I would say if they respond ‘there isn’t one’, essentially using Peter Singer logic, then how do we actually know if human life has value if the only argument you can come up with is ‘because the bible said so’ or ‘because it feels wrong’ (it feels wrong didn’t help Winton Smith against the logically fluent O’Brien).
FYI Peter Singer really needs a spot on Triggernometry. I’d love to see them discuss ‘Equality for Animals’ as it doesn’t get enough attention from ARC related people’s.
Hi guys. British Australia here. I met Nigel at ARC and we had a lovely conversation.
My question is regarding Australia but can easily translate to other Western countries and former British colonies. When I learn about the stolen generations of Aboriginal peoples, things like the Aborigines Protection Amending Act of 1915 explicitly target people for their race saying children can be removed from their homes without court orders if they are black. I can’t see any way of justifying that morally (although this could be my own historical ignorance, that I can’t outargue the ‘woke’ professors in this regard), however the objections to this shade gradually into the Australian civil rights movement and eventually into the far left Aboriginal politics of the 21st century. Where exactly is the line between condemning bad treatment of the Aboriginal population and the justified parts of the reparations movement against the parts that are far left and we need to distance ourselves from both historically and contemporarily?
What happens when a country’s old heroic myths are replaced by equally simplistic myths of guilt? Is the historian’s job to provide a better national story or to make national stories impossible?
I am daring you to ask this series of questions. They are not for the pearl clutching class.
Thank you both for taking our questions.
I do apologize for this multi-part ask, but i have to get it off my chest.
I think it is important to recognize the world has changed, and it has taken about 40 years to manifest. People blame Trump, but it was always going to be this way sooner or later. The United States simply ripped off the band-aid.
Lately, some economic strategists and global supply chain analists have been sounding the alarm that China and others in their sphere of influence run on Mercantalism and have been gobling up whole supply chains for decades, whilst the EU, and up until recently the US, had been preferring to see global trade via policy, laws and free markets.
Can you provide examples of Mercantalism in history and how perhaps we can hope to navigate this seemingly inevitable regression? As I see it, Mercantalism is what made the British Empire, which they turned over to the United States and the US and EU abdicated to China and her allies, BRICS.
Will the UK and the EU have to take sides, China or USA?
Do you think it is best for English speaking peoples to join one camp or are we too spread out and lack common culture now? The United States, as I see it, was created using England as the template. We are brothers, and our people are significantly more European than they care to admit, because of mass 18th, 19th and 20th century immigration. Something to ponder.
A cheeky question. When can we expect Letters of Marque on the high seas again?
Also, is China capable of stopping resource enialation, or is it a cultural feature of communism combined with the Chinese collectivism that will not allow the momentum to brake, even if resources run out? Will they continue to extract until there is no more remaining?
Question for Nigel Biggar: I loved your book about Colonialism that so eloquently argued for a sense of context in evaluating European colonialism and imperialism. But this broader view is, as you well know, quite out of style among academic historians and even everyday journalists. However, do you think the tide is turning at all either because of your arguments or those of a few others (like the hosts of this podcast)? Is there any hope that a more balanced discussion of colonialism/imperialism might be expected in the near future in elite institutions ? Thanks, Peter Clark
In a 1992 interview with Nathan Gardels for the New York Review of Books Isaiah Berlin likened culture and tradition to a stream. There could be great upheavals from one generation to another, but everything was still connected to history and tradition. He warned that if the stream dried up, if men and women were not products of history, culture and tradition, it would 'lead to a tremendous
desiccation of everything that is human'.
Does this observation explain much of the malaise and discontent of the modern Yookay?
Is peace among nations and neighbors historically normal or exceltional? What would Europe, Africa, and western Asia look like if England hadn't achieved naval superiority and sought out trading opportunities?
When I was at school, I was taught that the morals or ethics of the past/person didn't matter. Now it seems to be the only thing that matters, how can this be changed to start looking back at the history and events rather than trying to break everyone down?
Do you agree that the Norsemen of Scandinavia, (and those countries today) appear to escape all censure when it comes to the havoc they wrought throughout Europe for centuries with imperialism, colonisation, and slavery?
What parallels do you see between Great Britain and Canada/other Western nations regarding this issue? What advice would you have for Canadians/westerners who are concerned by the increasing emphasis on narratives that reduce the country’s history, and particularly its colonial history, to a story of systemic racism and oppression?
Not sure if you focus has moved away from France because of the repost but I adored Robert's book on Franco-British relations and Nigel's look at the morality of colonialism is also superb and important.
If England had won the Hundred Years War is there any world where, more than just a union of crowns, a bi-national Franco-English/British state might have eventually formed a bit like a western Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or Austria-Hungary?
If so could Robert and Nigel muse on how different world history might have been had such a thing occurred.
What's the strongest argument you have heard, that does not invoke religion, in favor of human life having inherent value?
I would say if they respond ‘there isn’t one’, essentially using Peter Singer logic, then how do we actually know if human life has value if the only argument you can come up with is ‘because the bible said so’ or ‘because it feels wrong’ (it feels wrong didn’t help Winton Smith against the logically fluent O’Brien).
FYI Peter Singer really needs a spot on Triggernometry. I’d love to see them discuss ‘Equality for Animals’ as it doesn’t get enough attention from ARC related people’s.
Hi guys. British Australia here. I met Nigel at ARC and we had a lovely conversation.
My question is regarding Australia but can easily translate to other Western countries and former British colonies. When I learn about the stolen generations of Aboriginal peoples, things like the Aborigines Protection Amending Act of 1915 explicitly target people for their race saying children can be removed from their homes without court orders if they are black. I can’t see any way of justifying that morally (although this could be my own historical ignorance, that I can’t outargue the ‘woke’ professors in this regard), however the objections to this shade gradually into the Australian civil rights movement and eventually into the far left Aboriginal politics of the 21st century. Where exactly is the line between condemning bad treatment of the Aboriginal population and the justified parts of the reparations movement against the parts that are far left and we need to distance ourselves from both historically and contemporarily?
What happens when a country’s old heroic myths are replaced by equally simplistic myths of guilt? Is the historian’s job to provide a better national story or to make national stories impossible?
I am daring you to ask this series of questions. They are not for the pearl clutching class.
Thank you both for taking our questions.
I do apologize for this multi-part ask, but i have to get it off my chest.
I think it is important to recognize the world has changed, and it has taken about 40 years to manifest. People blame Trump, but it was always going to be this way sooner or later. The United States simply ripped off the band-aid.
Lately, some economic strategists and global supply chain analists have been sounding the alarm that China and others in their sphere of influence run on Mercantalism and have been gobling up whole supply chains for decades, whilst the EU, and up until recently the US, had been preferring to see global trade via policy, laws and free markets.
Can you provide examples of Mercantalism in history and how perhaps we can hope to navigate this seemingly inevitable regression? As I see it, Mercantalism is what made the British Empire, which they turned over to the United States and the US and EU abdicated to China and her allies, BRICS.
Will the UK and the EU have to take sides, China or USA?
Do you think it is best for English speaking peoples to join one camp or are we too spread out and lack common culture now? The United States, as I see it, was created using England as the template. We are brothers, and our people are significantly more European than they care to admit, because of mass 18th, 19th and 20th century immigration. Something to ponder.
A cheeky question. When can we expect Letters of Marque on the high seas again?
Also, is China capable of stopping resource enialation, or is it a cultural feature of communism combined with the Chinese collectivism that will not allow the momentum to brake, even if resources run out? Will they continue to extract until there is no more remaining?
Bless you for taking this on.
Jennifer W. in the United States
Question for Nigel Biggar: I loved your book about Colonialism that so eloquently argued for a sense of context in evaluating European colonialism and imperialism. But this broader view is, as you well know, quite out of style among academic historians and even everyday journalists. However, do you think the tide is turning at all either because of your arguments or those of a few others (like the hosts of this podcast)? Is there any hope that a more balanced discussion of colonialism/imperialism might be expected in the near future in elite institutions ? Thanks, Peter Clark
My question would be why are so many priest paedophiles raping children and there are no consequences?
What wrong turn did the Church of England take that caused it to become the Church of Woke? Any chance Catholicism could make a comeback in the UK?
In a 1992 interview with Nathan Gardels for the New York Review of Books Isaiah Berlin likened culture and tradition to a stream. There could be great upheavals from one generation to another, but everything was still connected to history and tradition. He warned that if the stream dried up, if men and women were not products of history, culture and tradition, it would 'lead to a tremendous
desiccation of everything that is human'.
Does this observation explain much of the malaise and discontent of the modern Yookay?
Is peace among nations and neighbors historically normal or exceltional? What would Europe, Africa, and western Asia look like if England hadn't achieved naval superiority and sought out trading opportunities?
When I was at school, I was taught that the morals or ethics of the past/person didn't matter. Now it seems to be the only thing that matters, how can this be changed to start looking back at the history and events rather than trying to break everyone down?
Do you agree that the Norsemen of Scandinavia, (and those countries today) appear to escape all censure when it comes to the havoc they wrought throughout Europe for centuries with imperialism, colonisation, and slavery?
Will British history be kind to its Muslim citizens since 'they' intend to write it?
What parallels do you see between Great Britain and Canada/other Western nations regarding this issue? What advice would you have for Canadians/westerners who are concerned by the increasing emphasis on narratives that reduce the country’s history, and particularly its colonial history, to a story of systemic racism and oppression?
Not sure if you focus has moved away from France because of the repost but I adored Robert's book on Franco-British relations and Nigel's look at the morality of colonialism is also superb and important.
If England had won the Hundred Years War is there any world where, more than just a union of crowns, a bi-national Franco-English/British state might have eventually formed a bit like a western Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or Austria-Hungary?
If so could Robert and Nigel muse on how different world history might have been had such a thing occurred.