't make me a liar, or un-genuine, or question my motivation in posting. i just have genuinely held different opinions to you. perhaps coming to terms with people thinking differently to you might be good.
anyway this thread is like pushing treacle up hill and i give up. |
Brave man to try and push Treacle anywhere but perhaps if he had been pushed up a hill and out of the way we could have avoided selling him to Spurs...
[edit: it was late, I typed what I thought made sense and when I came back to read it just now I saw that it lacked a certain logic. Isn't there a Mark Twain quote about arguing with fools ?] [Post edited 12 Jan 11:33]
| |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 00:08 - Jan 12 with 777 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:25 - Jan 11 by lowhouseblue |
yes the CONSEQUENCES are hugely disputed. that it was repugnant and unjustifiable is a MORAL JUDGEMENT which i would not wish to dispute. discussing the consequences of some historical event is separate from morally judging that event. the extent to which economic prosperity today is a consequence of slavery 200 years ago is hugely disputed. it's not a question of 'justifying' it, it's a question of determining its long-term impact. you're muddling stuff up rather than responding to what was said. |
Congratulation, Leitrim! You made lowhouse find the Shift key (or even CAPS LOCK)! |  |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 00:13 - Jan 12 with 774 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:17 - Jan 11 by leitrimblue |
Slave owners may well have convinced themselves they were 'moral and decent and good'. But they were obviously immoral scumbags who had managed to do the mental gymnastics involved with convincing themselves they were moral and decent and good while seeing themselves as superior to other humans that they were free to brutalise and abuse.
'The long term socioeconomic consequences and how it affected economic and political development' is not hugely disputed is it?
Most sane people see it as repugnant and unjustifiable. A few misguided p1ss poor 'academics' such as Baptist and Fogel etc have attempted and failed to justify the use of slavery as a mechanism to create wealth will ignoring the human costs. They do not deserve their poorly researched views to be giving the same respect.
The idea that the use of slavery as a mechanism to generate wealth amongst the super rich is somehow justifiable and should be giving equal validity and presented as an part of the debate is absolute nonsense |
This is so spot on! It can be applied directly to Trump too.
Trump may well have convinced himself he is "moral and decent and good". But he is obviously an immoral scumbag who has managed to do the mental gymnastics involved with convincing himself he is moral and decent and good while seeing himself as superior to other humans that he is free to brutalise and abuse.
Surely the moment you put your own self-declared morality ahead of the rule of international law has to ring alarm bells for anyone with a conscience that hasn't been completely dulled to nothing, doesn't it? | |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 07:30 - Jan 12 with 706 views | NthQldITFC |
| Herr Trump you say? on 00:08 - Jan 12 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Congratulation, Leitrim! You made lowhouse find the Shift key (or even CAPS LOCK)! |
Determinedly binary in the use thereof. |  |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 08:19 - Jan 12 with 651 views | Herbivore |
| Herr Trump you say? on 00:08 - Jan 12 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Congratulation, Leitrim! You made lowhouse find the Shift key (or even CAPS LOCK)! |
He's such a free thinker that only he can really embrace both sides of the use of capitals versus the use of lower care, and because he's such a free thinker he refuses to use them correctly. What a free thinker this guy is. |  |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 09:57 - Jan 12 with 543 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:20 - Jan 11 by lowhouseblue |
what happened to me is that i read widely and diversely, i don't get fed stuff from social media, i don't get fed stuff by any algorithms, i try to maintain an open mind and curiosity, i don't rely on twtd for information on politics, i don't accept things just because that's the line of a certain tribe, and i'm aware of debates and opinions beyond the narrow confines of the dominant twtd set. it's known as independent thinking and throughout my private and professional life i've found it to be a very good thing. it's perfectly possible think differently from you and still be decent tbh. |
Possibly the most condescending post you've done, amongst a considerable body of past work along the same lines...impressive... |  |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:18 - Jan 12 with 496 views | lowhouseblue |
| Herr Trump you say? on 09:57 - Jan 12 by Ewan_Oozami |
Possibly the most condescending post you've done, amongst a considerable body of past work along the same lines...impressive... |
cheers, i got the tone right then. the idea that unless you think the same you can't be decent is the rot at the core of of online culture. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 11:25 - Jan 12 with 439 views | WeWereZombies |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:18 - Jan 12 by lowhouseblue |
cheers, i got the tone right then. the idea that unless you think the same you can't be decent is the rot at the core of of online culture. |
Considerations of groupthink (see George Orwell's '1984'), the benefits and pitfalls of shared belief (catechisms in organised religion for example) and outward expressions of patriotism (such as 'my country, right or wrong') predate the internet by quite a few millennia. I'm not sure that the information gathering you claim to practice is as judicious as you think it is, or that you apply it in a balanced manner. | |
| |
| Herr Trump you say? on 13:24 - Jan 13 with 320 views | DJR |
| Herr Trump you say? on 10:25 - Jan 10 by DJR |
I generally don't like comparisons with the Nazis but I couldn't help but compare the Trump meeting with the supine and obsequious oil executives yesterday with the secret meeting Hitler had with industrial leaders to raise the equivalent of $9.6 million for the Nazi election campaign in 1933.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Of the meeting, British historian Adam Tooze wrote.
"The meeting of 20 February and its aftermath are the most notorious instances of the willingness of German big business to assist Hitler in establishing his dictatorial regime. The evidence cannot be dodged."
Of course there is nothing to suggest that the US will end up as a dictatorship but the willingness of big business in the US to cow-tow to Trump is not something that should be happening in a liberal democracy.
Incidentally, I hadn't been aware of the 1933 meeting until I read recently the book The Order of the Day where a fictional version of the meeting is described,
https://www.waterstones.com/bo [Post edited 10 Jan 10:35]
|
Not all present were obsequious but this is what happens when you don't bow and scrape to Trump. No wonder so many companies and others are content to stand in line on many Trump issues, and it shows what an authoritarian just by being a bully.
https://www.theguardian.com/us
Donald Trump has said he might block ExxonMobil from investing in Venezuela after the oil company’s chief executive called the country “uninvestable” during a White House meeting last week.
Darren Woods told the US president that Venezuela would need to change its laws before it could be an attractive investment opportunity, during the high-profile meeting on Friday with at least 17 other oil executives.
Trump had urged the group to spend $100bn to revitalise Venezuela’s oil industry in a meeting less than a week after US forces captured and removed Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro from power in a brazen overnight raid.
Woods’ sceptical remarks quickly emerged as the dominant headline, undercutting the White House’s hopes of building momentum from its engagement with the world’s most prominent oil executives.
“I didn’t like Exxon’s response,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One on his way back to Washington on Sunday. “I’ll probably be inclined to keep Exxon out. I didn’t like their response. They’re playing too cute.” [Post edited 13 Jan 16:04]
|  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
