> British invaded and continue to hang on to

The only places I can think of that Britain currently "hangs on to" against the will of the inhabitants are arguably Scotland and Northern Ireland, but in both those places about half the population want to continue to belong to the UK.

So it's not obvious to me who you're referring to here.

The Chagos Islands would meet that definition if there were any residents left; they were all forcibly removed, but campaign to return.

Ostensibly they are forbidden from returning because the islands are a nature reserve, but it came out in leaked cables the nature reserve's raison d'etre is keeping out the Chagos Islanders. Conservation is only a side-effect.

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.

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.

;)

>I'm sure the inhabitants of the many countries the British invaded and continue to hang on to would disagree.

Propose one colony where the indigenous society was freer

It's impossible to know. You would need to be able to predict how that country would have evolved over the last number of years without British involvement. Comparing it now to how it was when it was colonised by the British is pointless.

I don't think it is. I think comparing British freedom at the time to the freedom in the native society is totally fair.

And countries don't evolve in a vacuum. Many countries would have adopted British ideas of freedom just through observation.

is this a new revisionist rhetoric being pushed all of a sudden? I keep hearing the same arguments in Spain about how they brought freedom to the Americas

I understand being unconformable with one's country's past, but the mental hoops to try to get some justification to colonization is so strange.

Even if (and that's a BIG if) those societies ended up "freer" let's not fool ourselves, not a single country went to colonise another for hundreds of years to make it freer, they went there to exploit it. If 500 years later that country is in a better shape now (again a BIG if), that's an unintended side effect.

> not a single country went to colonise another for hundreds of years to make it freer, they went there to exploit it.

Generally speaking the colonisers established their colonies to access natural resources, being new agricultural techniques to undeveloped lands, and engage in trade. The culture of the coloniser naturally came along with them.

Even if there were no specific goal of bringing freedom that may still have been a side effect.

yeah, but that's what I mean, if it's just a side effect then how is it relevant to the whole "illustrious history" of the UK comment which was defended by saying that the colonies are now "freer".

How is that an argument? If I enslave a group of people, force on them my language so they can follow orders and 500 years later that language opens doors for them, how am I "illustrious"? it's a side effect of an inhumane act.

Trying to twist this so my history doesn't make me uncomfortable is historical immaturity.

Ok I'll play - Ireland?

> Propose one colony where the indigenous society was freer

So the assertion is that being colonised increased their freedom?

Yes, considerably.

Arguing that labour camps, apartheid, the raping both literal and figurative as well as outright genocide that occurred were justified because people today are "freer" (IYO) is a stretch.

I don't know man, but arguing for a process that discriminated against people on the basis of their color is something that I thought was a thing of the past. I guess I was wrong.

Native American populations.

India

Legalized caste system

The US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, India, etc. are all democracies where the UK had a big influence on their culture.

Tbf, commoners in Britain didn't fare much better.

They definitely did. Chattel slavery for example was never legal in the British isles, but was permitted in the colonies.

It does not help if there was no legislation but 10% of the (white) population were slaves:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#Norman_Engl...

I'm also not sure if being a white coal miner in 1870 in Britain would have been much better than the jobs in the colonies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mold,_Flintshire#The_Mold_Riot

> I'm sure the inhabitants of the many countries the British invaded and continue to hang on to would disagree.

The political systems of every one of those countries are freer today than they were before the British “visited”.

Based on many HN comments about Modi and his anti democracy moves, I'm not quite sure India agrees.

Only because those countries rebelled against the British.