Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomxor | Hacker News Reader

> But let's also not let the UK off the hook

I think this kind of attitude is what the author of the article is struggling with: assigning blame, tallying up the sins of each side to see who is the winner, this kind of debate is not useful - even if you don't intend it, framing things in this light will cause it.

There is value for everyone in discussing the nuances of dark events in our histories. But unfortunately we have a natural tendency to over simplify things into these highly polarized dichotomies, a vs b, in an attempt to make complex events easy to understand. Nobody alive today had a hand in these events, and while it's natural to feel things for our ancestors whether it's shame, pride or anguish, we would do well to distance ourselves like an alien observer when analyzing these events... the sins of our fathers should remain that way if we are to make progress as a species - I'm not religious, that was an accident.

View on HN

It's not history though. The same attitudes prevail today. Northern Ireland is still part of the UK. France are bombing most of N Africa and involved in all sorts of shady deals in Africa in general. The list is long and current.

Northern Ireland is still part of the UK because the majority of the people wish it so.

The British Secretary of State is required to hold a referendum to rejoin the South if he/she believes that it will pass.

Don't get me wrong, it's bad but its 1000x better in the last 20-30 years.

Which people? If you want to undo colonialism you need to include all Irish people in this measure and I can tell you not many Irish nationals if even that want it to be like it is. I'm probably the most outlier opinion in that I think they should be their own country outside of both the UK and Ireland.

From politico: Overall, the results showed 65 percent "yes" versus 19 percent "no." Excluding undecided voters and those who refused to answer — 15 percent — nearly four in five respondents who had made up their minds said they would vote in favor. https://www.politico.eu/article/election-two-thirds-of-irish...

Full disclosure: I am from the South of Ireland (i.e. the Republic).

I actually have always agreed with your outlier opinion, but you need both countries to be in the EU to make it work (shrug).

You are not counting the appropriate people in your study. A pretty large majority of people in the Republic would like to see the North become part of their country.

However, our opinion is less important than the opinions of the people living in Northern Ireland, and in that part of the island, there is not a strong majority for re-unification.

Like my original point is what the Good Friday/Belfast agreement states, so I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me.

I’m talking more about decolonisation. If you steal something it was and is never yours to begin with. GFA was only necessary because of colonial history and continuing attitudes and the power games that come with them.

There is one school of thought (which the GFA falls under) which is what’s happened in the past is legitimate and we have to work from where we are and there is another which is that the colonial past is illegitimate and therefore any gains are also illegitimate and most be returned to their rightful owner.

I don’t subscribe to either necessarily but seeing as continuing prevailing attitudes among the colonial elite haven’t changed one bit I think we have no choice but to confront them gloves off style. It’s literally stealing our collective global future.

How far back do you want to unwind? Should all non-aboriginals be disenfranchised or removed from Australia? At some point you have to work with things as they are and move forward.

Australia is an exceptionally interesting case study. Tbh I don’t have the answer to that as you are 100% correct too.

Even given the colonialisation, there's a large proportion of the populace in Northern Ireland who feel British, and do not want to be Irish.

Your argument appears to be that this doesn't matter because the land should never have been theirs in the first place.

I 100% reject that argument as it's essentially forcing people to live in a country which they have not chosen.

And on a practical level, this would probably lead to violence from Unionists in the North, which I don't think anyone wants.

Precisely why I advocate for Northern Irish independence.

People are alive today who experienced apartheid, who cannot visit their family because of the India–Pakistan border, or who remember when the Ireland–Northern Ireland border was "troubled". (What an amazing euphemism for a horrific memory.) The events I talked about, and so many more, are not just etched upon the history of the British Empire, but have repercussions which echo to the current day.

And yeah, either an action was a crime against humanity or it wasn't; either it was a war crime or it wasn't. We have an international system for this, but the British and American Empires refuse to submit to it, partially because they can't guarantee that the Russian and Chinese will also submit to the rule of international law, and partially because they know that it will be the end of the imperial era.

I'm not sure what you are arguing. That remnants of the British empire still exists? that present is derived from past? or that there are current events as well as these historic ones?

Whichever, is it then more constructive to focus on who is the most guilty? or try to prevent bad shit from happening again and look at the finer points rather than invoke vengeful attitudes?

My point was that when we are so focused on who is worst, who is the evil one by framing things in terms of blame, the entire scenario is coloured that way. This doesn't seem useful, it's just a fairy tale, the evil vilain in a Disney film that does not exist in reality. I think this can apply to present day events as much as past - I think I was foolish to hang that extra argument of "past" on this more fundamental one since all the replies are focusing on that.

I'm arguing that colonialism has lasting negative pragmatic effects in the world. Further, I'm arguing that we should not practice colonialism, and that we should actively work to decolonize; this makes me one of the anti-colonialists whose narrative is being questioned by the original article's author.

What are you arguing? I recognize the tactic as one of the most ancient: You're scooping up handfuls of sand and throwing it in the air to try to make everything harder to see. From my perspective, it's almost as if you're anti-anti-colonialist, but that's a rude accusation to make without hard evidence. Either way, I can't tell where you're headed and it feels like you just wanted to make sure that the thread was derailed.

> What are you arguing? I recognize the tactic as one of the most ancient: You're scooping up handfuls of sand and throwing it in the air to try to make everything harder to see.

Reality _is_ harder to see, this is my entire point, to not quantize massive complex events into 0 and 1.

I guess it matters to people who want to bring colonialism back to Africa, Lebanon or Hong Kong. I think HN is pretty down with the last one so I don't know what you're talking about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com