As others have pointed out about the movement, it's for people who think they are smart and doing good things. It's just fitting that he is a Zionist who think he is a good person.
> He had originally offered £10,000 to the British Relief Association and some ships
laden with provisions, but had been advised by British diplomats that British
Royal protocol meant that nobody should contribute more than the Queen. It was suggested
that he gave half the sum contributed by Victoria.
That was published in 2013. Do you have a physical copy that would allow you to see footnote 64 and see where this author got the story?
(The Google book has a lot of footnote 64s at the bottom, but it's impossible to see which corresponds to which chapter or to know if the 64 we're looking for is even there at all.)
After some discussion with some friends from the former "colonizer", it just occurred to me that apparently it's very hard for people from those countries to appreciate their countries' role for a lot of massacre, genocide or any man made disaster like this kind of famine.
They always find ways to deflect their countries responsibilities with some "reasons", although they generally agree that any kind of genocide is wrong.
I think this is what we witness today too, with some massacres and genocides going on. People from those colonizer countries just can't relate to the victims.
Maybe deep down they acknowledge that those genocides are good, or at least necessary, because those things are what brings them prosperity they enjoy today.
“The British” did not genetically engineer the potato blight.
Further, in the 19th century state capacity was small and massive modern style relief programmes were not possible. Despite this, Britain managed to spend a large degree of GDP on relief. Proportionately more than it did on covid response recently, for example.
The reason people deny british culpability for “genocide” is that there was no “genocide” and britain did what it was able to do, to an unprecedented degree in fact. If anything, we should be proud of britain’s response, especially knowing that it would never get aby kind of gratitude for it.
>If anything, we should be proud of britain’s response, especially knowing that it would never get aby kind of gratitude for it.
Some examples of Britain's response:
* Establishing soup kitchens for the starving, where, to acquire food one must renounce your religion, anglicise your name, and abandon your native tongue.
* Provide maize for the starving and destitute but not for free for fear it would generate a sense of self-importance amongst the millions who are dying of hunger
* Maintaining the exportation vast amounts of food to Britain throughout the Great Hunger
* Requiring the starving who couldn't afford to buy food from the British to build pointless walls in order to earn that food
* Forcibly evicting the starving and dying from their homes because they couldn't pay their rent for some reason
* Denying aid to anyone who owned more than a quarter-acre of land, forcing starving farmers to give up their land and become destitute in order to qualify for relief
So, on behalf of all those before me in Ireland; go raibh maith agat.
The entire reason there was a famine was due to absentee landlords who demanded absolutely everything but the bare minimum from farmers for the "right" to work on "their" land.
Animals can show no aversion to inequity and I can still think that aristocracy is immoral because I'm not a base animal but a human with knowledge of right and wrong.
> In addition to limiting China’s battery complex, the free world, especially the United States, must strengthen itself by expanding its own battery capacity and capabilities.
I just realized that western countries use the term "the free world" to describe themselves above other countries.
This guy wants to talk about something nebulous like freedom.
Let's talk about how we can bring domestic battery manufacturing to America so that we can use that to crush Chinese and Russian military opposition with the eventual goal of seeing proper democracy brought to those regions.
We need domestic battery production for so many things, and it needed to happen yesterday.
Another thing I've been wondering about is this: Who is the JLPCB or PCBWay of America? When is low cost rapid turn around PCB manufacturing in America going to be a thing? How can I be a part of that?
I'm not sure American democracy is in place to be a system we might want to see in the rest of the world. If we're speaking idealistically, I think there's a far more reasonable idea than hegemony. Imagine a multi-polar world, with certain limited global rights.
For instance we could have a guarantee of free emigration: If a person, of no real criminality, wants to leave their country (perhaps because they feel oppressed or whatever) then their government cannot prevent them, if another country is willing to accept them. Alongside this there should also be a global agreement for countries to not interfere, directly or covertly, in the matters of other countries. That would include things like funding or otherwise providing support to various groups within other countries.
It seems this would be a zillion times more viable, effective, harmonious, and productive - than trying to Americanize the rest of the world, which seems more likely to lead to the end of the world than anything else.
Of course "real" would need to be defined, because the typical behavior of tyrannical governments is to charge their political opponents with "real" crimes, roughshod them through kangaroo courts run by cronies of the political establishment, and then imprison them. The general idea is to ensure you don't allow something like genuine murderous terrorists from being able to emigrate to a hostile country.
I don't know what you are implying with the CO2 stuff.
This agreement would not prevent countries from agreeing to cooperate on whatever issues that matter to them. What it would prevent is other countries from trying to covertly overthrow, manipulate the elections (in countries with them), etc in other countries in an attempt to put a new government in power that would agree with them on issues.
> For instance we could have a guarantee of free emigration: If a person, of no real criminality, wants to leave their country
One should be a be able to live a fulfulling life anywhere, not be forced to emigrate just to be able to live...
> than trying to Americanize the rest of the world, which seems more likely to lead to the end of the world than anything else.
When you see injustice somewhere else, a good answer is action, better is pre-emptive. Autocracies are fundamentally bad for humanity (otherwise we're going to repeat the past with countries like russia and china repeating ww2 germany)
Don't you have the empathy to see how your comment would look to people in the overwhelming majority of the world? Think about what's happening in Gaza and how people see that? Or for that matter consider our decades of absolute brutality all throughout the Mideast including backing terrorists when convenient, overthrowing governments all around the world (including democracies that voted the 'wrong' way) often to replace them with the brutal and unpopular autocracies, centuries of exploitation in Africa - which is still ongoing if you were not aware, and so on endlessly.
So if you think the proper response to "injustice" is action, then you largely just explained endless war and violence because one person's just and righteous nation is another's den of tyranny and villainy. This is why a mutually respectful multipolar, where countries stop screwing around in the matters of others', is likely the only way we can ever create anything even remotely like a stable and peaceful world order. The right of emigration ensures the worst possible scenarios are largely limited.
> Don't you have the empathy to see how your comment would look to people in the overwhelming majority of the world?
Oh but I do.
I was born in a country behind USSR iron curtain. I am very grateful for whatever help was provided to destroy USSR and topple russian placed dictators. (even if indirect)
A multi-polar world that you suggest was the case before 1989, and for the countries within russia's control it was hell.
Perhaps for your parents, but many people who lived through such times still look with fondness at the USSR. Wiki oddly enough has an article on this exact topic. [1] 79% of Armenians believe that life was better under the Soviet Union, 69% of Azeris, 54% of Belarussians, 61% of Kyrgyz, 70% of Moldovans, and so on.
This is precisely why the right of emigration must also be a part of this system. Like the old joke goes, 'What do you call a Soviet musical duet? It's a musical quartet that went abroad.' Countries should never be able to trap "their" citizens within their borders, for any reason, at any time.
On top of all of this I would add that this era obviously was also directly contrary to the entire spirit of the idea I'm proposing here as well. That wasn't a multipolar world. It was a world with two hegemons seeing how many countries they could make completely subservient, using any means possible. And in the end it caused nothing but self harm for both powers. Myopia.
> Perhaps for your parents, but many people who lived through such times still look with fondness at the USSR.
Because for most, that was their youth, of course you're going to have nostalgia for that, even if you and everyone you knew were starving, you had your life assigned to you by the party, women were treated like cattle, any sign of discontent you got secret service torturing you, you got killed for protesting... that second part you forget or were part of privileged classes and actively profited from it and it was indeed better.
Were they actually able to unite with Romania like east germany they would be much better, but they were dragged back into misery...
I am not knowledgeable enough about the rest to comment.
> This is precisely why the right of emigration must also be a part of this system.
Why are you saying emigration is a solution?
It won't work since there won't be anybody to enforce it. (good luck emigrating from NK right now)
It's not moral, why should someone leave everything they've ever known behind. Economic reasons?, help their region be more productive. Social reasons, help their region be better. Persecution?, destroy the mechanisms for that. Getting rid of those factors would remove the need for emigration and everyone would be better off.
It's not sustainable, what would 10B people just in EU/USA look like?, what would be left of bad places?, just the dictators?
It's not good for the future when we'll likely reach for the stars and earth just consolidates in a single political entity (hopefully democratic).
Did you actually think through implications of your idea?, or is it born out of your personal experience and just think that since it worked for you it would work for everyone else?
The problem here is that you're simply assuming near global agreement with your personal values. That is very much not the case. No, those 70% weren't just some privileged elite, it's people who simply think differently than you, or your parents, might. And this is true for the overwhelming majority of the world. People value different things in life. And there's no single system that can really embrace and fairly represent all views.
Emigration, as a component, works out of simple self interest. In this proposed system the cost of emigration would be relatively low, yet the benefits would not.
> No, those 70% weren't just some privileged elite
You just cherry picked one number of one country, I can do the same to reach opposite conclusion if you want to argue in bad faith.
> In a 2017 survey, 75% of Estonians said the dissolution of the USSR was a good thing, compared to only 15% who said it was a bad thing.[10]
Mirroring your argument, 75% of people say it was a good thing for what happened. (to quote you those 75% are people who simply think differently than you might.)
> People value different things in life. And there's no single system that can really embrace and fairly represent all views.
Are you actually arguing that dictatorship and oppression should be respected because some people like them?, I'm sure everyone in NK absolutely loves Kim and their system.
> Emigration, as a component, works out of simple self interest. In this proposed system the cost of emigration would be relatively low, yet the benefits would not.
So what do you do if all 10B people living everywhere want to move to the US tomorrow?
I'm not cherry picking anything. The point I am making is that people see things differently. I was aware you obviously know there are plenty of people that have less than fond views of the USSR, and there are plenty which have extremely fond views of it. This is the nature of humanity, which is the point.
And tolerating these different preferences, desires, views, systems, values, and so on is the only possible way we might ever achieve something resembling a more stable and desirable world order. The right of emigration does not mean countries are forced to accept people. Accepting migrants would be up to the nation people are seeking to move to.
> And tolerating these different preferences, desires, views, systems, values, and so on is the only possible way we might ever achieve something resembling a more stable and desirable world order.
How can one tolerate the abuses that went on behind the iron curtain and other dictatorships?
Even if some people are still fond of them, it's unacceptable for such systems to exist and those people are morally reprehensible.
Well the USSR no longer exists, and so I think that specific question is a nonstarter. But generalizing? This gets back to what we were talking about earlier. Look at any country with power and you're going to find quite a lot of the world would think the world would be a better place without that country, in many cases the majority of the world.
And this will never change, because people hold many views that are simply mutually exclusive, and we always will. So we can continue to fight and kill each other until the point somebody finally goes all the way and we end up nuking ourselves out of existence, or we can learn to tolerate one another - even when we really don't like the other guy.
The right of emigration would generally preclude such possibilities. But I want to expand on this more generally, because I think appealing to the past is generally just a disingenuous rhetorical tool. The reason is that the "right" answer is commonly shared. We all know the exact context of how something went down, who ultimately won, history's perception of such, and all of the major details. But in the present things lack such clarity and tend to look very different because of such.
Take, for instance Israel. We know that they have directly killed about 2% (~40,000) of all Gazans, mostly civilians, alongside an unknowably large number of indirect (famine/disease/etc) deaths also being caused, with some evidence of intent - all in just 9 months! And we also know they have senior officials making lovely comments like 'Palestinian residents of Gaza should leave the besieged enclave to make way for Israelis who could make the desert bloom.' [1]
And so now what, would you say, is the right way to respond to this? Suddenly things are not so clear, and many people expressing this value or that will tend to directly contradict it after some fanciful mental gymnastics. This is why I largely think self interest, realpolitik, should be the prevailing guidance in political relations - not virtue. Because the former is very real, while the latter only generally exists up to the point that it becomes inconvenient. It leads to an unstable, unbelievable, and hypocritical world order.
Well we did say idealistically didn't we? But in general I don't really think this idea is so radical. This seems to be one of the very few topics countries of widely different ideological values could see eye to eye on. It's not because of some sort of grander ideological values or whatever, but good old fashioned self interest.
The cost of participation would be less than zero in one case - don't screw around in other people's countries, and negligible in the case of allowing emigration, which near to all countries excepting a handful of places like North Korea, already do. While the benefits of not having others screw around in your country would generally be significantly greater. So violating the agreement would generally not be in one's self interest.
In spirit perhaps, but most certainly not in the implementation. For instance Wilson apparently intended and meant for one of his points to suggest that Danzig (a strategically vital 90%+ German city) should go to Poland. And that, among other absurd ideas, did happen in the Treaty of Versailles. It's difficult to claim you're about respecting the interests of others when making decisions like that.
And again this isn't about ideology or ethics, but simple self interest. Danzig (And other dubious decisions from the Treaty of Versailles) all but guaranteed WW2. In general it's quite interesting to consider how many major conflicts since WW1 can, in one way or another, be tied directly back to WW1. The War to End All Wars was really more like the War to Start All Wars.
yes. Good intentions, maybe, but they induced Germany to surrender but then feel betrayed by the ultimate Treaty. It would have been better to just continue, let everyone in Germany realize they were beaten, and bring the troops home. The Europeans have a lot of experience in diplomacy and they could hardly have done any worse.
>how we can bring domestic battery manufacturing to America so that we can use that to crush Chinese and Russian military opposition with the eventual goal of seeing proper democracy brought to those regions.
What happens in Russia or China if you viciously criticize their leadership?
Most of the “free world” is at least comparatively free compared to the rest. No it is not black and white but it’s definitely light grey vs dark grey or black.
There’s a reason places like the USA, Canada, etc continue to be the most desirable destinations for immigration while you see very few people trying to get into Russia or China. Only people trying to get into those are fleeing much worse places or in the case of Russia have drunk certain brands of kool-aid.
In absolute numbers, the US is the #1, but immigrants as percentage of population has the US as #65 (Canada #41).
Still way higher than Russia or China. While a little over 15 % of the US population are immigrants (defined as not born in the country), only 0.07 % of the Chinese population are immigrants. Roughly 7 % of Russian population is immigrants.
> In absolute numbers, the US is the #1, but immigrants as percentage of population has the US as #65 (Canada #41).
The relevant denominator would seem to be "population outside the target," not "population in the target." After all, the immigrant population comes from outside their destination.
Also, China's battery production is described as a "battery complex" while US battery production is described as a "battery industry" or "battery industrial base".
I mean, "the west" also doesn’t mean much unless there is a bunch of assumed convention. To know what the "western countries" are, basically you need to know more than "west of what" and "go west until when" but actually something more like "post WW2 allied countries with NATO membership", and even that isn't a great way to figure it out.
China is an authoritarian regime without elections, let alone free and open ones.
Equivocating the systems of government of the US or "Western Countries" as you've put it with that of China, is so blatantly false that someone less charitable than I might question whether you are arguing in good faith.
US's president elections are effectively decided by 10k delegates in two parties during primaries, population chooses from two options they are given. It is better than in China(which has one party), but is it really by far better?
Let's also not forget that only 538 people have actual voting rights in US presidential elections. It's mostly a formality, but one of many flaws in the US democracy.
This post is ranked very low, most likely it's getting lots of down vote.