I really enjoyed this session. Through books such as ‘Anarchy’ (incidentally, a gift from Santa last year) we see a different take on history. As an Australian, we see the mixed legacy of colonization in our country. In a different way, perhaps, but I am researching the story of a man who, as the 16 year old son of an Irish bankrupt would have appeared to have had few prospects when his family migrated to Queensland to avoid creditors but who, through sheer luck, made a fortune out of gold and then returned to England, and made a second ultimately lucky investment in the search for oil. His legacy in Australia? A poisoned river still too toxic to approach and a small moribund town where an unpaved street has been named in his honour. No fine buildings, nothing for the community. No endowment. Exploitation happened in the British Empire in many ways and on many levels. Peeling back the onion layers of history is so important.
Thank you for a nice interview, which I only recently came across. Fluency of the author is indicative of the depth of his research. I have not read any of the book referred in the interview and hence the comments are likely to be based on partial view of the topic. I have two questions: First, notwithstanding the mentioned legal position (Geneva Convention since 1920), is or can reparation ever be a valid goal? Are we trying to set right the injustice encompassed in the events of 18th and 19th century using the ethics and morality of 20th and 21st century, I wonder? After all, plunder in India apart, what will be due compensation for millions of people who were enslaved; who should be made to pay, and to whom? What could be the fair compensation for Incas or Red Indians or other aborigines that, within decades came to live as marginal people in their own countries? Or, to take a more recent example, can the manufacturers and inventors of the likes of fertilizers, pesticides (DDT, a common pesticide used in 1950s and 1960s, was known to be present in muscle tissue of several generations of animals that had eaten grass sprayed with the chemical), plastics, jet engines and car manufacturers be made to pay for the damage done to the common global resource of climate? After all, all the companies manufacturing all these products also made huge profits at one time or the other, which was very similar to exploitation, if not plunder, since their products jeopardized well-being of public at large. Would we not be better off spending our energies on protecting the future by preventing such failures rather than redressing the past? Second, I am surprised that though development of technology played a major role in Industrial Revolution in England, which formed the basis for gaining and consolidating political power. There is no mention of it in the interview.
I really enjoyed this session. Through books such as ‘Anarchy’ (incidentally, a gift from Santa last year) we see a different take on history. As an Australian, we see the mixed legacy of colonization in our country. In a different way, perhaps, but I am researching the story of a man who, as the 16 year old son of an Irish bankrupt would have appeared to have had few prospects when his family migrated to Queensland to avoid creditors but who, through sheer luck, made a fortune out of gold and then returned to England, and made a second ultimately lucky investment in the search for oil. His legacy in Australia? A poisoned river still too toxic to approach and a small moribund town where an unpaved street has been named in his honour. No fine buildings, nothing for the community. No endowment. Exploitation happened in the British Empire in many ways and on many levels. Peeling back the onion layers of history is so important.
Thank you for a nice interview, which I only recently came across. Fluency of the author is indicative of the depth of his research. I have not read any of the book referred in the interview and hence the comments are likely to be based on partial view of the topic. I have two questions: First, notwithstanding the mentioned legal position (Geneva Convention since 1920), is or can reparation ever be a valid goal? Are we trying to set right the injustice encompassed in the events of 18th and 19th century using the ethics and morality of 20th and 21st century, I wonder? After all, plunder in India apart, what will be due compensation for millions of people who were enslaved; who should be made to pay, and to whom? What could be the fair compensation for Incas or Red Indians or other aborigines that, within decades came to live as marginal people in their own countries? Or, to take a more recent example, can the manufacturers and inventors of the likes of fertilizers, pesticides (DDT, a common pesticide used in 1950s and 1960s, was known to be present in muscle tissue of several generations of animals that had eaten grass sprayed with the chemical), plastics, jet engines and car manufacturers be made to pay for the damage done to the common global resource of climate? After all, all the companies manufacturing all these products also made huge profits at one time or the other, which was very similar to exploitation, if not plunder, since their products jeopardized well-being of public at large. Would we not be better off spending our energies on protecting the future by preventing such failures rather than redressing the past?
Second, I am surprised that though development of technology played a major role in Industrial Revolution in England, which formed the basis for gaining and consolidating political power. There is no mention of it in the interview.