Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    Lebensraum was around long before Hitler, and I call you on Godwin’s law.

    I would have opposed German empire building as it was a threat to British Empire building, no more no less.

    But never the less you must admire his unashamedly nationalistic view that furthering the country and increasing the standard of living for his own countrymen/ancestors was justification at a time when the plight of many a German was awful to say the least.

    By condoning the suffering and opression of many others for the benefit of one group of individuals in the name of nationalism. You start to sound very much like the fuhrer...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    So you would say that Hitler's quest for lebensraum was a just and noble crusade?
    That's the problem with nationalism: people who are ideologically allied are pitted against one-another, often in open warfare. It's not a consistent philosophical system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    That's the problem with nationalism: people who are ideologically allied are pitted against one-another, often in open warfare. It's not a consistent philosophical system.

    I agree completely and do not deny the resulting rivalry. I was merely investigating how far Renner would go to condone the opression of others in the name of nationalism. He argues that the advancement of a single nation and the increase of living standards for the few, justifies the suffering of the many. Then surely this logic can be applied on a greater scale, theoretically it could justify slavery, or genocide.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    But never the less you must admire his unashamedly nationalistic view that furthering the country and increasing the standard of living for his own countrymen/ancestors was justification at a time when the plight of many a German was awful to say the least.

    By condoning the suffering and opression of many others for the benefit of one group of individuals in the name of nationalism. You start to sound very much like the fuhrer...
    Dont forget that after our Empire collapsed, there was turmoil. For example, the formation of India and Pakistan. There was also dictatorship, for example Burma's military junta and of course, our old friend Bob Mugabe. And if the Empire was so bad, explain why so many of its subjects moved over here afterwards, and feeling a sense of belonging to Britain? I have no doubt we have commited some atrocities, but other Imperial nations commited many, much worse ones.

    Spain; Slaughter of thousands, possibly millions of Aztec/ Mesoamericans in the 16th century?

    Russia; Still had serfdom for its own people until the 19th century

    Germany speaks for itself, albeit from a later era.

    Portugal: http://mahavansa.blogspot.com/2006/0...mitted-by.html

    Im not saying we were perfect. But these seem pretty damn cruel. Moreso than anything ive learnt about the British.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    But never the less you must admire his unashamedly nationalistic view that furthering the country and increasing the standard of living for his own countrymen/ancestors was justification at a time when the plight of many a German was awful to say the least.

    By condoning the suffering and opression of many others for the benefit of one group of individuals in the name of nationalism. You start to sound very much like the fuhrer...
    I see the bad things that happened throughout the Empire as a necessary evil counteracted by both the positive impact of the Empire at home and abroad.

    In 1931 the plight of the average German was far from awful, but to but it bluntly I would not have cared about the German state until it became a threat to Britain and British dominance.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richiboi)
    Dont forget that after our Empire collapsed, there was turmoil. For example, the formation of India and Pakistan. There was also dictatorship, for example Burma's military junta and of course, our old friend Bob Mugabe.
    Surely you could blame that turmoil on the empire itself? If those countries had never been conquered by us, then they would not have been affected by our collapse.

    And if the Empire was so bad, explain why so many of its subjects moved over here afterwards, and feeling a sense of belonging to Britain?
    Our empire at its height ruled over almost a third of the worlds population. Even the total number of immigrants from our former colonies to date, wouldn't amount to a fraction of it's total former subjects. So all things considered, barely any moved over here.

    I have no doubt we have commited some atrocities, but other Imperial nations commited many, much worse ones.
    It is foolish to justify atrocities by pointing out bigger atrocities otherwise we will never learn the lessons of the past. Instead we should take responsiblity, recognise that what happened was wrong and apply this to the future to make sure it does not happen again.


    Im not saying we were perfect. But these seem pretty damn cruel. Moreso than anything ive learnt about the British.
    Agreed, but that is no excuse. By that logic it would be ok to stab a man who has been shot before.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    I see the bad things that happened throughout the Empire as a necessary evil counteracted by both the positive impact of the Empire at home and abroad.
    What positive impacts where achieved by Empire that could not have been accomplished by peace, commerce and friendship? There was no need to invade and opress.

    In 1931 the plight of the average German was far from awful, but to but it bluntly I would not have cared about the German state until it became a threat to Britain and British dominance.
    You are missing my point, lets forget about the rivalry and focus on the ideaology. As a self confessed nationalist, do you admire Hitlers beliefs in regard to the furthering of the German nation at the expense of other nationalities? Bearing in mind you said yourself that:

    In my unashamedly nationalistic view; the furthering of our country and the increase in standard of living to our own countrymen/ancestors is justification
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Surely you could blame that turmoil on the empire itself? If those countries had never been conquered by us, then they would not have been affected by our collapse.
    True, but some of these countries may never have been unified had we not been present. I view the Empire as a stabilizing force in some instances, such as India. What we now know as India once comprised of the Mughal Empire, Maratha Confederacy, Mysore and hundreds of other states with no common identity, language, and a history of infighting. Now, India is a global power. Would that have been possible without our influence? It has unified several countries today in ways that the native inhabitants could never have done; granted, it may have been punishing at times, but its legacy is gargantuan on the face of todays world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richiboi)
    True, but some of these countries may never have been unified had we not been present. I view the Empire as a stabilizing force in some instances, such as India. What we now know as India once comprised of the Mughal Empire, Maratha Confederacy, Mysore and hundreds of other states with no common identity, language, and a history of infighting. Now, India is a global power. Would that have been possible without our influence? It has unified several countries today in ways that the native inhabitants could never have done; granted, it may have been punishing at times, but its legacy is gargantuan on the face of todays world.


    But did the means really justify the ends? I mean, how can you say for sure that the world wouldnt have been a much better place, how do you know these countries wouldn't have unified of their own accord? You can't, just like i cannot say they would have.

    I am not trying to dismiss or apologise for the empire, i am merely pointing out it's inherently evil and opressive nature. It exploited the many to benefit the few. You cannot deny this. I believe that we should not glorify the empire. But we should also not ignore it as the current Government would do. It's history and theory, the good and the bad should be remembered nationally, the good being the many amazing people who existed within the empire and the bad being the opression and exploitation that was suffered the world over.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    But did the means really justify the ends? I mean, how can you say for sure that the world wouldnt have been a much better place, how do you know these countries wouldn't have unified of their own accord? You can't, just like i cannot say they would have.

    I am not trying to dismiss or apologise for the empire, i am merely pointing out it's inherently evil and opressive nature. It exploited the many to benefit the few. You cannot deny this. I believe that we should not glorify the empire. But we should also not ignore it as the current Government would do. It's history and theory, the good and the bad should be remembered nationally, the good being the many amazing people who existed within the empire and the bad being the opression and exploitation that was suffered the world over.
    Isn't that the nature of all empires? Im sure it is, and therefore a good way to judge ones success is the level of atrocity committed; the Spanish were worse than use, IMO; but whatever.

    I cant know wether these countries would have unified under their own banner, but the point is that they didnt; we came along, and now they have a national identity, and a primary/secondary language and common history that unites them. That is what i am proud of when it comes to the British Empire. I would be very happy if it was still around today, but with each colony having equal status to that of Britain. Im certainly not proud of slavery, and the evils that we committed in its formation, but its legacy is vast, and IMO the world would be much more secure than it is today, if our Empire still existed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richiboi)
    Isn't that the nature of all empires? Im sure it is, and therefore a good way to judge ones success is the level of atrocity committed; the Spanish were worse than use, IMO; but whatever.
    .

    Yes, and that is the point i am trying to make. You keep using the spanish empire as a comparison, but you are missing my point. all empire is evil and opressive.

    With regards to your view that the world would be a more secure place today if the empire existed, it wouldn't. Modern society is incompatible with empire. Civil liberty and freedom reign supreme epitomised by the internet, the absolute opposite of what the British Empire represented. You only need take a look at regimes around the world trying to supress their people to get an insight into what the British Empire would look like in the present day.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Im not too sure what you are getting at here?? I believe apologising for the past is an illogical waste of time. What makes more sense is recognising where we went wrong and applying those lessons to the future. As a citizen of any nation, denying you have a responsibility to learn, and then apply these lessons to the future is not only absurd, but also very selfish.
    But then it is absurd to apply patriotic justifications of the past to the present day, am I right? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    But then it is absurd to apply the patriotic justifications of the past to the present day, am I right? :rolleyes:

    Indeed you are
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Indeed you are
    So a double standard. If I'm not "supposed" to do this then I don't see why I should give two ***** about some Nigerian village being pillaged in the 19th century, or a thousand slaves dying on our ships. While we're at it, we shouldn't really let the Jews learn from the Holocaust. They're not allowed to look into the past for any patriotic justification for the state of Israel. There's absolutely no difference. Oh wait, haha. I get it. Only white people are meant to be like this, is that what you're saying? :giggle:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    So a double standard. If I'm not "supposed" to do this then I don't see why I should give two ***** about some Nigerian village being pillaged in the 19th century, or a thousand slaves dying on our ships. While we're at it, we shouldn't really let the Jews learn from the Holocaust. They're not allowed to look into the past for any patriotic justification. There's absolutely no difference. Oh wait, haha. I get it. Only white people are meant to be like this, is that what you're saying? :giggle:

    Well, it depends on your definiton of patriotic justification. I was speaking about learning from our historical mistakes, regardless of race or ethnicity. We should not be using these mistakes to justify our actions in the present. Personally i feel that patriotic justification is a rather vauge expression that is used more for bad than good. Nixon took advantage of it it to justify continued involvement in Vietnam, and millions of European and Russian jews used it as a justification for the creation and expansion of Isreal at the expense of the ethnic population (ssomething close to your own heart ).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    Now where on earth do you get the ridiculous idea that the Monarch does not care about you? The Queens duty is to every person she reigns over and the evidence is there that she takes this very seriously, she has only the countries best interests at heart.
    This is the whole point. Why should she reign over us just because of her birth certificate.

    (Original post by Renner)
    They represent your country and your countries interests in exactly the same way your local MP represents you even if you didn’t vote for him.
    Yes, exactly the same way.....apart from..... MPs are elected and actually do represent us. Furthermore, I don't see how the Queen represents any of my own personal interests.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mart123)
    This is the whole point. Why should she reign over us just because of her birth certificate.

    Yes, exactly the same way.....apart from..... MPs are elected and actually do represent us. Furthermore, I don't see how the Queen represents any of my own personal interests.
    MPs 'represent' us so as to pass laws and make decisions, not provide a ceremonial figurehead. Your point may have the slightest bit of weight if the monarchy was obligated to pass laws, control parliament, sentence people to beheadings and appoint Prime Ministers. A constitutional monarchy with an hereditary principle is the best manner by which to uphold a check on state mechanisms. And, boo hoo, :cry:, well, the Queen does represent my interests. And even if she didn't, the world doesn't revolve around you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    MPs 'represent' us so as to pass laws and make decisions, not provide a ceremonial figurehead. Your point may have the slightest bit of weight if the monarchy was obligated to pass laws, control parliament, sentence people to beheadings and appoint Prime Ministers. A constitutional monarchy with an hereditary principle is the best manner by which to uphold a check on state mechanisms. And, boo hoo, :cry:, well, the Queen does represent my interests. And even if she didn't, the world doesn't revolve around you.
    But the point I was making, was that even though MPs may not represent everyone's interests - they are elected. Whereas the Queen, obviously, isn't. Renner was arguing that Queen represents us like MPs do and I understand your point about the different roles both play, but the idea of the monarch 'representing' us - even to check on state mechanisms - by chance of birth, cannot be right. Therefore, an elected President (even if it is not the best manner to check on state mechainsms - according to yourself) is better than a monarchy.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    What positive impacts where achieved by Empire that could not have been accomplished by peace, commerce and friendship? There was no need to invade and opress.
    What exactly do you mean by oppressive? For the most part the natives were allowed to just get on with it along as they weren’t causing any trouble and where we did try to change things it was for the better, the banning of Indian wife’s being burned alive with there dead husbands for example. While we know in some places the natives were not treated so well this was down to individuals and was not government policy, equally British missionaries, scientists etc were going about the world trying to do good.

    However the Empire was so big that different methods had to be used in different places, the resources gained from Africa for example could not have been had by trade seeing as the Africans didn’t know they were there for a start. India however started out as a private trading enterprise and the government only assumed control when the company failed to deal with several large famines in the area and the French were starting to muscle in on the place. Places like Australia, NZ and Canada where the natives were living Stone Age existences could not have been possible with out invasion and takeover.

    You are missing my point, lets forget about the rivalry and focus on the ideaology. As a self confessed nationalist, do you admire Hitlers beliefs in regard to the furthering of the German nation at the expense of other nationalities? Bearing in mind you said yourself that:
    Hitler was an ethno-nationalist, while I do not care for race simply the advancement of Britain as a political entity. Hitler’s nationalism was tainted by his ideas on race and the way he treated other races, if I was going to admire one nationalistic continental leader it would be Napoleon.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mart123)
    This is the whole point. Why should she reign over us just because of her birth certificate.
    Why not? Our Monarchy reigns, not rules, and as such the hereditary principle is the best. This is not to say it’s perfect, but is preferable to a presidential system.



    Yes, exactly the same way.....apart from..... MPs are elected and actually do represent us. Furthermore, I don't see how the Queen represents any of my own personal interests.
    The Queen represents the country; the MP represents the constituency and so on all the way down to parish level. You may not have voted for your MP in the same way you may not support the Queen but they still represent. The Queen (and the PM for that matter) are not there to represent your personal interests but that of the country as a whole, same with the MP at a constituency level.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.