norwaysaint

Yes, those seem like realistic targets. I'm sure they'd jump at the chance. Let's go for Bale and Virgil too, shall we?

Who apologised for anything? The British government recognised that it happened and that it was a bad thing. Is there anything there you disagree with?

What's your point? Do you think this is a majority? Do you think it's public opinion? There are people who think all kinds of things. That's irrelevant to whether or not Britain should recognise that it sanctioned a massacre and recognising it was not a good thing. I don't think you can compare the two. A minority wanting to remove Nelson's column is a wholly different issue to whether or not Britain should recognise a historical genocide. This is just what I mean by muddying the issue.

That's reactionary nonsense. What we are talking about here isn't statues of Nelson in Britain. We are talking about statues celebrating slavery in areas where people were enslaved. We are talking about former colonies where the people were treated brutally, wanting to remove a statue of a colonial ruler who oppressed the local people. I think the population of a country should have a voice in these things. The British people, as a majority, don't want to remove British icons, so that's just muddying the issue. Of course there is a case for removing some statues.

I've seen a few of the ones about statues and actually used the articles for discussion in spoken exams. The complaints have generally been about colonial leaders who were responsible for a lot of cruelty and suffering of indigenous people. Those people are often still living with the impact this had on their culture and lifestyle. Now that society has given them a voice (something quute recent) they are unsurprisingly unhappy about statues that celebrate foreigners who were responsible for the death or abuse of their families. I think it's okay for them to have a say in that. Nobody is saying we have to feel shame or take personal responsibility for someone who acted in a way that was of a different time. They are just asking for a bit of respect and consideration for their own history. We admit, generally, that what happened was cruel and of its time. We can take down a few statues celebrating it now. The world has moved on. It's not rewriting history, it's recognising history and showing a bit of sensitivity to those who lived on the side that suffered.

I think that's more a case of balance of a very uneven education. I grew up being made to feel proud of the British empire history and didn't hear a thing about massacres, genocide and cruelty until I was in my twenties. I always heard great things about Churchill, but only discovered the darker events in about the last five years. I grew up understanding that Irish Catholics were evil people attacking innocent British people for no real reason without ever knowing what had actually been happening over there. Misdeeds by the British were hidden from me for most of my life. I don't hate my country now I've learned more about its history, but I do want a more rounded understanding. People, including me, don't enjoy hearing that side and it feels uncomfortable, but the other side never disappeared. I will be discussing this event when my classes cover New Zealand. I'll ask their opinions and discussion about limits on recognising wrongs of the past, about Norway's darker history, about what it took to build an empire and why countries did it and about the situation of controlling the world now. I won't feel shame or guilt, but I might have, if I had to tell them that Britain refused to recognise this happened, despite it being officially recorded.

Agreed. We just need to be honest. Where Churchill sanctioned a massacre, we can say that, rather just pretend these things never happened. Judging him can be down to the individual, but there's no reason to present a sanitised version of who he was. That's an act of people who are ashamed of him. We don't have to pretend everything we did was good. History is a dark and bloody place. We can tell it like it was and come out looking stronger for it, or we can hide from it and mistepresent it and come out looking embarrassed, weasely and weak. I dislike a lot of what happened and would like to stand up and say yes it happened and it was a terrible thing. However, I take no guilt and feel no shame about what Britain is now as a result.

This has nothing to do with guilt and nothing to do with left or right wing. Nobody in this case needs to feel any guilt, instead they can take pride in talking openly and honestly about history. Why should we be too weak and timid to do that. Let's stand up Andrew take pride in who we are now rather than hide away from our past or try to put spin on it, like we are ashamed and embarrassed. There's no harm in admitting what really happened. Churchill did sanction some terrible things, it doesnt mean he didn't do great things too. If we have to lie about parts of his career, it makes it look like we are ashamed of him. We don't need to be, we can weigh the poor choices against the great and still love him, rather than only liking a pretend version where we airbrush out bits of his career. I like being British and I take pride in a lot of what that means. I couldn't take the same pride if I had to sneakily pretend certain events in the past weren't poorly judged. Take pride in our journey and our country, don't act ashamed and deceptive about our history. We've done loads wrong, leading to lots of death and suffering, but so have many countries. The only way to be a proud country afterwards is to be strong enough to say yes, we did that and we regret it, but this is who we are NOW. Patriotism is not being too ashamed of your own country to be able to look at its history.

Don't be lame. This is the lounge, if you want to carry on your tit for tat bickering and sneering with each other, do it by pm and spare the rest of us. It adds nothing here.

Getting sad about it is individual to that person and only they know why. I don't feel this is applying new ethics, as it said even in the ship's log of the time that they knew it was wrong and regretted it. All this is, is the government that sanctioned a massacre saying yes it happened and we agree it was a pretty bad thing to do. I find it more odd that people dislike us being strong enough to say it. Do we have to pretend everything we did as a nation was righteous. Some of the things that happened in the name of Britain were crappy, but we've moved on a long way and it shouldn't be a big deal to talk openly about our own history. Not doing it just makes us look weak and ashamed. Be proud of what we've become, not over defensive of what we did. Like I said though, nobody's going to see things differently because of what someone on the internet says. I can see what you're saying, but it's not my point of view.

Well, we clearly aren't going to agree or change each others minds, but I'm glad that the people that matter agree with me and it makes me proud of my country.

You're comparing the war between the Vikings, who were already resident in Britain, engaging in a war with the Saxons over a disputed claim to the throne, from a Norwegian state which is not the same as the one now, with a fleet sent by the British government just arriving on a newly discovered land and massacring the local population, whom they had no standing war with and who were utterly unprepared? Yes, I think one of those governments should recognise what it did and the other doesn't exist.

There was never a point in the whole upbringing of any of my kids where I can imagine hitting them would have been a sensible option to teach them anything. As mentioned, it's been illegal here since the eighties and as far as I can see, that hasn't led to a couple of generations not knowing right from wrong. It seems good parenting turned out to be perfectly possible without anyone needing to hit anyone. This isn't theoretical, or a new idea, it's been going on successfully for years already. The argument that some children need to be hit to learn effectively just doesn't hold water.

I struggle to understand an adult who would hit a child for annoying them. I've managed to discipline annoying kids for years in the classroom without hitting any of them. I've brought up my kids to know right from wrong without ever needing to hit them to teach them better. If you hit your kids, that's your choice, but don't fool yourself that it was the only choice or that they understand better if you hit them. Evidence across many countries shows you didn't need to. You just liked doing it that way better, for whatever reason. I was hit with a wooden paddle at school. I was also smacked by my parents. I think it was a poor choice as I was an intelligent child who would have responded to other methods. I think my parents did it because their parents did it to them and it seemed the normal thing to do. My dad has seen me with my kids and how I communicate with them and he's said himself it's clearly better and more effective, but that he didn't really know much about parenting.

Are you comparing a group of raiders attached to no particular state, especially not one in existence today, with the actions of a crew commissioned by the British state, the same British state that just apologised for it's part in the massacre? Doesn't really work, does it? I'm British, by the way, and proud that my country isn't afraid to look honestly at it's past.

Do we think that adults should be struck for misbehaving or to learn a lesson? If not, why is that different? Most of us would agree that a society where adults are beaten as a legal punishment is a little primitive or barbaric (damn, I used it first) and we tend to look down on Arab/African/Asian countries where these practices might take place. At the same time though, we might see a woman slap a man for inappropriate behaviour and say "He deserved it". Personally I do prefer to have legislation making it illegal to hit anyone else, except in self defence. I'm not sure why an exception should be made to allow us to hit the smallest and most vulnerable. I think people tend to have different opinions about what a harmless smack means. I think there's also a problem with giving the message that striking someone is an effective way to demonstrate that you are in the right or that that's how to solve a dispute. We'd have trouble supporting that theory anywhere else in our lives.

Are you feeling lonely? Do you need some attention? Perhaps you'd like to expand on your only close attempt at a relevant answer, seeing as this is the lounge? Do you see how many would disagree and say that smacking is indeed in the same class as hitting and that's why it has been banned for the same reasons in countries that do not allow parents or other adults to hit children to correct their behaviour. How hard a smack can be and how damaging/painful is down to the person delivering the blow. It's way too much of a grey area to be separated out as an okay type of hitting. Interestingly the supreme court here at one point decided to alter the law towards your point of view and made an exception for light smacking, but it was repealed soon after and included in the ban again. Of course there are always grey areas. The only way to end that is a ban on striking children altogether. Norwegians under the age of forty have pretty much grown up with no smacking and they seem to be proof that it was never really necessary.

We wouldn't like it if Germans talked proudly about once ruling Poland without recognising how that came about or if they didn't feel regret (not guilt) that the holocaust ever happened. Recognising what actually happened in the past is only a good thing. It's not week or taking blame for it personally.

Also, smacking children has been illegal in Norway since 1987, thirty years ago, so that generation that you are talking about includes most Norwegians you might have met. I have to say, they don't seem to be these rampantly obnoxious people you are worried about, so that's nice isn't it

Again, you are confusing not hitting children with being permissive. There are other ways to teach people than hitting them. I'm neither permissive in my workplace, nor as a parent, but I've never needed to hit anyone to help them understand acceptable behaviour.

You know that's not scientific evidence, right? Just someone's opinion? I've been hearing the older generation say similar all my life. I'll be fifty next year and I heard it said about my generation. Also, not smacking children does not mean the same as permissive parenting. Lots of us have raised our children with strict ideas of right and wrong, good manners, hard work ethics etc without needing to hit them to teach them that. You're muddling two different issues.

How do you feel about the fact that whole nations manage to do the same thing without the smacking? The same lessons learned, but taught other ways.

Why not admit to it if it happened and why not regret how they were treated? Seems an odd attitude. There have been years of crowing about the British Empire, should we pretend we don't know how it was achieved? I think it gives us more to be proud of if we recognise what happened. We did massacre them. It happened, wasn't really a good thing to do and their own crew thought it was a regrettable thing. I like it when we can show a bit of honour about our past.

It's been illegal for many years here in Norway, looks like Scotland is following suit. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49908849 What do you think? Ridiculous that we can hit children if we don't like their behaviour, but adults are protected by law? It's been shown time and again that children can be raised with discipline without using physical punishment, so using it is unnecessary Smacking is a harmless and effective tool to correct children's behaviour? This criminalises good parents for trying to teach their children discipline? We should be allowed to hit who we like to correct their behaviour, regardless of age? Extra points for the first people to use either the word "barbaric" or the phrase "it never did me any harm".

Star Wars is a 42 year old movie. Watching it is like watching a film from 1935 was when I first watched Star Wars. Having taught a boy when he was 7, who has now started and retired from a career as a professional footballer.