Subject:
|
Re: A question of remembrance...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 May 2001 20:28:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
848 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > Heh. It may be sobering to point out that the "brand" of
> > UK was born in 1800, following the forced Act of Union with
> > Ireland. That's when the name becomes valid, and it starts
> > a new era of incredible colonial bloodshed.
>
> Indeed. But is was not until more recently untail it came into common usage.
> Most of the the world still refers to the UK as Britain, or more annoyingly
> England.
Those have long been a problem. I can agree with respect to
"UK" not being the common usage; however, the official usage
dates from that period, and in the records it's standard from
1800 even when the records are informal (although the adjective
is always "British").
> > But I'm not sure all of that is entirely past--it may only
> > seem so because Britain's power has waned so much. But the
> > capital benefits gained from those atrocities has remained;
> > just walk around the West End of London and gaze up at the
> > Georgian, Victorian, and Edwardian buildings and monuments.
>
>
> I do not doubt what you are saying. However, I have to say that the same
> could be said for many other nation’s capitals. Further, I also have to
> remind you that most of the developed world relies on the exploitation of
> people and resources in the developing world for its wealth today. The UK
> woke up to the fact that its sweets may well rely on slave labour just last
> week when a ship full of child “slaves” destined for a cocoa plantation made
> the news:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_1305000/1305547.stm
Weren't they not entirely certain that it was in fact a slave
ship in the end? Not that the traffic doesn't happen, but this
may have been a stray distress rocket.
But with respect to the human cost of our Western lifestyle,
you're preaching to the choir. Our lifestyle, with cars, clothing,
and cheap staples, is untenable with exploitation, even more untenable
if we expect the "developing world" ever to "get there".
But this digresses. :)
best
LFB
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
| (...) Indeed. But is was not until more recently untail it came into common usage. Most of the the world still refers to the UK as Britain, or more annoyingly England. (...) I do not doubt what you are saying. However, I have to say that the same (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
197 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
