Should we apologize to the Germans for the Dresden bombings?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome

Slavery existed throughout the Roman empire. I don't know what your evidence is that Roman democracy was superior to 19th century democracy. Both were flawed compared with ours today, and no doubt ours is flawed compared with the democracy of the future.

I'm not trying to justify the bad things that happened. Ugh, it's like talking to a brick wall, you're so closed-minded. Just because some bad things happened, does not mean no good things happened or that you can discount the good things which happened.

I have no doubt that anti-slavery people were anti-imperialist, and I am also anti-imperialist and anti-slavery. But just because I am anti-imperialist does not mean I can't recognise that imperialism can have good effects as well as bad. I am probably for a measure of cultural imperialism anyway, since some cultures are better than others (this has nothing to do with any people; I am not saying some peoples are better than other peoples, rather that some people adhere to better ideas than other people when it comes to running society).

Er no

it was war and they started it

Randomly round up certain ethnic groups and killing them on an industrial scale, isn't the same as trying to cripple the industrial output of the very people doing that, by any means necessary.

You seriously think I don't think anything good came out of the British Empire? This is something you've imposed on me. Roman slavery was no where near as brutal as slavery in the British Empire, slaves were usually received from warfare and would be free after they served a certain amount of time (many actually went to hold public office). It's a well-established fact that Roman Democracy was of immense inspiration to the American constitution. I agree that some cultures are better than others, but the British didn't impose this peacefully, they enslaved the locals, what you were practically saying is, well this is ok because they brought a better culture with them (and look you've practically just reinforced this view).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome

Slavery existed throughout the Roman empire. I don't know what your evidence is that Roman democracy was superior to 19th century democracy. Both were flawed compared with ours today, and no doubt ours is flawed compared with the democracy of the future.

I'm not trying to justify the bad things that happened. Ugh, it's like talking to a brick wall, you're so closed-minded. Just because some bad things happened, does not mean no good things happened or that you can discount the good things which happened.

I have no doubt that anti-slavery people were anti-imperialist, and I am also anti-imperialist and anti-slavery. But just because I am anti-imperialist does not mean I can't recognise that imperialism can have good effects as well as bad. I am probably for a measure of cultural imperialism anyway, since some cultures are better than others (this has nothing to do with any people; I am not saying some peoples are better than other peoples, rather that some people adhere to better ideas than other people when it comes to running society).

Not really. It depended on the type of slave.

The majority worked in very brutal conditions doing hard labour. They were not go. They usually died during the course of their work.

The Allies weren't certain about this at the time afaik so this doesn't really factor into the decision, regardless it's stupid to apologise for something that was commited by people that are no longer alive, especially a difficult decision such as this.

You seriously think I don't think anything good came out of the British Empire? This is something you've imposed on me. Roman slavery was no where near as brutal as slavery in the British Empire, slaves were usually received from warfare and would be free after they served a certain amount of time (many actually went to hold public office). It's a well-established fact that Roman Democracy was of immense inspiration to the American constitution. I agree that some cultures are better than others, but the British didn't impose this peacefully, they enslaved the locals, what you were practically saying is, well this is ok because they brought a better culture with them (and look you've practically just reinforced this view).

The Allies weren't certain about this at the time afaik so this doesn't really factor into the decision, regardless it's stupid to apologise for something that was commited by people that are no longer alive, especially a difficult decision such as this.

Of course it depended on the type of slave, but I think we can both agree that it was no where near as severe as the African slave trade.

The bolded statement is so wrong it's unreal. Roman slavery possessed every brutality and horror found in the Atlantic slave trade along with countless others.

You seriously think I don't think anything good came out of the British Empire? This is something you've imposed on me. Roman slavery was no where near as brutal as slavery in the British Empire, slaves were usually received from warfare and would be free after they served a certain amount of time (many actually went to hold public office). It's a well-established fact that Roman Democracy was of immense inspiration to the American constitution. I agree that some cultures are better than others, but the British didn't impose this peacefully, they enslaved the locals, what you were practically saying is, well this is ok because they brought a better culture with them (and look you've practically just reinforced this view).

the british empire was the biggest, most pathetic leech the world has ever seen.

This could be the case, but was actually more often not. After the Empire abolished slavery and actively moved against the trade, it was quite common to hear anti-slavery activists argue for extension of imperial influence and control as a means to combat slavery which was still being practiced by locals, Arabs, or other European imperialists, particularly the Portuguese. I actually looked at this specific phenomenon (in the case of the extension of British control over what became Northern Rhodesia) as part of my master's thesis.

When you say something like this:



Then can I be forgiven for thinking the bold of you?

You have some nerve. You first put words in my mouth by accusing me of some sort of racism when I say that India wasn't a country before the colonial period (but rather, consisted of many different civilisations spanning many centuries), and that large tracts of the former British empire were not countries or even civilisations beforehand. Then you claim that I'm "imposing" a view on you which you quite unambiguously stated earlier in the thread. N.b. you missed the point about slaves. Rome had slaves; 19th century Britain did not, or rather, the level of worker exploitation was not higher than in Rome. And yet you say that the democracy in Rome was "far superior" to 19th century Britain. I'm sorry, you have to be a bigot to think this.

You keep on arguing with me through a narrow-minded straw-man alleyway which assumes that I am pro-genocide, pro-slavery, pro-colonialism etcetera, in order to dodge my arguments which are not disputing that those are bad things, rather trying to highlight the enormous good that some aspects of imperialism have done for us.

Your style of arguing is tiring, boring to respond to and useless. I'm done with you.

Basically you've admitted you think cultural hegemony is perfectly acceptable, and the reason i'm calling you racist is because you are one, it wasn't that you said India wasn't a country (it clearly wasn't) but that you impled that the British Empire founded a civilisation, when actually all it did was take from it. Everything else is irrelevant really and yes my hatred of the British Empire was hyperbole, but your racism wasn't, and was is open for everyone to see.

This is utterly outrageous. I never implied that India did not have civilisation before colonisation. That would be absurd as anybody who knows anything about history knows that India has been the source of much human advancement in many, many different fields. You can call me racist if you want, but it hollows out the word of any meaning, since I am (a) not against any race, (b) not against any people and (c) think Indian cultures have had a similarly positive impact on human history as British culture and other cultures. So if you want to call me racist, you must first apologise to all the people who have actually suffered racism, for reducing their plight to name calling. Or I'll have to apologise on your behalf.

Oh cmon you're a clever guy you know exactly how to mask your racist neoconservatism, you think the West is literally civilisation and have admitted it on multiple occasions.

There really is no prejudice, emotion or assumptions here... you're clearly a neocon who actually thinks the West is civilisation so when you say that they founded a civilisation don't be surprised when people give you dodgy looks lol, but you know how to guilt-trip and all of the other stuff because you're a clever imperialist.

I do think the West represents the highest achievement of civilisation so far in that it contains the greatest ideas about how to improve the lives of ordinary people, but how does that make me a racist? Please explain.

You're just using weasel words now. "Neo-con". I don't identify as one; in fact I identify as a liberal. I believe liberal values are better than illiberal values, so wish for them to spread. If that makes me a neo-con then fine, but I have a natural aversion to the word "conservative" so perhaps not.

I don`t think the virtual razing of Dresden was Britains finest hour, but if we do apologise for it should the Germans also apologise for the 40,000 civilians killed during the blitz? Then we could apologise for the HMS Torbay going postal and the Germans could apologise for the Le Paradis and Wormhoudt massacres. Then we could apologise for...............

I never knew so many died in the Dresden bombings and seeing all the pictures it's horrifying to think we did that to them. I've seen pictures of the holocaust too, but all I see is Allied soldiers pushing a few hundred dead Jewish bodies into a ditch, not millions of people. Some say they deserve it. How did they deserve it? they were German civilians, they were no threat in any way just as those murdered by the atomic bombings of Japan. Some say minimum of 100,000 and a maximum of 250,000 Germans were murdered in the Dresden bombings which is similar to the atomic bombings of Japan. I see ethnic German people and British as not being that different when we kill them it's like killing our own.If European people had better unity we should never have killed our brothers.

It doesn't make you a racist, what does make you a racist is when you actually think that the West is responsible for civilisation, and that the other cultures 'deserved it' because they were inferior (this is certainly what your posts seem to imply), they may have been inferior but that certainly doesn't mean the British Empire was right to use force (founded? it seems to be suggesting to me that you're literally supporting the intervention of the British Empire as a good thing). Have you seen Friedman's views on slavery? That's exactly how i'm picturing you right now based on your posts, and it's apologetic and racist.