[brigandish]

> How the British and other colonizers go unpunished

I have to wonder how it's possible to decide whom to punish when the vast majority of those involved are dead, if any are left, and what you would punish them with?

Sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself. I'm cutting down the population of "colonizers", you did point at "the British" so it should be up to you to clarify the bounds.

[saiya-jin]

In this case its super easy - Great Britain, a specific state next to continental Europe. Punishment as such can be done ie financially via direct aid. Building schools and hospitals. You name it.

But this would be a direct admission how monstrously they fucked up this world for centuries and that's something no politician will admit, no matter what they think personally. Also, we talk about most of western Europe here (GB, France, Spain, Portugal, Netherland, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Italy). US also had its colonies like Philippines.

The world is not fair. Rather than waiting for a sorry and help from bullies, get your stuff together and define your own destiny now that you can. I've been to Sri Lanka, have seen former prisons. Same as everywhere else, ie not so far on Andamans.

[danenania]

There’s also a question of how far back to go. With few exceptions, human history is an unbroken procession of brutal conquests. Many colonized peoples were oppressors at some stage in their history. That doesn’t justify the horrors of colonialism, but it does complicate attempts to make absolute moral (or legal) judgments against one group or another based on the crimes of their ancestors.

[doikor]

Problem with this logic is where does it end.

Should modern day Italians pay for what Rome did? Turks for Ottomans? Mongols for Genghis Khan and his children’s empire? The Danish/Norwegian Vikings for taking over large parts of the British isles? The Moscow Rus for taking over the land that became Russia?

Basically human history is one long bloody path for conquest and sadly rarely do the victors pay for the cruelty they inflict on the defeated.

[saiya-jin]

Well sure our history is one of pathetic murderous species, with few exceptions. That doesn't make it anyhow being OK with what your/their ancestors did, does it.

Whataboutism about ancient civilizations does detract from current topic, Great Britain is the same place as 80 years ago, same government, same everything. Heck, almost the same queen. Same for France for example.

But sure you can try desperately to come up with excuses to avoid any responsibility and enjoy the riches your ancestors stole from poor folks. What do you think most western Europe has been doing for past 70 years?

It gets even better - out of guilt (at least 'officially'), they allow young smart folks from former enslaved colonies to study there with few restrictions compared to rest of population. Of course most will stay and not return. The poor place remains poor, but what do wealthy nations care, economy goes forward and demographic crisis is averted for another few years.

[CountDrewku]

If you said this about any other country not inhabited by anglo-saxons or "white" people you'd be called a bigot and justifiably so.

No one alive today should feel guilt/responsibility for something people they've never met did, full stop.

>But sure you can try desperately to come up with excuses to avoid any responsibility and enjoy the riches your ancestors stole from poor folks.

Yes because that's how the world works. There is no responsibility. You're here today because you had ancestors that fought and survived, many of them probably doing "immoral" things. Just because your "riches" are less than others doesn't mean you deserve to have them. Why should YOU get to enjoy anything they have? All I see is a jealous naive individual asking for handouts. Sorry but that doesn't grant you the right to take from others.

[doikor]

I don’t think there is any whataboutism or desperation in asking where one puts the line. Effectively you are asking to punish one group of people based on their ancestry so having some idea where it stops would be nice.

> The poor place remains poor

Relatively yes but in absolute numbers no (this also applies within individual counties even the rich ones). In most places the poor have been getting richer, live longer and are better educated than ever. Basically being poor 80 years ago was much much worse for the individual than today.

[brigandish]

Firstly, as pointed out in another comment, it's not whataboutism to ask what the principle is by bringing up other examples. Whataboutism is a fallacy of relevance, the point you were asked is not irrelevant, it directly grapples with the issue at hand.

Secondly, which riches were my ancestors (I'm British) enjoying, and which ancestors? Try to be specific, you're advocating punishment, after all, wouldn't want to find out you're simply being bigoted against a group of people in that vague way bigots do.