Hacker News Reader

Comment by basisword | Hacker News Reader

Badly phrased. I meant inhabitants of all current and ex-colonies. Not just the remaining ones.

Although, the talk of blocking another Scottish independence referendum could certainly be used as evidence of holding on to a country against the inhabitants will. You can't know their will if you prevent them from expressing it. Yes, they expressed it 7 years ago but a lot has changed since then, most notably leaving the EU.

View on HN

Regarding ex-colonies: Don't we have to eventually "let bygones be bygones"?

Otherwise, where do we draw the line? How far do we go back? Those original human perpetrators are long dead.

"Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin."

~ Deuteronomy 24:16

I'm not arguing that, it's a bigger debate. But claiming that the UK exists as it does because of a long commitment to freedom (when the colonies are a big example of the antithesis of freedom) is dishonest.

Perhaps, but there is some [1] history to suggest that the case could be made that the UK does have a long history of commitment to freedom.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28866094

"The Lord is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation."

~ Numbers 14:18

Yes.

;)

A phrase for ever situation. So versatile.

If by letting bygones be bygones you mean accepting people brazenly lying about their history, then no.

What span of time must pass before achievements are permitted to no longer be stained by transgressions of the past?

It is either:

A. Never

B. Sometime

If you feel it's A then there's nothing to debate.

If you feel it's B then let's haggle over the definition of sometime?

It appears my definition is that that "sometime" is now.

Your definition is sometime in the future.

What do you mean? The MP was talking about past achievements, saying that the history of the UK was enlightened by freedom. There is not even an argument about what you're talking about, because they actually are referring to historic achievements.

It's not as interesting to talk about present achievements because the UK is clearly in decline. That's why this politician was identifying their ideology with the glorious past and romanticizing it.

So there is literally no positives from UK's history?

Any positives are negated by past malevolent actions?

I'm sure there are positives, but the UK's history is clearly not about freedom. The UK's history is subjugating a massive amount of people. So claiming that the UK has its historic achievements because of freedom is just blatant revisionism. You could definitely find some good things though.

That's fair. I need to brush up on it's history.

Thanks for your comments!

EDIT: Upon some cursory research I still am not sure I can agree with your assessment.

[1] Bill of Rights : 1689

[2] United Kingdom : 1707

[3] Civil Liberties in UK : (various dates)

[4] Magna Carta : 1215

[5] Parliamentary Privilege

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#Kingdom_of_Grea...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties_in_the_United_...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege

All of these things only applied to (part of) the population in Britain. Colonial subjects of the UK had none of these rights in practice, except for settlers.

It seems gray to me. I will concede my perspective.

There is no history of the UK being enlightened by freedom.

;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com