Victorias Empire

I can't remember. As I recall, the Maoris were positively horrible to them...

The Best things England gave the world:



Representative Government

Great Literature

Monty Python

The Rolling Stones



Of course, Italy has better food and prettier women, ditto France. And the US has MORE of everything.


BB

quote:

Originally posted by Exiled Highlander:
Howard

quote:

it should keep us to the middle way

The danger with this of course is that you end up doing nothing and never taking any kind of risk. Government by committee doesn't appeal to me I'm afraid.

Cheers

Jim

Dear Jim,

Which governement is less full of harm? That of Angela Merkel, or George Bush?

I'll go with the middle way thank you very much if that is what PR brings. I think in UK we are much more similar to the German than the Italian mentality. This is probably a shame in my view. My personal favourite Europeans are the Poles, of course!

The most successful financially are the Norwegians, and probably the most tolerant are the British.

Tolerance is not such a good thing when it leads to Political Correctness taking over as it has done to a mad degree in UK. Personally I never consider Politcal Correctness, except on this Forum!

ATB from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:


Dear Jim,

Which governement is less full of harm? That of Angela Merkel, or George Bush?


ATB from Fredrik

First of all, if you don't like the war, it was congress who gave the president the power to invade Iraq. The President is commander in chief and though many do not like his policies he is not a dictator but has acted within constitutional authority.

Second, I don't like my country being bashed and compared to this and that piss awful dictatorship. We do not colonize, we get involved with our military then turn the country over to those who have the best chance of democratizing it. Yeah, we've made mistakes but you can't compare us to the British at their colonizing worst.

I think the war is wrong and mistake, but let's keep things in perspective.


Big Bro

Dear Big Brother,

I don't compare the American people to any who have been faced with a dictatorship, elected or other wise, but it amazes how pirckly US citizens are of criticism of their Governement! Especially when their governement is so obviously wrong to all but the peoples of the US.

You have just had a go at Britain - "at their colonising worst!" Britain was by no means as bad as many other colonial, empire buildiing powers. Did I say the US is building an Empire? That is a leap too far to take from my post and seems to show and undue sensitivity to the point. The best British colony in my view was India. And that nation still has good relations with the UK! Better in reality than the US has, and that may pique the US a bit, but Indians want to live here, and I believe that India will remain a major trading partner with Britian for a long time.

But I will not get upset by your criticsm of my country. I am considering actions in the current, rather than past actions.

My regret is that the US gained independance about a century too soon in my view. The place would not have been adversely affected by the civilising influence of the Victorians for example. Slavery would have been abolished sooner for example under colonial rule.

My point was that I think less extreme government tends to result from a Proportional Representatiopn System, well run. I don't think that the US has any lessons to teach any nation about how to run Presidential Elections for example in all fairness. I would say the GW Bush's first election did and still does look like a travesty. That is not a reflection on the US people so much as the Capital that runs the political system in US. Perhaps this is more obvious to outsiders, but there are times when the muscle and immaturity that the US administration can bring to bear is always going to be a source of considerable irritation to non-US people.

My sadness is that because of the "special relationship," and Blair being an utter poodle, that the British were told half-truths and duped into joining in this bloody war in Iraq in the first place. I sincerely hope that the US signals an intention to leave before too long, as I believe the UK should too.

I used to think that once started the job should be finished, but as things are clearly going from bad to worse, my view is that we should get out before we make things far worse, not just for a generation, but perhaps a thousand years. Iran will walk in, but that is better than a Religeous War lasting for many generations to come.

Britain and the US are powerless to prevent this.

Sincerely from Fredrik

PS: Which country that I posted about, even if it was in compaison to the British way with elections, has a dictatorship? The comparisonwith Merkel and Bush seems entirely appropriate to me, though either with Bush or Blair...

Fredrik

My point is, The Brits colonized to plunder the respective countries of their raw materials and wealth. Whatever good they brought was incidental. It is like saying the colonists brought the Indians their superior technology therefor they are better off.

The reason Blair joined us in our war venture is because he wanted to be different from the rest of Europe, the idea that the English are somehow superior to the rest of the continentals ( and us, I suppose). Mick's comments about the Brits winning the lottery of life and similar attitudes play into this 'superior' attitude. I'm afraid it's still prevelant over there.

BB

Dear BB,

I am not going to join in with your comment about the British. But I do hope that both our peoples can accept that the "special relationship" must end, and, as the current administration in US want nothing to do with the current opposition Tory Shadow Front Bench, then with luck a far more independent line from US Foreign Ploicy will be taken in UK after the next General Election, which I am sure many wish would come sooner rather than later.

The reason Blair followed Bush into this folly still beggars believe. I have not yet heard it explained to my satisfaction. The explanation, such as it is, is in fact several, depending on the time since the start of the invasion when it was, or more accurately, they were, given. That is called making it up as you go along I think. Totally, and literally incredable. But please don't think the British people supported the War. It never had popular public support here. I have no idea if the adventure had suppost in the US. I sincerely hope not, but perhaps you will be kind enough to let your British audience know.

Is there a reason why you chose not to comment on the undoubted good that would have occured for the US if she had remained a British colony for a similar time-scale to Australia, Canada, or New Zealand. All countries that in my view would be a good model for the US as it matures into a team player in the world.

Kindest regards from Fredrik

Fredrik

OF COURSE the war had popular support, I think we(in the US) are all responsible, I don't put it all on the leaders by any means.

Your point about the US breaking free too early is interesting, but I think it's all just conjecture at this point. Let's face it, we are a nation of Anglo Saxons, you can't separate the wheat from the chaff.

I agree that we are less like the Aussies and Canadians, we have less in common as time goes on. Hopefully we can be a team player. I don't think demonizing the United States helps anyone, we've done a lot of good, just like you guys.



Regards

BB

On that happy note with some agreement, then I think I shall have nothing more to say than thanks for a stimulating, thought provoking exchange!

Thanks from Fredrik!!

There was something on dispatches the other night about India, apparently they are in a bit of a mess.

Everything is changing across the Globe. India and China are changing at a faster rate than other nations. A state of change always causes pain - loosers and winners - but through this pain will come two nations who will dominate the World, both economically and politically. Growing pains are inevitable I suspect.

I doubt if India's developement will be hampered by her period in the British Empire.

ATB from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Big Brother:
Fredrik

My point is, The Brits colonized to plunder the respective countries of their raw materials and wealth. Whatever good they brought was incidental. It is like saying the colonists brought the Indians their superior technology therefor they are better off.

BB

Indians? - Irapaho, Pawnee, Shoshona, Blackfoot, Cheyenne, Mohican? Those Indians? What about the US "liberation" of the Philipines in 1899? How many Vietnamese did the US kill in the 1960s-70s?

We learned our lessons many years ago; we relinquished our colonies many of whom then decided to become part of the Commonwealth.

Mike

I was referring to the American Indians as a whole, England and America both played a role in their plundering.

As far as I know Vietnam was not being colonized by us. We had this thing about Communist Dictators. A venture that began with altruistic motives. Not, "Let's get us some free rice" (!!)

Hope things are going well with you.

ATB, ect.. ect..


Big Brother

I always thought that NZ was unpopulated until the Maori Great Fleet landed at the Bay of Plenty on the North Island around 1350.

quote:

Originally posted by bazz:

I always thought that NZ was unpopulated until the Maori Great Fleet landed at the Bay of Plenty on the North Island around 1350.

As far as I know, there's still a lot of argument about exactly when the NZ land mass was first populated. Don't really see that it's relevant to the British and their sins in this country, though.

Oh, and the international law that set out whether NZ was considered terra nullius or not when the British arrived was a body of law created by and distincly favouring European Nation States and their expeditions abroad.

Just an aside Deane.

well, the world is a scary place. i grew up worshipping and hating alternately the british empire, and the heroics of ww2 (scots on my dad's side and irish on my mom's). now i'm old and cynical and hold a degree in history, and i think it's accurate to state that the human race tends to spontaneously inflict the maximum possible of misery on itself and the planet -- doesn't seem that one subgroup is all that better or worse than another. and the u.s.a. gave the world nixon, reagan, and the bush dynasty ... whheeee!!! but perhaps there was a bit of "fair play" or restraint attached to some of england's exploits, a counterweight to the self-aggrandizement. for several generations the empire held sway in the world, and it certainly could have been a lot worse for all of us. except the irish.

WRT 'civilizing the world', it's probably best to remember that the civilizations of South & East Asia flourished earlier than the British Empire and lasted far longer.

Further, note that China was richer, even on a per capita basis, than GB until about 1850 - and would have remained so without the opium trade and the Taiping Rebellion...which was itself in part a response to the opium trade.

The opium trade itself was expanded by Jardine, Mateson, etc., because Brits wanted Chinese goods, but they couldn't find anything they produced that the Chinese wanted.

Note also that even as late as the early 20th century, cloth made by hand by Chinese for sale in China was both higher quality and lower cost than cloth made in British factories, whether the factories were located in China or in the UK.

Chinese agriculture was much more productive than British agriculture until the disorder of the 1930s and '403.

I'd take Chinese and Indian classical music over anything I've heard from British composers before the mid-20th century. This is a matter of taste, of course, but I doubt that I'm alone in this.

Sculpture and painting from China and India far surpass the British creations.

Chinese (for sure) and Indian (I believe) phiolosophers, scientists, and writers are unsurpassed, certainly the equal of British writers and philosophers even now, although British science left Chinese science in the dust 250-350 years ago - but Western medicine is still stumped by some of the achievements of Chinese medicine.

And far from sharing what it had, remember that the US textile industry had its beginnings in the enterprise of Samuel Slater, who memorized the plans of an English textile factory, so he could build a pirated copy in Pawtucket (Rhode Island, USA).

I don't mean to argue that the British Empire is any worse than other empires. I simply want to point out to chauvinists - of any country - that the primary support for your pride in your country is probably your own ignorance.

No country is pure. And our civilization is a product of contributions from so many people and peoples that there is no significant rational basis for a citizen of any country to think his or her country is meaningfully better than any other.

Regards.

Phil Barry

Agreed.

I have long been an advocate of making our friend India even more of a friend as far possible, and passing over certain more recent alliances and seeming ly impossible commitments, in favour of future developements.

I hope that the great people of China with their wealth culture and civilisation will be benevolent towards us, and not grind an axe over the sad affairs over the Opium Wars and so forth. These two great nations are where the future is for us, outward looking Britons, and let us hope that in some way our role in Europe will be a bridge to these two great and civilsed countries.

We have an enormous amount to learn from them, and if we are willing to learn, perhaps they will reciprocate and find something of value in us as well. That way peace is to be found...

Med glad hilsen,

Fredrik

Ah, well, Fredrik, given the behavior models offerred by my country over the past 50 or 60 years, I wouldn't look for much benevolence from China.

The one good thing that is likely to come from China's hegemony is that inter-ethnic and inter-religious strife is likely to diminish.

Christians, Muslims, and Jews may just forget their grievances against one another, since the grievances will take too much attention away from meeting China's demands for tribute.

It's ironic, I think, that my country's jingoistic leaders have placed the US in a situation where we are dependeant on China to recycle dollars into bonds, With thos dollars, and with our demand for loans, China can easily become the caller of our tunes.

Regards.

Phil

Dear Phil,

"Can easily, and surely will."

So what is necessary is a constructive dialogue and a sensible trading relationship. We must make sure it is worth China's interest to keep us in business for what we might offer.

Similarly for India with different considerations. India is in many ways easier for us as she shares some major cultural features with us like a wish to retain deocratic governement, which is something we cannot, and have no right to try to, impose on China.

If we offer nothing but hostility we are destined to be the loosers in the future, in my view.

ATB from Fredrik

Fredrik, I believe we agree in general, but I've pretty much lost hope.

Europe has pretty much defined international relations since the late 18th century, and European practices were pretty harsh. The US followed those practices, adding some cultural values that made international relations harsher.

When I was young, I hoped that we'd realize a) white people were a minority, and b) white people were using up resources at an astounding rate, so c) our best bet was to build good relations with Asia and Africa. It was obvious to me almost 50 years ago that perhaps the only way we could maintain our 'civilization' was to coopt the best and brightest from Africa and Asia.

Perhaps, I thought, if we gave up our racist and might-makes-right ways, when China, India, and Africacome into their own, they'll treat us better than we've treated them.

Over the last 50 years, however, I haven't seen much diminution in racism, and I've seen a resurgence of might-makes-right.

The emerging powers have learned from us. Might is moving to Asia, and both Indian and Chinese cultures are racist.

I think that relationships between individuals born in various cultures will flourish, but I think international relations will be very, very tense.

Regards.

Phil

Agreed.

When we are all the same colour, all mixed together, it'll be a better place. It would be a shame, but if that's what it takes, then that's fine. Surely that would only make international relations go one way, eventually.
It's funny about the gene pool though. We had two Pakistani guys working on the house this week, and they were convinced my wife was Israeli. They asked her at the end of the job. She is partially Indian but she can look Israeli. My eldest daughter can look totally Indian sometimes with much darker skin, but my son has blond hair and blue eyes, so maybe it won't all wash together. They do look odd together.