Certainly, I'm pretty sure in my comment, I emphasized that it's the very selective seeking of historical justice, most commonly targeting Europe, England, and the United States which impeaches the credibility of the whole exercise as not just about righting and learning from historical wrongs, but instead advancing an agenda.

Of course if we were working to right or at least learn about all historical wrongs without being selective about it, then I would argue that attempting to undo the horrors of human history is quixotic and a fool's errand.

Maybe because these attrocities were committed by people in recent history and the technology and record keeping have made it possible to quantify the destruction and pillaging. And that the west is open to being held accountable.

The British, European, and American atrocities were the only ones you consider "recent"? We only hold those to account who are open to being held accountable? Or only those who keep good records?

Sorry, but that's not a very convincing argument to excuse the extremely selective outrage and demands for reparations and accountability. Personally, I think the biases that drive this selective outrage are rather obvious. But draw your own conclusions.

Maybe, maybe not. Why is there never any mention of the horrors of the Arab Slave Trade in these discussions? And why does no one mention that it was the British who spearheaded the global abolition of slavery?

It seems like you're concerned that we're impartially holding British accountable but not others, while ignoring all the good things that the British did? I think a party can do good and bad things, and while there might not be anyone appreciating good things, it doesn't make the bad things they did any less bad.

There is a very popular conception of slavery that is extremely ignorant of history and present reality which essentially implies slavery is something that white people invented to oppress darker skinned people. This popular myth also fails to acknowledge that there are more people living in slavery now than ever before in history.

I'm simply trying to dispel this naive, dangerously ignorant, ironically racist notion of slavery, so that people can hopefully have a greater understanding of human nature as a whole, and focus on fighting for people who are living in slavery right now, rather than just focusing on the legacy of slavery of 1 or 2 predominantly white nations from hundreds of years ago.

If you want to start a discussion about the Arab Slave Trade and reparations for it, feel free. But in the meantime, please don't derail discussions about one atrocity with a meta-discussion about every atrocity and how those atrocities rank amongst each other.

Why are you so anxious to shut down a broader discussion about the reality of human nature and slavery? Perhaps there is a painful reality of the human condition which you do not want to confront?

Go ahead, bring in the Arab slave trade, im pretty disgusted by that aswell, but the topic is the british.

And how kind of the British, like any major power with an advancing economy, seem to start focusing on human right just about the time slavery is offering more of an advantage to their adversaries. (But I'm not going to complain about that progress).

The topic is always British, European, or American. That's why it's valid to bring up other similar historical wrongs in this discussion without dismissing it as whataboutism. The "strange" focus on only the historical wrongs of a few particular groups of people impeaches the discussion of this sort of topic due to the obvious implicit bias that selects which groups should be held accountable.

It depends on if the purpose of bringing these stories to light is wielded as a weapon or as a text book.

Would you rather the history be kept secret than be "wielded as a weapon"?

You do realise those aren't the only two options? What loceng is talking about is sins of the father being transferred to the children.

Yes, but when asked, "do you see a place for this sort of historical investigation of the consequences of past actions?" they said that the answer depends on whether it is "wielded as a weapon", which seems to imply that the answer in that case would be "no" - that if given a choice between only the options of being kept secret or being wielded as a weapon, they would prefer it be kept secret.

You're somehow leaving out the option that I mentioned of "use as a text book." My answer was to highlight the concern that intent/purpose and motives are important, e.g if someone going to use the reminder of history as a weapon to rally anger and hate, or to guide rational, reasonable discussion?

Yes, I understand that that's your preferred option. But your answer seems to imply that if people were going to use history as a weapon, then it would be better for it to not be known at all. That is, your order of preferences is Text Book > Secret > Used as Weapon.

If the purpose for 'historical investigation of the consequences of past actions' is to rally anger and hate in the present, then no, I would prefer it kept 'secret'. Mainly because I would have no faith that the investigation would be objective or have any redeeming qualities.

> If the purpose for 'historical investigation of the consequences of past actions' is to rally anger and hate in the present

That's exactly what many 'investigations', which are not always historically accurate, are about: Stroking nationalism, hate, and a sense of revenge on the one side (and we can see good examples of that in the comments here), and shame on the other side.

The UK and Europe have nothing to be ashamed of (which isn't to say that past actions cannot be criticised). Stroking hate and revenge is taking a path of perpetuation of aggression.

Certainly, this article is crass propaganda and not journalism. I flagged the submission to no effect.

Even true facts can be used for bad purposes, and even uncomfortable facts are worth knowing. This philosophy is what leads to things like denying the Armenian genocide, or denying the rape of Nanking.

Are those atrocities being used to demonize the descendants of the perpretrators? Not that I can see. Therefore, I take no issue with bringing them to light.

It seems you'd be okay with using true facts to incite racial or religious hatred, something which is against the law in most western countries.