Proud to be British?
min...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Been thinking about this for a few days, and wondered what other folk
thought.
The following four paragraphs are just a few examples of my thoughts,
I may be wrong in some details, but I'm not really posting this to discuss
the details of the things in them, but just coming to a very general
conclusion. Please bear with me, or feel free to skip them.
The UK (probably more specifically England, but that's beside the point for
the moment) has an appauling history when it comes to the colonialism and
exploitation of other countries and cultures. Britain is, for example,
responsible for the non-existence of a Kurdish state, and for the existence
of Kuwait (what WAS the point of this country anyway?).
Our various governments down the years have been wonderfully unresponsive to
things which don't affect the national interest (eg China into Tibet, Serbia's
involvement in Bosnia, Indonesia into E.Timor, etc) regardless of the morality
of events. They've also been good at propping up or helping a good few
undemocratic regimes/factions (Khmer Rouge, Iraq, etc)... until events turn,
and suddenly we had nothing to do with them after all...
As a people, I believe we're becoming more materialistic and selfish. We
care very little for the nations that we exploit (third world loans spring
to mind as an example), nor those which are fighting civil/national wars using
the weapons Britain sold them.
Our own country is an environmental shambles with excessive pollution,
and squandered resources. We build roads through green belt areas and raze
Scottish mountains to do it with. We drop acid rain on scandanavian forests
and complain about EC directives which expect us to clean up our act.
The bottom line is that I am NOT proud to be British. I love Britain,
don't get me wrong, and I think that for lots of reasons it's a it's a great
place to live (although it's being progressively wrecked, and may be
getting worse).
It's just that I can't think of anything that I would say to someone from
a non-european nation which would make me feel proud to say "I'm British"
I know that I'm not responsible for the actions of my forefathers, nor
am I personally responsible for any of the above myself. If I say I'm
proud to be British, however, I feel that I associate myself with the above.
I also know that other countries have similarly bad records, but again, I
think that's beside the point.
Do other people feel this way? or am I just too despondant about this place?
Just curious,
Gavin.
David Garrod
>
> Been thinking about this for a few days, and wondered what other folk
> thought.
> The following four paragraphs are just a few examples of my thoughts,
> I may be wrong in some details, but I'm not really posting this to discuss
> the details of the things in them, but just coming to a very general
> conclusion. Please bear with me, or feel free to skip them.
>
>
> The UK (probably more specifically England, but that's beside the point for
> the moment) has an appauling history when it comes to the colonialism and
> exploitation of other countries and cultures. Britain is, for example,
> responsible for the non-existence of a Kurdish state, and for the existence
> of Kuwait (what WAS the point of this country anyway?).
If the history is so appauling, then why do ex-colonies have the
best civilization and stability.
Compare the U.S. with Mexico and ex-spanish colony or Brazil an ex-
portuguese colony. Or if you don`t like using the U.S. for a comparison
then take Australia, New Zealand or Canada.
(Or even compare the ex-british colonies in Africa with the non-ex-british.)
> Our various governments down the years have been wonderfully unresponsive to
> things which don't affect the national interest (eg China into Tibet, Serbia's
> involvement in Bosnia, Indonesia into E.Timor, etc) regardless of the morality
> of events. They've also been good at propping up or helping a good few
> undemocratic regimes/factions (Khmer Rouge, Iraq, etc)... until events turn,
> and suddenly we had nothing to do with them after all...
England long since disappeared as major power in world affairs.
So why should it pour resources into irresolvable conflicts such as
Bosnia. Look at the resources that have been poured into N. Ireland
and that is not solved (and probably never will be).
> As a people, I believe we're becoming more materialistic and selfish. We
> care very little for the nations that we exploit (third world loans spring
> to mind as an example), nor those which are fighting civil/national wars using
> the weapons Britain sold them.
Since when has a third world loan (Many of which have to be written
off) been counted as exploitation?
> Our own country is an environmental shambles with excessive pollution,
> and squandered resources. We build roads through green belt areas and raze
> Scottish mountains to do it with. We drop acid rain on scandanavian forests
> and complain about EC directives which expect us to clean up our act.
>
If it is impossible to get population under control (because of
public choices to allow immigration) then unless you want grid-lock
in the traffic system, it is necessary to put roads through green
belt areas. Whats wrong with that anyway?
>
>
> The bottom line is that I am NOT proud to be British. I love Britain,
> don't get me wrong, and I think that for lots of reasons it's a it's a great
> place to live (although it's being progressively wrecked, and may be
> getting worse).
It is getting worse.....I agree with you.....but not because of
polution (which I do not think is getting worse) but because of the
failure to handle crime. I am sick and tired of car thefts by under
age kids, theft in general and the revolving door policies of the
jail system.
On the other hand I think the british race are generally kind and
considerate and caring to people of other countries, and I do not
see a change in this regard.
David Garrod
Blah
|> Our various governments down the years have been wonderfully unresponsive to
|> things which don't affect the national interest (eg China into Tibet, Serbia's
|> involvement in Bosnia, Indonesia into E.Timor, etc) regardless of the morality
|> of events.
So it is good to do things which affect national interest?
|> As a people, I believe we're becoming more materialistic and selfish. We
|> care very little for the nations that we exploit (third world loans spring
|> to mind as an example),
|
Giving loans to other countries is defintely in our National
Interest....and that's what you want.
PS I'll fix my news reader pronto...
--
| Please....only email me if you have something nice to say|
| |
| ba0...@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu - 1:260/465@1 |
Antony Mossop
>In article <1993Aug2.2...@vax.oxford.ac.uk> min...@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>>
> If it is impossible to get population under control (because of
>public choices to allow immigration) then unless you want grid-lock
>in the traffic system, it is necessary to put roads through green
>belt areas. Whats wrong with that anyway?
>
Err.. are you suggesting that the UK population is growing out of control
and that this is due to immigration? I think you'll find that population
growth in the UK is not very significant and hasn't been for many years. Growth
in road traffic is something very different altogether and I don't really
see its connection with immigration policy.
>>
>>
>> The bottom line is that I am NOT proud to be British. I love Britain,
>> don't get me wrong, and I think that for lots of reasons it's a it's a great
>> place to live (although it's being progressively wrecked, and may be
>> getting worse).
>
> It is getting worse.....I agree with you.....but not because of
>polution (which I do not think is getting worse) but because of the
>failure to handle crime. I am sick and tired of car thefts by under
>age kids, theft in general and the revolving door policies of the
>jail system.
> On the other hand I think the british race are generally kind and
>considerate and caring to people of other countries, and I do not
>see a change in this regard.
>
>David Garrod
I wouldn't call the UK penal systems revolving door, in fact the UK locks
up more people for more time than nearly any other European country (some
of them lock up more of their people but their sentences are shorter, some
of them have longer average sentences but less of their population is put
away but when it comes to average time the average person spends in gaol
the UK leads). I'd also be intersted to know on what you base your belief
that sentence severity correlates with criminal activity and/or recidivism
as I doubt it's on any factual evidence? I'm also curious as to what exactly
your definition of the 'british race' is, I'd imagine a few others are too?
Apologies for biting on your obvious flame bait but what the hell.
Tony Mossop, geophysics, Stanford
Alan Dyke
> In article <1993Aug2.2...@vax.oxford.ac.uk> min...@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>> Our various governments down the years have been wonderfully unresponsive to
>>things which don't affect the national interest (eg China into Tibet, Serbia's
>>involvement in Bosnia, Indonesia into E.Timor, etc) regardless of the morality
>>of events. They've also been good at propping up or helping a good few
>>undemocratic regimes/factions (Khmer Rouge, Iraq, etc)... until events turn,
>>and suddenly we had nothing to do with them after all...
And Poland during the second World War. And there are, I believe,
10,000 British Troops in Bosnia. The armed forecs continually complain
that they are stretched to the limit policing various conflicts in the
world. Just because we don't hear about them day to day doesn't mean
it doesn't happen.
> Since when has a third world loan (Many of which have to be written
>off) been counted as exploitation?
>
>> Our own country is an environmental shambles with excessive pollution,
>>and squandered resources. We build roads through green belt areas and raze
>>Scottish mountains to do it with. We drop acid rain on scandanavian forests
>>and complain about EC directives which expect us to clean up our act.
>>
> If it is impossible to get population under control (because of
>public choices to allow immigration)
There was a recent thread in this group on exactly this issue. My
recollection of its final conlusion, is that immigration, has
virtually no effect on the size of the population.
> then unless you want grid-lock
>in the traffic system, it is necessary to put roads through green
>belt areas. Whats wrong with that anyway?
There are a number of alternative strategies to building more and more
roads. Most attractive is increasing the use of public transport. I
know this isn't a fashionable opinion in government at the moment, but
it is still a perfectly good alternative.
Roads only seem to be a cost effective alternative because of the huge
subsidies they recieve from central government. This means that users
don't pay the full cost (or anything like it) of using roads, which
contrasts strongly with railways which recieve no subsidy. Look at
France for an example of much superior rail network, that is given a
chance to compete on an even footing with roads.
Roads are built through green valeys because the cost-benefit
evaluation strategy used in the evaluation of alternative cites places
no value on the valley. Building through towns, or any built up areas,
are costed at the amount of money required to buy all the property that
is in the way. Hence whenever a road is built, if a National Park or
Special Site of Scientific Interest (SSSI) exists in the area then
inevitably the road will be routed through it. If I recall correctly,
Sutherland in his excellent book `Irrationallity' high-lights this as
an example of a good technique applied badly.
>> The bottom line is that I am NOT proud to be British. I love Britain,
>>don't get me wrong, and I think that for lots of reasons it's a it's a great
>>place to live (although it's being progressively wrecked, and may be
>>getting worse).
>> It's just that I can't think of anything that I would say to someone from
>>a non-european nation which would make me feel proud to say "I'm British"
Don't be so despondent. We still have the BBC; the highest level of
patents/person in the world; one of the most pervasive cultures which
includes a hugely successful music industry, great authors, actors,
commedians etc. Not bad for a small country. I'm sure others will
think of many other things which we can still be proud of.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
/ #include <std_disclaimer> Email : a...@uk.ac.aber /
\ Alan Dyke, Computer Science Department, University of Wales, Aberystwyth \
/ ---===--- Jump of a cliff ... 20000 lemmings can't all be wrong ---===--- /
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Matthew Huntbach
> thought.
>
> and exploitation of other countries and cultures. Britain is, for example,
> responsible for the non-existence of a Kurdish state, and for the existence
> of Kuwait (what WAS the point of this country anyway?).
> Our various governments down the years have been wonderfully unresponsive
> to things which don't affect the national interest (eg China into Tibet,
> Serbia's involvement in Bosnia, Indonesia into E.Timor, etc) regardless
> of the morality of events.
I do not know why you had to add "more specifically England".
In fact I think if you checked up you'd find a rather high
proportion of non-English Brits among colonialists. But, of
course, these days being a non-English Brit really means you
have drawn "first prize in the raffle of life", because you can
have all the benefits of being British, but place all the guilt
and blame on "the English".
Anyway, yours sounds like a typical case of English self-hatred. If
you look in the past you find that history consists almost entirely
of nations invading, colonialising, enslaving and raping each
other. But only we British, sorry, English, are supposed to
feel guilty about it.
There are well over a hundred nations in the world, most of
which don't feel the need to intervene in far-flung places
where nasty things are happening. But only we British, sorry
English, are supposed to feel guilty about not intervening. A
hundred years or so ago, of course we did intervene in such
things, naively supposing that knocking a few heads together,
putting an unbiased Briton in control, and importing a bit of
British culture would solve the problems of peoples wanting to
do horrible things to each other. We are supposed to feel
guilty about that as well.
Matthew Huntbach
min...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
>
> In article <1993Aug2.2...@vax.oxford.ac.uk>, min...@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>
> |> Our various governments down the years have been wonderfully unresponsive to
> |> things which don't affect the national interest (eg China into Tibet, Serbia's
> |> involvement in Bosnia, Indonesia into E.Timor, etc) regardless of the morality
> |> of events.
>
> So it is good to do things which affect national interest?
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. My point is that we as a nation ( or maybe,
I suppose, more specifically the British gov't) don't protest or get
involved unless 'the national interest' is affected. I cannot feel proud
to be British if we only intervene when WE are affected, but not when there
are (for example) clear violations of the human rights of other nationals.
As an example, I just recieved a statement from my MP of the gov't policy
towards Tibet. It's a pile of wishy-washy trash. A kind of 'well, we
don't feel the Chinese are right, and we would like to see self-
determination in Tibet, but it would upset the Chinese, and in any case
it's not really of any importance 'coz it's only a couple of million
peasants....' document. It hedges its bets so that whatever happens
there we support whoever's in power.
It's wet, timid, spineless, and does nothing to make me feel proud to be
British.
>
> |> As a people, I believe we're becoming more materialistic and selfish. We
> |> care very little for the nations that we exploit (third world loans spring
> |> to mind as an example),
> |
>
> Giving loans to other countries is defintely in our National
> Interest....and that's what you want.
>
No, what I want is to see this country show some kind of humanity to
third world countries that we can be proud of. I don't say that this is
intrinsically wrong. It clearly isn't. But to have thrown loan after
loans at them which they had little hope of ever repaying, as our banks
did in the 70's may be in our (economic) interest, but is not something
to be proud of.
That was the point of my original post - that I don't, at the moment,
believe that I can think of any reason for me to be proud to be British.
>
>
>
> PS I'll fix my news reader pronto...
> --
> | Please....only email me if you have something nice to say|
> | |
> | ba0...@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu - 1:260/465@1 |
Gavin
Curt Marcus
>In article <1993Aug2.2...@vax.oxford.ac.uk> min...@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>>
>> Been thinking about this for a few days, and wondered what other folk
>> thought.
>> The following four paragraphs are just a few examples of my thoughts,
>> I may be wrong in some details, but I'm not really posting this to discuss
>> the details of the things in them, but just coming to a very general
>> conclusion. Please bear with me, or feel free to skip them.
>>
>>
>> The UK (probably more specifically England, but that's beside the point for
>> the moment) has an appauling history when it comes to the colonialism and
>> exploitation of other countries and cultures. Britain is, for example,
>> responsible for the non-existence of a Kurdish state, and for the existence
>> of Kuwait (what WAS the point of this country anyway?).
>
> If the history is so appauling, then why do ex-colonies have the
>best civilization and stability.
>Compare the U.S. with Mexico and ex-spanish colony or Brazil an ex-
>portuguese colony. Or if you don`t like using the U.S. for a comparison
>then take Australia, New Zealand or Canada.
>(Or even compare the ex-british colonies in Africa with the non-ex-british.)
Yes, like South Africa, Rhodesia, Uganda, the Sudan: models of civilisation
and stability every one of them.
---
========================================================================
Curt Marcus, Jr. | French lawyers shouldn't write notes in the
cu...@ttsi.tandem.com | margins of math books. I have a perfectly
| wonderful proof of this, but this .signature
My opinions are my own. | file is too small to contain it.
K Stephen
>In article <1993Aug2.2...@vax.oxford.ac.uk> min...@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>>
>> Been thinking about this for a few days, and wondered what other folk
>> thought.
>>
>> The UK (probably more specifically England, but that's beside the point
>> forthe moment) has an appauling history when it comes to the colonialism
>> and exploitation of other countries and cultures. Britain is, for example,
>> responsible for the non-existence of a Kurdish state, and for the existence
>> of Kuwait (what WAS the point of this country anyway?).
>> Our various governments down the years have been wonderfully unresponsive
>> to things which don't affect the national interest (eg China into Tibet,
>> Serbia's involvement in Bosnia, Indonesia into E.Timor, etc) regardless
>> of the morality of events.
>I do not know why you had to add "more specifically England".
>In fact I think if you checked up you'd find a rather high
>proportion of non-English Brits among colonialists. But, of
>course, these days being a non-English Brit really means you
>have drawn "first prize in the raffle of life", because you can
>have all the benefits of being British, but place all the guilt
>and blame on "the English".
I agree. You cannot be 'British' and simultaneously say 'Oh well it was
the English Brits who are/were responsible'. However if you feel you are
Welsh, Irish or Scottish and do not feel British at all, then you can
evade the guilt. Those non-English Brits who participated in the British
Empire were usually trying to be British and not Scottish etc. They were
acting for themselves and the empire.
To my knowledge there has been no Welsh colonialism, no Irish
colonialism (except for Dalriada which was a long time ago) and no
Scottish colonialism (except for yon episode in central America just
before the Union!). All other acts of colonialism have been for
'Britain' or self.
>Anyway, yours sounds like a typical case of English self-hatred. If
>you look in the past you find that history consists almost entirely
>of nations invading, colonialising, enslaving and raping each
>other. But only we British, sorry, English, are supposed to
>feel guilty about it.
NO!
It is not just the British who should feel guilty!
Taking that line is just making excuses to avoid guilt (if guilt is
required).
>There are well over a hundred nations in the world, most of
>which don't feel the need to intervene in far-flung places
>where nasty things are happening. But only we British, sorry
>English, are supposed to feel guilty about not intervening. A
>hundred years or so ago, of course we did intervene in such
>things, naively supposing that knocking a few heads together,
>putting an unbiased Briton in control, and importing a bit of
>British culture would solve the problems of peoples wanting to
>do horrible things to each other. We are supposed to feel
>guilty about that as well.
>Matthew Huntbach
Are you naively supposing that those interventions were for the good of
the natives? Previous interventions by the British government and her
majesty's armed forces were usually to protect trade routes, trade
markets and sources of cheap labour and material. That is why there
should be guilt attached to Britain.
However, it is not so much that the inhabitants of the British Isles(*)
should feel guilty per se, it is just that if you are going to wave a
flag about (British or English) then you should be aware of what that
flag means. To say that Britain or England is great requires the
conscious knowledge of what Britain and England have done to make
themselves great.
* I said the whole of the Isles because Ireland was in 'union' with
Britain a hundred years ago. Therefore if you are Irish, Welsh or
Scottish you share the same guilt of what some of our ancestors did for
Britain at that time. However it is those who consider themselves
British/English who should be more aware of what has been done and feel
more guilt when announcing their nationalism.
This should get a few flames.
Karl Stephen
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Proud to be British?
References: <1993Aug2.2...@vax.oxford.ac.uk> <CB6n6...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
To: m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Proud to be British?
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
References: <1993Aug2.2...@vax.oxford.ac.uk> <CB6n6...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
In soc.culture.british you write:
>In article <1993Aug2.2...@vax.oxford.ac.uk> min...@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>>
>> Been thinking about this for a few days, and wondered what other folk
>> thought.
>>
>> The UK (probably more specifically England, but that's beside the point
>> forthe moment) has an appauling history when it comes to the colonialism
>> and exploitation of other countries and cultures. Britain is, for example,
>> responsible for the non-existence of a Kurdish state, and for the existence
>> of Kuwait (what WAS the point of this country anyway?).
>> Our various governments down the years have been wonderfully unresponsive
>> to things which don't affect the national interest (eg China into Tibet,
>> Serbia's involvement in Bosnia, Indonesia into E.Timor, etc) regardless
>> of the morality of events.
>I do not know why you had to add "more specifically England".
>In fact I think if you checked up you'd find a rather high
>proportion of non-English Brits among colonialists. But, of
>course, these days being a non-English Brit really means you
>have drawn "first prize in the raffle of life", because you can
>have all the benefits of being British, but place all the guilt
>and blame on "the English".
I agree. You cannot be 'British' and simultaneously say 'Oh well it was
the English Brits who are/were responsible'. However if you feel you are
Welsh, Irish or Scottish and do not feel British at all, then you can
evade the guilt. Those non-English Brits who participated in the British
Empire were usually trying to be British and not Scottish etc. They were
acting for themselves and the empire.
To my knowledge there has been no Welsh colonialism, no Irish
colonialism (except for Dalriada which was a long time ago) and no
Scottish colonialism (except for yon episode in central America just
before the Union!). All other acts of colonialism have been for
'Britain' or self.
>Anyway, yours sounds like a typical case of English self-hatred. If
>you look in the past you find that history consists almost entirely
>of nations invading, colonialising, enslaving and raping each
>other. But only we British, sorry, English, are supposed to
>feel guilty about it.
NO!
It is not just the British who should feel guilty!
Taking that line is just making excuses to avoid guilt (if guilt is
required).
>There are well over a hundred nations in the world, most of
>which don't feel the need to intervene in far-flung places
>where nasty things are happening. But only we British, sorry
>English, are supposed to feel guilty about not intervening. A
>hundred years or so ago, of course we did intervene in such
>things, naively supposing that knocking a few heads together,
>putting an unbiased Briton in control, and importing a bit of
>British culture would solve the problems of peoples wanting to
>do horrible things to each other. We are supposed to feel
>guilty about that as well.
>Matthew Huntbach
Are you naively supposing that those interventions were for the good of
the natives? Previous interventions by the British government and her
majesty's armed forces were usually to protect trade routes, trade
markets and sources of cheap labour and material. That is why there
should be guilt attached to Britain.
However, it is not so much that the inhabitants of the British Isles(*)
should feel guilty per se, it is just that if you are going to wave a
flag about (British or English) then you should be aware of what that
flag means. To say that Britain or England is great requires the
conscious knowledge of what Britain and England have done to make
themselves great.
* I said the whole of the Isles because Ireland was in 'union' with
Britain a hundred years ago. Therefore if you are Irish, Welsh or
Scottish you share the same guilt of what some of our ancestors did for
Britain at that time. However it is those who consider themselves
British/English who should be more aware of what has been done and feel
more guilt when announcing their nationalism.
This should get a few flames.
Karl Stephen
David Garrod
>In article K...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu, gar...@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
>>In article <1993Aug2.2...@vax.oxford.ac.uk> min...@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>>>
>>> Been thinking about this for a few days, and wondered what other folk
>>> thought.
>>> The following four paragraphs are just a few examples of my thoughts,
>>> I may be wrong in some details, but I'm not really posting this to discuss
>>> the details of the things in them, but just coming to a very general
>>> conclusion. Please bear with me, or feel free to skip them.
>>>
>>>
>>> The UK (probably more specifically England, but that's beside the point for
>>> the moment) has an appauling history when it comes to the colonialism and
>>> exploitation of other countries and cultures. Britain is, for example,
>>> responsible for the non-existence of a Kurdish state, and for the existence
>>> of Kuwait (what WAS the point of this country anyway?).
>>
>> If the history is so appauling, then why do ex-colonies have the
>>best civilization and stability.
>>portuguese colony. Or if you don`t like using the U.S. for a comparison
>>then take Australia, New Zealand or Canada.
>>(Or even compare the ex-british colonies in Africa with the non-ex-british.)
>
>Yes, like South Africa, Rhodesia, Uganda, the Sudan: models of civilisation
>and stability every one of them.
>
>cu...@ttsi.tandem.com | margins of math books. I have a perfectly
> | wonderful proof of this, but this .signature
>
I said compare the ex-English Africa countries with the non-ex-english
ones.
I still think the ex-english african countries compare favorably.....
ex-french Mozambique.....communist...civil war....relatively more poverty.
quasi-ex-U.S. Liberia....civil war.
ex-Italian Somalia....civil war....gun politics....no government
Ex-english Tanzania, South Africa, Kenya.....don`t look so bad by comparison!
Andrew Clarke
Australian version of English self-hatred at the moment -- the English
poisoned the Aborigines, chopped down all the trees, raped the Earth
Goddess, etc., etc. (which didn't stop the Irish, Scots & Welsh joining in
the fun). I often suggest to these people that if they are so ashamed of
what their disgusting British ancestors they only have to go to the
nearest Qantas office and buy a ticket back to Europe, and on their way
they can pop in at the solicitors and transfer their house and
quarter-acre block to the appropriate Aboriginal Lands Council. I regret to
say that so far I have had no takers ...
Though glad to leave the UK in '61 I still feel English/British in many
ways: I often feel however that coming to Australia has made me
considerably less insular, because of the large numbers of other
nationalities I've met here. I'd call myself a patriot (love of country)
rather than a nationalist. It does hurt when so many icons of the British
past crumble into dust, often in the most humiliating fashion, e.g. the
House of Windsor, cricket, the motor industry ("oncosts start south of
Leicester" said the man who started Leyland Motors), or when one reads of
slabs of once proud if grimy areas of the Midlands and North turning into
nasty imitations of the Bronx. What is tolerated in the Bronx, is shocking
in the UK: we don't expect it to happen there. English druggies are
supposed to be like arch-fraud John Lennon, not unemployable teenage tyre
slashers who stab to death anyone who gets in their way.
Andrew Clarke
ex Thurstonland, West Riding
Harlow New Town
Llanishen, Monmouth, Clearwell
cho...@vms.ocom.okstate.edu
> In article <1993Aug2.2...@vax.oxford.ac.uk>, min...@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>>
>>
>> thought.
>> The following four paragraphs are just a few examples of my thoughts,
>> I may be wrong in some details, but I'm not really posting this to discuss
>> the details of the things in them, but just coming to a very general
>> conclusion. Please bear with me, or feel free to skip them.
>>
>>
>> The UK (probably more specifically England, but that's beside the point for
>> the moment) has an appauling history when it comes to the colonialism and
>> exploitation of other countries and cultures. Britain is, for example,
>> responsible for the non-existence of a Kurdish state, and for the existence
>> of Kuwait (what WAS the point of this country anyway?).
>>
>
> Lynda (A Brit on the loose in American - AND PROUD OF IT!!!)
After there ceremonious hand wringing has ended, I would like to ask
whether **any country** can be held blameless, even Denmark will be held to
task by future geologists for causing the Lego strata layer which coincided
with the demise of Homo sapiens.
I think that if someone is that bummed out about their own country,
especially Britain (which in giving Penicillin to the public domain not
only saved and liberated an enormous amount of people from unnecessary pain
and death, but also snaped the Americans;-), they should find a country
which could be held to their high standards and go live there. (Sweden,
surely not, they have a terrible history, and can't abide Mexicans or Finns
. Japan? no certainly besides their recent history, they have a terribly
racist attitude to the Burakumin. Tibet? .... I suppose the Marshall
Islands might qualify.) I suppose if you follow Mark Holohan's advice, you
have the choice of the soon to be created people's republic of (Ireland
minus the protestants) or the Virtuous state of Argentina.
DNC
Matthew Huntbach
>I said compare the ex-English Africa countries with the non-ex-english
>ones.
>
>I still think the ex-english african countries compare favorably.....
>
>ex-french Mozambique.....communist...civil war....relatively more poverty.
Mozambique was Portugese. I would say the French ex-colonies on
balance have a better record than the British ex-colonies.
Matthew Huntbach
G P Nason
>House of Windsor, cricket, the motor industry ("oncosts start south of
I thought Rover were doing very well these days.
--
Guy Nason
Statistics Group
School of Mathematical Sciences
University of Bath
K Stephen
>In article <CB8C...@festival.ed.ac.uk> kste...@castle.ed.ac.uk (K Stephen) writes:
>>>There are well over a hundred nations in the world, most of
>>>which don't feel the need to intervene in far-flung places
>>>where nasty things are happening. But only we British, sorry
>>>English, are supposed to feel guilty about not intervening. A
>>>hundred years or so ago, of course we did intervene in such
>>>things, naively supposing that knocking a few heads together,
>>>putting an unbiased Briton in control, and importing a bit of
>>>British culture would solve the problems of peoples wanting to
>>>do horrible things to each other. We are supposed to feel
>>>guilty about that as well.
>>
>>Are you naively supposing that those interventions were for the good of
>>the natives? Previous interventions by the British government and her
>>majesty's armed forces were usually to protect trade routes, trade
>>markets and sources of cheap labour and material. That is why there
>>should be guilt attached to Britain.
>>
>No, but I am saying that one should be careful about
>superimposing today's concerns on the people of yesterday. An
>anti-colonialist rhetoric in which colonialism was seen
>entirely in terms of oppression and exploitation has grown up,
>and was perhaps necessary to counter the pro-imnperialists
>propaganda that used to circulate (but now never does - even
>political right-wingers tend to be "Little Englanders" rather
>than Imperialists), however, both are one-sided views of the
>situation. It is racist to excuse the atrocities that occurred
>under native despots in the colonies immediately before British
>rule, but to impose a heavy guilt feeling on Britons for what
>was done by their ancestors.
BUt is is also wrong to say, 'oh well the fuzzy wuzzies are better off,
even if we have to make an example of a few to keep 'em in order'.
Look at India. The people of India had the right to be ruled by their
own people and choose their own culture. Britain did not have the right
to rule them or inflict culture upon them. You can say the same about
Ireland, Scotland or any other country which England/Britain has
dominated.
No-one has the right to change another man's culture, no matter how
different it is.
>If one looks at the records of the times, for example
>parliamentary debates, one will see that colonialism had a
>mixture of motivations. Defence of trade routes was certainly
>one, but another was a genuine belief to "spread
>enlightenment", which in practice, of course meant a
>heavy-handed imposition of British values. Are we really very
>much better today with our heavy-handed imposition of trashy
>western consumer culture the whole world over, or our
>insistence that every nation joins in the western-dominated
>free market economy?
That is wrong. See above.
>On intervention it is very much the case that one man's
>humanitarian intervention to prevent loss of life is another's
>cynical exploitation of the situation for self-interested
>purposes. Even in Bosnia, while some are decrying the West for
>not intervening more forcefully, others are already condemning
>westen intervention as unwarranted neo-imperialist
>interference.
>Matthew Huntbach
If one group of people asks for protection from the West then (as in
Iraq) it should be given. However, the West cannot invade Bosnia because
of it. It is still another country. How would Britons feel if there was
an invasion of Northern Ireland by (a hypothetically) military Republic
of Ireland? Of course the scale of violence is several orders of
magnitude greater in Bosnia but there is analogy.
It is not Britain's right to dictate the politics and culture of another
country, that in itself is wrong.
Look at Russia for example. In 1917, the people of Russia decided that
they wanted change. They had a revolution. The British (and other
European governents) saw a threat to their own selves and practically
invaded Russia to support the White Guard. How many extra years of
famine were the Russians forced to endure because the British sought to
influence who ruled Russia? Who knows what would have happened had there
been no support for the Whites. Would the Reds have been able to
dominate so?
Karl Stephen
Robert Firth
>Look at Russia for example. In 1917, the people of Russia decided that
>they wanted change. They had a revolution. The British (and other
>European governents) saw a threat to their own selves and practically
>invaded Russia to support the White Guard.
You seem to have forgotten some history. Yes, in 1917 the Russians
wanted change. They wanted a constitutional, democratic government.
They got one, headed by a man called Kerensky. It was this government
- the only elected government in Russian history - that was overthrown
by a bunch of armed thugs led by Vladimir Ulanov (alias "Lenin") and
Lev Bronstein (alias "Trotsky").
It was in support of the legitimate government of Russia that the West
first intervened.
Alan Dyke
> ... And there are, I believe,
> 10,000 British Troops in Bosnia. ...
My mistake the figure is actually 3,400. (I thought I'd get in there
before someone else did.)
Matthew Huntbach
>BUt is is also wrong to say, 'oh well the fuzzy wuzzies are better off,
>even if we have to make an example of a few to keep 'em in order'.
>Look at India. The people of India had the right to be ruled by their
>own people and choose their own culture. Britain did not have the right
>to rule them or inflict culture upon them.
I am not saying that it was right. I am saying that bad things
can be done with good intentions, and that colonialism was done
through a mixture of intentions. Mostly I am saying that to
paint Britain as uniquely evil is plain illogical unless one is
going to take the position that only white people are capable
of evil.
>
>If one group of people asks for protection from the West then (as in
>Iraq) it should be given.
Ah, but this is my point. What constitutes "one group of
people" sufficient so that if it asks for "protection" that
protection may be given? The history of the British Empire is
full of examples of Britain intervening on request to "protect"
one group, with the "protectorate" turning into a full scale
colony. What might in one light be interpreted as a noble
intervention to protect an oppressed minority might in another
be interpreted as typical colonial divide and conquer tactics.
Matthew Huntbach
Dick Jackson
>
>I thought Rover were doing very well these days.
Stateside speaking-wise, we have regular consumer poll results from
the J.D.Powers agency (did I get this right?) on satisfaction with
various car brands. A few months ago Jaguar made it into the top ten.
For a long time Jaguar had a reputation of being a nice car, but the
kind where you needed to also own a Toyota to take care of your driving
needs when the Jag was under repair.
Dick Jackson
David Garrod
Of course, Haiti, Vietnam, have great records of democracy and per
capita income!
K Stephen
>In article <CBACu...@festival.ed.ac.uk> kste...@castle.ed.ac.uk (K Stephen) writes:
>>m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>>BUt is is also wrong to say, 'oh well the fuzzy wuzzies are better off,
>>even if we have to make an example of a few to keep 'em in order'.
>>Look at India. The people of India had the right to be ruled by their
>>own people and choose their own culture. Britain did not have the right
>>to rule them or inflict culture upon them.
>I am not saying that it was right. I am saying that bad things
>can be done with good intentions, and that colonialism was done
>through a mixture of intentions.
Well I am not aware of any which have been for good intentions.
>Mostly I am saying that to
>paint Britain as uniquely evil is plain illogical unless one is
>going to take the position that only white people are capable
>of evil.
Yes that is fair enough.
>>If one group of people asks for protection from the West then (as in
>>Iraq) it should be given.
>Ah, but this is my point. What constitutes "one group of
>people" sufficient so that if it asks for "protection" that
>protection may be given? The history of the British Empire is
>full of examples of Britain intervening on request to "protect"
>one group, with the "protectorate" turning into a full scale
>colony. What might in one light be interpreted as a noble
>intervention to protect an oppressed minority might in another
>be interpreted as typical colonial divide and conquer tactics.
Well to me it was plain that the kurds were an oppressed group under Saadam
Hussein. They needed help. Far more than Kuwait did. The only difference
was that Kuwait has access to oil. That smacks of imperialism to me.
Anyone can argue that helping an oppressed group within a country is
dividing that country.
It seems to me that you are arguing that Britons are absolved of guilt
for the colonial acts committed by the Empire because
1) not all acts were terrible,
2) other countries committed worse acts.
You do not forgove a murderer because he was once a war hero.
You do not forgive a first time murderer because someone else has
murdered twice.
Of course whether or not Joe average Briton should feel guilty depends
on whether he feels strongly nationalistic. You have to be aware of what
has been done in the name of your country before you wave your flag!
Karl Stephen
brou...@nicad3.nic.bc.ca
>
> Mozambique was Portugese. I would say the French ex-colonies on
> balance have a better record than the British ex-colonies.
>
Algeria, Haiti?
Simeon Broughton, Manager, Computer Services. (604)334-5254
North Island College, 2300 Ryan Road, Courtenay, B.C. V9N 8N6. CANADA
brou...@nic.bc.ca
Stefan Llewellyn-Smith
Most of the rest:
Morocco, Tunisia, Mauritania, Mali, Chad, Central African Republic, French Congo,
Ivory Coast, Djibouti, Comore Islands*, Madagascar
Syria, Lebanon (post First World War carve-up of the Ottoman Empire with Britain)
Reunion Island*, Mauritius (joint with Britain ?)
Laos, Cambodia
New Hebrides*, New Caledonia, New Britain (with Britain), French Polynesia*
French Guyana*, Martinique*, Guadeloupe*
St. Pierre et Miquelon*
The starred names are still closely linked to France (DOM or TOMS, ie Departements
or Territoires d'Outremer). A few precisions:
New Caledonia is due for independence round about 1997, after Kanak protests in
the late 1980s. The French lack of enthusiasm for negotiation may be traced to the
MASSIVE nickel deposits of the island.
The fishermen of St. Pierre et Miquelon (just off Canada) still get into trouble
with the Newfoundland fishermen.
French Guyana has a rocket launch site, but they closed down Devil's Island, the
notorious prison camp.
Half of the Comore Islands are independent. The rest are French. The Comore
Islands are the world's largest vanilla producer. Or maybe cloves. One of the two.
Matthew Huntbach
>>which don't feel the need to intervene in far-flung places
>>where nasty things are happening. But only we British, sorry
>>English, are supposed to feel guilty about not intervening. A
>>hundred years or so ago, of course we did intervene in such
>>things, naively supposing that knocking a few heads together,
>>putting an unbiased Briton in control, and importing a bit of
>>British culture would solve the problems of peoples wanting to
>>do horrible things to each other. We are supposed to feel
>>guilty about that as well.
>
>the natives? Previous interventions by the British government and her
>majesty's armed forces were usually to protect trade routes, trade
>markets and sources of cheap labour and material. That is why there
>should be guilt attached to Britain.
>
superimposing today's concerns on the people of yesterday. An
anti-colonialist rhetoric in which colonialism was seen
entirely in terms of oppression and exploitation has grown up,
and was perhaps necessary to counter the pro-imnperialists
propaganda that used to circulate (but now never does - even
political right-wingers tend to be "Little Englanders" rather
than Imperialists), however, both are one-sided views of the
situation. It is racist to excuse the atrocities that occurred
under native despots in the colonies immediately before British
rule, but to impose a heavy guilt feeling on Britons for what
was done by their ancestors.
If one looks at the records of the times, for example
parliamentary debates, one will see that colonialism had a
mixture of motivations. Defence of trade routes was certainly
one, but another was a genuine belief to "spread
enlightenment", which in practice, of course meant a
heavy-handed imposition of British values. Are we really very
much better today with our heavy-handed imposition of trashy
western consumer culture the whole world over, or our
insistence that every nation joins in the western-dominated
free market economy?
On intervention it is very much the case that one man's
brou...@nicad3.nic.bc.ca
> It seems to me that you are arguing that Britons are absolved of guilt
> for the colonial acts committed by the Empire because
>
for things that happened 100+ years back.
Geoff Landergan
>In the article, a...@libserver.canberra.edu.au (Andrew Clarke) writes:
>>House of Windsor, cricket, the motor industry ("oncosts start south of
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I thought Rover were doing very well these days.
>--
>Guy Nason
Yeah, all praise the mighty Yen :-( .
--
Geoff Landergan geo...@kells.demon.co.uk
Mitcham, Surrey, UK
+44 81 715 1216
Matthew Huntbach
in Africa. In any case, Haiti got its independence before the
colonial era, and as for what happened in Vietnam, well you
Yanks can tell us more about that.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
>It seems to me that you are arguing that Britons are absolved of guilt
>for the colonial acts committed by the Empire because
>1) not all acts were terrible,
>2) other countries committed worse acts.
>
>You do not forgove a murderer because he was once a war hero.
>You do not forgive a first time murderer because someone else has
>murdered twice.
>
murderer himself is dead. You are falling into the classic trap
of supposing that guilt is hereditary.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
>In article <CBA06...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>>
>> Mozambique was Portugese. I would say the French ex-colonies on
>> balance have a better record than the British ex-colonies.
>>
>What were the french ones? All I can think of is Vietnam,
>Algeria, Haiti?
Mauritania, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Dahomey (now Benin), Central African
Republic (hmm, well I did say "on balance") etc.
Matthew Huntbach
David Wheeler
>It seems to me that you are arguing that Britons are absolved of guilt
>for the colonial acts committed by the Empire because
>1) not all acts were terrible,
>2) other countries committed worse acts.
3) All the people who committed those acts in Britain's name are long
since dead.
>You do not forgove a murderer because he was once a war hero.
>You do not forgive a first time murderer because someone else has
>murdered twice.
You do not automatically assume that because a man is a murderer, so,
therefore, must his son be. Or is it right to continue to punish the
son for the father's crime?
>Of course whether or not Joe average Briton should feel guilty depends
>on whether he feels strongly nationalistic. You have to be aware of what
>has been done in the name of your country before you wave your flag!
I am aware of what happened in colonial times. I don't feel proud of it,
in fact I deplore many of the actions of our forefathers, but I'm damned
if I feel guilty about it; I wasn't there, and did not perpetrate any of
the outrages. It doesn't stop me from being proud of being English. I
have as much right to that as natives of other countries have to being
proud of their own nationality, no more, no less.
-----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wheeler, Motorola Ltd., Camberley, Surrey, England
TUK...@maccvm.corp.mot.com
K Stephen
How about 80 years, 50 years, 30 years, 10 years????
When do you draw the line? Are you nationalist (British/English)?
If so how do you feel about the Empire? Do you look to it nostalgically?
If I felt British or English it would be one period of my countries
history which I would like to forget.
Karl Stephen
K Stephen
>Matthew Huntbach
But in this case the 'muderer' is the country.
The point is that you cannot wave flags for that country and speak of
how great it was when it has this legacy of guilt behind it.
I do not expect any person from Britain to feel guilty just because he
is from Britain. He should only feel guilty if he is waving a flag, or
some other nationalistic activity.
Karl Stephen
Tony Rush
In article <CBC5M...@festival.ed.ac.uk> kste...@castle.ed.ac.uk (K Stephen) writes:
I do not expect any person from Britain to feel guilty just because he
is from Britain. He should only feel guilty if he is waving a flag, or
some other nationalistic activity.
Are there any countries where you wouldn't apply this rule, or is it just for
the UK?
Tony
Matthew Huntbach
>how great it was when it has this legacy of guilt behind it.
>I do not expect any person from Britain to feel guilty just because he
>is from Britain. He should only feel guilty if he is waving a flag, or
>some other nationalistic activity.
>
like saying 'my mother, drunk or sober'". I have not seen
anyone here saying that one should unquestionably glorify
everything that has ever been done in the name of Britain. What
started it was a suggestion that Britain was exceptionally bad,
which seemed to me to be ludicrous. In the past it was supposed
that Britain had reached the pinnacle of civilisation and the
rest of the world would benefit if it were to impose its
culture on it (including the benefits of "free trade", which
just happened to involve exporting local raw materials in
return for British manufactured goods...). Now of course we
regard such attitudes as ludicrous - we would not dream of the
leading world nation imposing its culture and economic
views on the rest of the world*. However it was equally not that
long ago in other parts of the world thought the correct thing
to do if one won a war with opponents at best to put them into
slavery, at worst to put them to the sword.
Feeking guilty about our nation appears to be a uniquely
British trait. The point I was trying to make was made quite
well in an article in yesterday's "Daily Telegraph": while what
is happening in Bosnia is terrible and does deserve
international action, why should we in Britain be made to feel
particularly guilty about it when we are further from it and
poorer than several other European nations none of which shows
the slightest inclination to want to get involved nor any guilt
feelings about not getting involved.
Matthew Huntbach
* usual s.c.b rules on punctuation apply
David Wheeler
> I do not expect any person from Britain to feel guilty just because he
> is from Britain. He should only feel guilty if he is waving a flag, or
> some other nationalistic activity.
So we don't have to feel guilty about being British. Oh, good, I am so
pleased about that. But we are not allowed to be proud of it.
Is this guy for real?
Frank K Bowles
have pride in where one happened to be born. I understand being proud
- if I do a good job, or pass an exam or achieve something else, I feel
good about that and that is pride.
History is hardly something you can feel achievement or shame for. I
don't blame young Germans for the Holocaust, not do I accept credit for
winning the war. These were different people, different times. Those
who stick out to fight battles for generations past, who bear grudges
against other nations, cities or religions or who seek to avenge
injustices to forefathers are the people who cause the Belfasts, the
Beiruts and the Sarajevos of this world.
I am very lucky to live where I do, with enough to eat, with civil
liberties, without the fear of machine guns, grenades, famine or
disease. Those are benefits of living in "the West", isolated from the
worst ravages of the world. But that doesn't make me proud, it makes
me grateful.
Nationalism for nationalism's sake, concerns and battles over
territories, frontiers and sovereignty, "if you're not with us, you're
against us" are to me the true evils of the world. I'm interested in a
Parliament for Scotland for example, but not because I was born here
(which I was, to English-born parents with a dash of Scots, Irish and
French in their blood) but because I want good government.
Posturing our nationalities and feeling proud of ourselves is a way of
saying "we're better than you" and is intrinsically confrontational and
the opposite of mutual understanding.
Frank
--
Frank K Bowles, BT Glasgow Systems & Software Engineering Centre,
West TEC, 24 Highburgh Road, Glasgow G12 9ND, Scotland.
Tel: +44 41 220 5338 Email: fbo...@gssec.bt.co.uk
Fax: +44 41 220 2438 [GM4KAV]
----------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions are not BT's. Any telecommunications information in this
message is from the public domain, not obtained as a result of my
employment.
ag...@ucs.cam.ac.uk
> balance have a better record than the British ex-colonies.
Senegal has a good record, but so do nearby Ghana and Gambia. Uganda has
a bad record, but so does the nearby Central African Republic. France
was known for using large numbers of inadequately trained and equipped
African soldiers in its foreign wars, which was less true of Britain.
If any one country has a record of disaster, it's Portugal (Mozambique,
Angola and Guinea). Are we all supposed to hate the modern Portugese
people for that? And let's not forget the huge area of the North
American continent colonised by the United States since its independence,
sending out armies if necessary to fight the original inhabitants.
There's not much difference between American and Afrikaaner 'Pioneers'.
Duncan Frissell
K>of the natives? Previous interventions by the British government and her
K>majesty's armed forces were usually to protect trade routes, trade
K>markets and sources of cheap labour and material. That is why there
K>should be guilt attached to Britain.
Only God is without sin. I must point out however that to the extent that
Brits smashed oriental despotisms they were benefitting mankind. The
reduction in slavery worldwide is largely because of British intervention.
"Keeping trade routes open" means preventing other governments from
oppressing their own people by not letting them trade with whomever they
cared to. "Protecting sources of cheap labour" means protecting the right
of poor people the world over to contract with foreign companies if those
companies pay more.
The regimes smashed by the Colonial Powers averaged much more despotic
than those Colonial Powers. Those ancient regimes were guilty of
continuous and brutal "human rights violations" and deserved to die.
The West did not invent "racism, sexism, or homophobia." The West
invented The Rights of Man. Western imperialism reduced the death
rate, the murder rate, improved the status of women, and increased
the average incomes wherever it went. Imperialist countries did it for
their own benefit of course and some imperialisms were better than others
but the illiberal societies of the ancient world practiced evils on the
scale of Nazi Germany. If you doubt this read how a "Water Empire" like
that of ancient China used to handle a rebellious province.
Remember, Salman Rushdie is not being threatened by the British Government
but rather is running into the arms of the government he claims to hate
for protection from the fruits of a way of life he considers superior.
Duncan Frissell
If some of you out there feel oppressed by Western Civilization, I want
you to get rid of your oppressive and degrading Western clothing and
return to the clothing of youtr ancestors, I want you to stop using
Western terms like freedom and rights -- you've just forfieted them, I
want all the women to have clitorectomies, I want you all to ask your
parents to pick a spouse for you. Oh, and 95% of you have to be peasants
bound to the soil. Have fun.
--- WinQwk 2.0b#0
Owen Lewis
>I would say the French ex-colonies on
>balance have a better record than the British ex-colonies.
You must be joking? Chad....Central African Republic.......
And whose liver did *you* have for lunch?
--
-= Owen Lewis =-
@
Tele/fax +44-(0)794-301731 ELOKA Consultancy & Project Management
o...@eloka.demon.co.uk
pgp 2.x public key on request
Sven Utcke
>>Of course whether or not Joe average Briton should feel guilty depends
>>on whether he feels strongly nationalistic. You have to be aware of what
>>has been done in the name of your country before you wave your flag!
>
>I am aware of what happened in colonial times. I don't feel proud of it,
>in fact I deplore many of the actions of our forefathers, but I'm damned
>if I feel guilty about it; I wasn't there, and did not perpetrate any of
>the outrages. It doesn't stop me from being proud of being English. I
>have as much right to that as natives of other countries have to being
>proud of their own nationality, no more, no less.
Thanks. Now I know what to answer any Englishman who thinks I should
feel guilty about what happened in Nazi-Germany, only because I'm
German.
Oh, or maybe the above does only hold for Britons?
Sven
Curt Marcus
Most of Africa was once French, divided between French West Africa and French
Equatorial Africa. I can't name all of them off the top of my head, but the
following were French colonies: Mauritania, Mali, Burkana Faso (Upper Volta),
Benin (Dahomey), Senegal, Niger, Chad, Central African Republic, Ivory Coast,
Morroco, Congo (Brazzaville, not Leopoldville which became Zaire), Cameroons,
Djibouti (French Somalia/Afars & Issas), Algeria (which you already named),
Malagasy Republic (Madagascar), Comorro Islands, Tunisia, Guinea (not Guinea-
Bissau, which was Portuguese Guinea), Gabon.
Outside of Africa: Lebanon, Syria, Haiti (which you already named), French
Indochina (which was divided into Vietnam [which you already named], Cambodia,
and Laos), several Indian ports which were eventually handed over to the
British, French Guiana, Martinique, Guadeloupe, St. Pierre & Miquelon, Reunion
Island, French Polynesia, not to mention Lower Canada (Quebec).
You could also toss Louisiana and Mexico into the list if you want to be
pedantic (Louisiana was never truly settled by the French, outside of New
Orleans; and the French possession of Mexico was very brief). The French
also had a VERY brief hold on Egypt.
---
========================================================================
Curt Marcus, Jr. | French lawyers shouldn't write notes in the
cu...@ttsi.tandem.com | margins of math books. I have a perfectly
| wonderful proof of this, but this .signature
My opinions are my own. | file is too small to contain it.
ag...@ucs.cam.ac.uk
>following were French colonies: Mauritania, Mali, Burkana Faso (Upper
Didn't they have a half share in Sudan, or something? I seem to remember
it being called "Anglo-French Sudan". It certainly had pink and blue
stripes on our old Daily Telegraph map of the world.
C R Pennell
Haiti?
Haiti has been independent since 1804, half a century or so before most of
the other territories which became French colonies were occupied.
Gosh this is a silly thread.
Richard Pennell History NUS
Andrew Clarke
sights in the world were a priest at the alter, a thief on the gibbet and
a beautiful woman in bed. IMHO Britain needs a lot more of all three ...
Andrew Clarke,
Aberdabbadw,
Fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffflint
"Wilmaaa ... Open this door ...... Wilma-aa-aa-aa .......................
Andrew Clarke
>Queen Isabella of Spain is supposed to have said that the three finest
David Brooks
>Queen Isabella of Spain is supposed to have said that the three finest
>sights in the world were a priest at the alter, a thief on the gibbet and
>a beautiful woman in bed.
How did Ferdinand react when she revealed this last proclivity?
--
David Brooks, Open Software Foundation dbr...@osf.org
"The fortunate and favored, it is more than evident, do not contemplate
and respond to their own longer-run well-being. Rather, they respond,
and powerfully, to immediate comfort and contentment." -- J.K.Galbraith
Andrew Clarke
>In the article, a...@libserver.canberra.edu.au (Andrew Clarke) writes:
>>House of Windsor, cricket, the motor industry ("oncosts start south of
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I thought Rover were doing very well these days.
>--
>Guy Nason
>School of Mathematical Sciences
>University of Bath
Aren't Rovers mechanically Japanese? If the company is doing better, I'll
be the first to applaud. One sees the occasional Rover in Australia, and a
few Jaguars, although I once met a Canberra mechanic who provided a motor
exchange service -- ripping the cantankerous Jaguar motor out and putting a
reliable brute-force General Motors product in.
The Leyland P76 -- supposed to be Britain's competitor in the Australian
big-6 league, was generally regarded as yet another BL marketing disaster.
They closed their Australian factory soon after. After the Mini, all British
marques were rapidly annihilated by the Japanese opposition.
I understand that BL, Ford & GM UK products now account for about 40% of
the UK domestic market. Yet Nissan Sunderland has levels of productivity
rivalling those of Nissan Japan.
I rest my case.
Andrew Clarke
Fragano Ledgister
Sudan was, until 1956, an Anglo-Egyptian condominium.
--
Dawn over the dark sea brings on the sun;
She leans across the hilltop: see, the light!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
fled...@weber.ucsd.edu
Fragano Ledgister
>a...@libserver.canberra.edu.au (Andrew Clarke) writes:
>>Queen Isabella of Spain is supposed to have said that the three finest
>>sights in the world were a priest at the alter, a thief on the gibbet and
>>a beautiful woman in bed.
>
>How did Ferdinand react when she revealed this last proclivity?
>--
He turned a new leaf, starting at the bottom of the page.
Matthew Huntbach
>I find the basis of this thread quite incomprehensible, that one should
>have pride in where one happened to be born. I understand being proud
>- if I do a good job, or pass an exam or achieve something else, I feel
>good about that and that is pride.
>
>
>Posturing our nationalities and feeling proud of ourselves is a way of
>saying "we're better than you" and is intrinsically confrontational and
>the opposite of mutual understanding.
>
states "I love my mother" is automatically guilty of hating
everyone else's mother. Most of us identify with the things
that surrounded us as we grew up - they were part of our
identity and they formed us. Maybe "pride" is the wrong word,
but I would certainly say that a sense of identity, with
families, communities, national culture and so on, is an
important part of being a well-balanced human being.
Part of the reason why I object to the "Britain is a horrible
place and we must all feel guilty about it" stand, is that I don't
actually believe it works as the "politically correct" want it
to. I think if one is brought up with a *healthy* respect for
one's own culture and way of life, one will have a respect for
other people's attachment to their cultures, and rejoice in the
diversity of the world. But the danger is that those denied a
legitimate cultural identity may end up constructing their own
essentially negative one, particularly if the only things they
are ever told about their own culture are negative. Thus we end
up with the absurdity of "British Nationalists" who cannot
conceive any idea of national culture except "we hate Pakis".
Matthew Huntbach
David Morning
>In soc.culture.british you write:
>>In article <1993Aug2.2...@vax.oxford.ac.uk> min...@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>>>
>To my knowledge there has been no Welsh colonialism, no Irish
>colonialism (except for Dalriada which was a long time ago) and no
>Scottish colonialism (except for yon episode in central America just
>before the Union!). All other acts of colonialism have been for
>'Britain' or self.
On the last point about Scottish colonialism, wasn't it mainly Scots who
colonised what is now Northern Ireland - particularly around Belfast - at
the behest of the British Government?
>This should get a few flames.
[Duplicate copy of article deleted]
You need to sort your editor out Karl!!!
Dave
--
Jim Reid
If any one country has a record of disaster, it's Portugal (Mozambique,
Angola and Guinea).
At least Portugal did the decent thing with Macao. They gave all the
Macaoans (sp?) Portugese passports, which entitles them to settle
anywhere in the EC. Contrast that with what Britain has done for the
people of Hong Kong.
Jim
Steve McKinty - SunConnect ICNC
>
> At least Portugal did the decent thing with Macao. They gave all the
> Macaoans (sp?) Portugese passports, which entitles them to settle
> anywhere in the EC. Contrast that with what Britain has done for the
> people of Hong Kong.
Just what the EC needs, more refugees to add to the unemployment lists.
I agree, it would be really nice if the UK could do something for them,
but charity begins at home & with 3m unemployed and 000's of homeless
people in the UK, don't they deserve the priority?
People in HK have known for almost 100 years that come 1997 Britain was legally obliged to surrender control to China. Why wait until now to
start screaming about it? Did they really think that if they behaved
themselves & kept their heads nicely in the sand the whole nasty problem
would be sorted out by someone else?
Steve
Mr J W Bottomley
min...@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
[ large amounts of middle-class self loathing deleted ]
1. Britain does not have a worse imperial record than other great powers
of the past or present. Our forbears did some pretty grim things to stay
on top, but not nearly as grim as the Spanish, Russians, Turks, French,
Germans and Yanks have done in their time. And I don't feel guilty about
a past imperialist phase which has nothing to do with me now. I _do_
urgently want to get rid of any post-imperialst hangovers we may have
lingering such as the House of Lords, the Church of England, Cricket and
so on.
2. Using the term `British' is part of the problem. Britain itself is
an imperial conquest, based on the subjugation by the English State/
Monarchy of Wales, Ireland and Scotland. (Ireland has partially escaped.)
The real point is, are you proud to be `English', `Welsh', `Scottish'
and so on. You won't make much progress by sticking with the British
stuff.
> The bottom line is that I am NOT proud to be British. I love Britain,
> don't get me wrong, and I think that for lots of reasons it's a it's a great
> place to live (although it's being progressively wrecked, and may be
> getting worse).
> It's just that I can't think of anything that I would say to someone from
> a non-european nation which would make me feel proud to say "I'm British"
I would say I am proud to be `English', and to give some examples:
- we stood up, alone in the World for a while, against Nazism
- our people have fought for greater democracy and respect for rights
for centuries
- we have one of the most civilized and cultured societies in the World
(although I agree that this is under attack)
- the intelligence and gifts of our people have led the world in many
fields.
- our countryside and towns are full of beauty. (also under threat, but
still there.)
--
++++++ And now a brief pause from netnoise for today's poet:
"Sit on my finger, Sing in my ear, O Littleblood" Ted Hughes
****** Today's Poet is a free service brought to you by: *****
Jim Bottomley: ce...@uk.ac.warwick.csv ; apj...@uk.ac.cov.cck
Mark Kemball
> Jim
This of course means that theoretically all 1,000,000 Macoans could come and
live in England - just the thing that the UK Government wants to avoid by
all appearances.
Mark Kemball
OHSU Office of Community Relations
3181 S.W. Sam Jackson Park Rd.
Portland, OR 97201-3098
(503) 494-7686
e-mail kemb...@ohsu.edu
Paul Taylor <pt@acl.icnet.uk>
>People in HK have known for almost 100 years that come 1997
> Britain was legally obliged to surrender control to China.
Not strictly true. Britain's leasehold on the New Territories runs out
in 1997. What happens after then was, and to an extent still is,
a matter for negociation.
brou...@nicad3.nic.bc.ca
> In article <1993Aug2.2...@vax.oxford.ac.uk>,
> min...@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>
>
> [ large amounts of middle-class self loathing deleted ]
>
> 1. Britain does not have a worse imperial record than other great powers
> of the past or present. Our forbears did some pretty grim things to stay
> on top, but not nearly as grim as the Spanish, Russians, Turks, French,
> Germans and Yanks have done in their time. And I don't feel guilty about
> a past imperialist phase which has nothing to do with me now. I _do_
Also lets not forget that our forbears were also doing some
pretty grim things to their own countrymen at the same time.
C R Pennell
nationalists by saying that nationalists believed in their country right or
wrong, while patriots wanted their country to be right.
I throw the floor open. . . .
Richard Pennell History NUS
mcsp...@dct.ac.uk
> min...@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>
>
>
> 1. Britain does not have a worse imperial record than other great powers
> of the past or present. Our forbears did some pretty grim things to stay
> on top, but not nearly as grim as the Spanish, Russians, Turks, French,
> Germans and Yanks have done in their time.
On balance, I think there is very little to be gained from trying to assess
whose imperial forebears were the least evil. Plenty of horrendous abuses of
humans rights were committed in the name of crown and country. Wether they
were more or less evil than those which were done in the name of other crowns
or countries is unimportant.
>And I don't feel guilty about
> a past imperialist phase which has nothing to do with me now.
I don't think you should either. However there seems to be a relutance in
Britain to face up to the reality of our past, things often seem to be covered
over with a comforting blanket of "Imperial grandeur and regal history".
This is by no means a purely British failing. The States and France seem to be
just as bad. Only Germany seems to have the guts to confront its history head
on, and even this attitude seems to be lessening.
>
> I would say I am proud to be `English', and to give some examples:
>
> - we stood up, alone in the World for a while, against Nazism
>
This is a grave misconception. I'm sure the members of the Free French
battalions, the Dutch resistance, the Polish pilots, the Czech partisans and
the Danish underground would resent the implication that they did not
stand up to Nazism. Not to mention the Irish, Scots, Welsh, Australian, Kiwi,
South African, Canadian, Indian and soldiers from the empire and the
commonwealth who were committed to the war against the Nazis within hours or
days of the British declaration of war.
> - our people have fought for greater democracy and respect for rights
> for centuries
>
> - we have one of the most civilized and cultured societies in the World
> (although I agree that this is under attack)
>
> - the intelligence and gifts of our people have led the world in many
> fields.
>
> - our countryside and towns are full of beauty. (also under threat, but
> still there.)
>
> --
> ++++++ And now a brief pause from netnoise for today's poet:
> "Sit on my finger, Sing in my ear, O Littleblood" Ted Hughes
> ****** Today's Poet is a free service brought to you by: *****
> Jim Bottomley: ce...@uk.ac.warwick.csv ; apj...@uk.ac.cov.cck
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Armstrong, DIT |"Nam bioadh agam fhin de storas
DUNDEE, SCOTLAND, | Da dheis aodaich, padhair bhrogan
mcsp...@dct.ac.uk | Agus m'fharadh bnith 'nam phoca
| 'Sann air Uibhist dheanainn seoladh."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank K Bowles
|> Part of the reason why I object to the "Britain is a horrible
|> place and we must all feel guilty about it" stand, is that I don't
|> actually believe it works as the "politically correct" want it
|> to. I think if one is brought up with a *healthy* respect for
|> one's own culture and way of life, one will have a respect for
|> other people's attachment to their cultures, and rejoice in the
|> diversity of the world. But the danger is that those denied a
|> legitimate cultural identity may end up constructing their own
|> essentially negative one, particularly if the only things they
|> are ever told about their own culture are negative. Thus we end
|> up with the absurdity of "British Nationalists" who cannot
|> conceive any idea of national culture except "we hate Pakis".
What Matthew says is absolutely correct - I neither feel pride nor
guilt about the country I live in, that doesn't mean I don't identify
with or respect 'my own' culture, or those of other people. This I
find a healthy approach to the community in which I live. In my
experience those who are proud of "coming from Glasgow" (for example)
resent those from Edinburgh, proud of being Protestant dislike
Catholics, proud of Scotland have a propensity to be anti-English and
so on. Respect is, I think, an inherently positive characteristic,
while pride is implicitly a negative, divisive one.
Paul Taylor <pt@acl.icnet.uk>
>
>1. Britain does not have a worse imperial record than other great powers
>of the past or present. Our forbears did some pretty grim things to stay
>on top, but not nearly as grim as the Spanish, Russians, Turks, French,
>Germans and Yanks have done in their time.
You can't simply assert this. You have to state some facts. What colonial
atrocity perpetrated by the Americans is as bad as e.g the treatment of the
Irish during and immediately after the Potato Famine?
>I would say I am proud to be `English', and to give some examples:
>
> - our people have fought for greater democracy and respect for rights
> for centuries
> - the intelligence and gifts of our people have led the world in many
> fields.
> - our countryside and towns are full of beauty. (also under threat, but
> still there.)
Our people did not fight as a people until the second world war. They did so
then and having done so they voted for the one government whose achievements
seem now to have been the single flash of humanity in an otherwise dismal
tale.
Our contribution to European or International culture is unsuprisingly limited
in a range of fields. In painting and in music the contribution of England is
that of the kind of country England is, SMALL. We have our Shakespeare,
Newton, Wren etc, but other European countries surely have as many such
figures.
I haven't travelled throughout the world but the typical English suburban
landscape is amongst the ugliest things I've seen.
I don't criticise you for wanting to be proud of where you come from, but for
trying to find an objective correlative for your emotions. I share your
emotion, it is part of what makes me want to struggle against the things I
hate about England but I try and stop the way I feel form distorting what I
see.
Matthew Huntbach
>You can't simply assert this. You have to state some facts. What colonial
>atrocity perpetrated by the Americans is as bad as e.g the treatment of the
>Irish during and immediately after the Potato Famine?
>
"reservations".
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
> However there seems to be a relutance in Britain to
>face up to the reality of our past, things often seem to be covered
>over with a comforting blanket of "Imperial grandeur and regal history".
Evidence please. What you say may well have been true in 1963,
I certainly don't think it is now.
Matthew Huntbach
Paul Taylor <pt@acl.icnet.uk>
Hiding behind the rather confused rhetoric (would 27 out of 32 be even
better?), an undeniable fact. If the territories acquired by the
United States after independence are treated as a colonial expansion, then the
undoubtedly dreadful treatment of the native population deserves to be compared
to other atrocities perpertrated by other empires.
But it doesn't seem quite right to treat the territories gained as a colonial
empire, and I suspect that the numbers killed in the process of creating America
were no greater than those killed in the process of destroying Ireland,
despoiling Africa, dividing India and wreking the same carnage in the Carribean,
the Antipodes, Canada etc. etc. etc.
R.J.Hare
> Germans and Yanks have done in their time. And I don't feel guilty about
You forgot the Belgians...
Roger Hare.
J Henderson
: >In article <ag129.175...@ucs.cam.ac.uk> ag...@ucs.cam.ac.uk writes:
: > If any one country has a record of disaster, it's Portugal (Mozambique,
: > Angola and Guinea).
: >At least Portugal did the decent thing with Macao. They gave all the
: >Macaoans (sp?) Portugese passports, which entitles them to settle
: >anywhere in the EC. Contrast that with what Britain has done for the
: >people of Hong Kong.
: > Jim
: This of course means that theoretically all 1,000,000 Macoans could come and
: live in England - just the thing that the UK Government wants to avoid by
: all appearances.
Right - if you were a Macaoan, with the right to live anywhere in the EC,
can you think of three good reasons for choosing England?
--
"The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has
survived for centuries wihout smileys. Only the new crop of modern
computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not
Clearly Labelled as such." (Ray Shea on rec.music.misc)
K Stephen
>kste...@castle.ed.ac.uk (K Stephen) writes:
>>In soc.culture.british you write:
>>>In article <1993Aug2.2...@vax.oxford.ac.uk> min...@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>>>>
>>To my knowledge there has been no Welsh colonialism, no Irish
>>colonialism (except for Dalriada which was a long time ago) and no
>>Scottish colonialism (except for yon episode in central America just
>>before the Union!). All other acts of colonialism have been for
>>'Britain' or self.
>On the last point about Scottish colonialism, wasn't it mainly Scots who
>colonised what is now Northern Ireland - particularly around Belfast - at
>the behest of the British Government?
Exactly my point. After 1707 there was no Scottish parliament and
therefore if Scots took part in colonialism then they were taking part
in the name of the the British Empire and not for Scotland. They were
working for themselves or for Britain, not for Scotland.
Scotland did not colonise Northern Ireland though it was colonised by Scots.
What I was trying to do was to separate the actions of individuals from
the actions of nations. I do not expect a person to feel guilty about
anything that was done by other individuals before that person was born.
However if that person identifies with a group of other individuals then
that person may be deemed to feel part of what that group did during the
lifetime of that group.
If you are going to nationalistic then you have to be aware of (and be
prepared to be responsible for) the
errors and attrocities committed by your nation.
>[Duplicate copy of article deleted]
>You need to sort your editor out Karl!!!
>Dave
Eh? What is it doing?
Karl Stephen
Chris Cooke
> 2. Using the term `British' is part of the problem. Britain itself is
> an imperial conquest, based on the subjugation by the English State/
> Monarchy of Wales, Ireland and Scotland. (Ireland has partially escaped.)
> The real point is, are you proud to be `English', `Welsh', `Scottish'
> and so on. You won't make much progress by sticking with the British
> stuff.
Quite right.
But then you go and spoil it, by claiming as "English" some things which were
quite genuinely "British":
> I would say I am proud to be `English', and to give some examples:
> - we stood up, alone in the World for a while, against Nazism
... what, Wales was occupied by stormtroopers?
> - the intelligence and gifts of our people have led the world in many
> fields.
Not an insignificant part of various bits of "British" cleverness have come
from Scots.
--
-- Chris.
"This is a job for ... the Australian."
ag...@ucs.cam.ac.uk
>Right - if you were a Macaoan, with the right to live anywhere in the EC,
>can you think of three good reasons for choosing England?
Because Portugal is the poorest country in the EC, and English is the
only other language you are likely to be able to speak. There is quite
a flow of immigrants from European Portugal to the UK as it is.
Paul Roberts
>>
>>1. Britain does not have a worse imperial record than other great powers
>>of the past or present. Our forbears did some pretty grim things to stay
>>on top, but not nearly as grim as the Spanish, Russians, Turks, French,
>>Germans and Yanks have done in their time.
>
>You can't simply assert this. You have to state some facts. What colonial
>atrocity perpetrated by the Americans is as bad as e.g the treatment of the
>Irish during and immediately after the Potato Famine?
>
How about the killing of around three million Philipinos
around the turn of the century?
And then there's the native American population of course,
although some would say that doesn't count as a "colonial"
atrocity.
Simon Patience
|> m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
|>
|> >>It seems to me that you are arguing that Britons are absolved of guilt
|> >>for the colonial acts committed by the Empire because
|> >>1) not all acts were terrible,
|> >>2) other countries committed worse acts.
|> >>
|> >>You do not forgove a murderer because he was once a war hero.
|> >>You do not forgive a first time murderer because someone else has
|> >>murdered twice.
|> >>
|> >And you do not punish a murderer's grandson because the
|> >murderer himself is dead. You are falling into the classic trap
|> >of supposing that guilt is hereditary.
|>
|> >Matthew Huntbach
|>
|> But in this case the 'muderer' is the country.
|> The point is that you cannot wave flags for that country and speak of
|> how great it was when it has this legacy of guilt behind it.
|> I do not expect any person from Britain to feel guilty just because he
|> is from Britain. He should only feel guilty if he is waving a flag, or
|> some other nationalistic activity.
So the murderers grandson can't feel proud of his name/family simply because his
grandfather was a murderer, despite the fact that other relatives won the nobel
peace price. Some people talk such a load of twaddle. There is plenty to wave the
flag about in Britain even if there have been moments in the past which we wish
had been different,
Simon.
--
Simon Patience Phone: (617) 621-7376
Open Software Foundation FAX: (617) 225-8696
1 Cambridge Center Email: s...@osf.org
Cambridge, MA 02142 uunet!osf!sp
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> I _do_
> urgently want to get rid of any post-imperialst hangovers we may have
> lingering such as the House of Lords, the Church of England, Cricket and
> so on.
American friends as to the rules. This, combined with their efforts to tell me
about baseball, gives us hours of unalloyed fun (as you may imagine).
Seriously, though, I happen to think that it is things like this that give
Britain it's originality and I wouldn't want to change that. I have found that
living in the States for 2 years has done wonders for my sense of patriotism.
(and besides, there are lots of countries that have cricket as a national sport
and play it a hell of a lot better than we do. What does this mean in the
context of the copied sentance? Just a thought.)
Kirstin
Chris Ambidge
>> I _do_
>> urgently want to get rid of any post-imperialst hangovers we may have
>> lingering such as the House of Lords, the Church of England, Cricket and
>> so on.
Kirstin lodged a defence of cricket, pointing out both enjoying it,
and that other countries play it as well or better than England.
I'd like to question referring to the House of Lords and the Church
of England as "post -imperialist hangovers". Obviously Mr Bottomly
doesn't like them, but I would say that "post-imperialist hangovers"
is inaccurate. Neither of them are imperial in origin.
The Church of England dates at the least to the Henry VIII/Anne Boleyn
marriage case, which is a few years before the first Book of Common
Prayer in 1549. Newfoundland wasn't claimed for the crown (by Sir
Humphrey Gilbert, I think) until 1583. A reasonable case could be
made for the Church of England pre-dating the reformation, too.
The House of Lords and its position in English polity has an even
older pedigree. Both Church of England and the House of Lords
predate any Empire.
Chris
--
Chris Ambidge / amb...@ecf.toronto.edu / amb...@ecf.utoronto.ca
chemical engineering / university of toronto
200 college st / toronto ON / M5S 1A4 // 416 978 3106
Neill Reid
I'd reverse those definitions in certain countries. Nationalism
has a lot of different flavours (as does patriotism - and one man's
patriot is another man's traitor, of course) and stinks only when
there's too large a dose of jingoism.
It is possible to be a nationalist and still see the faults in your
own country,
Neill Reid - i...@eccles.caltech
ag...@ucs.cam.ac.uk
limited>in a range of fields. In painting and in music the contribution of
England is>that of the kind of country England is, SMALL. We have our
Shakespeare,>Newton, Wren etc, but other European countries surely have as
many such>figures.
Britain (and Ireland) has more or less dominated the world music scene
for the last 35 years and had more influence than the rest of Europe
put together. When Belgian techno is dead, people will still be buying
Beatles records. Makes a lot of money too.
If you insist on going back hundreds of years, then maybe Britain is
under-represented in music and painting. So we're now having a cultural
renaissance on our own terms while the rest of Europe is buying records
by U2 and the Cure? But as for literature, nice of you to mention
Shakespeare - who are his European equivalents, and how many of them
have given plots to both Verdi operas and samurai movies? And what
about Walter Scott, most popular novelist in Europe for decades at a
its most important time of artistic innovation?
There were plenty of other Newtons but it is hard to imagine any other
country producing Darwin at the time, who would sail round the world to
get evidence for a scientific hypothesis, while the Germans were still
writing incoherent philosophical tracts. And don't forget Adam Smith
and the creators of the Industrial Revolution.
And what about sport, which is _the_ international culture these days?
Britain and Ireland have originated more sports than anyone since the
Ancient Greeks - soccer, rugby, golf, hockey, tennis etc. - and are still
well represented in all of them.
If the intellectual elite (in which I include academic category-theorists)
insist on defining international culture as ex-Classical, then _of course_
Italy and France have the most frescoes and marble statues and music written
to formal principles. If you define international culture as whatever
people in different countries are most likely to have in common, soccer of
course but also railways, TV, a passing knowledge of the English language
etc., then Britain comes off very well. By contrast America's offering,
Coca Cola, is distinctly shabby. And apart from scuba diving and
the metric system, France has produced nothing of mass cultural
significance whatsoever, which is not surprising for a country that set
up an institute to kill off the evolution of its language.
Andrew Bray
>On the last point about Scottish colonialism, wasn't it mainly Scots who
>colonised what is now Northern Ireland - particularly around Belfast - at
>the behest of the British Government?
I'm not certain of this so correct me if I'm wrong. But I don't think there
was a British Government in those days, didn't most of the immigration
in NI mostly take place before the Act of Union that made England/Wales
and Scotland a single country (the United Kingdom/Great Britain)?
The Siege of Londonderry was over 200 years ago, I believe (and still
the reason that the Unionists don't want to be part of a united Ireland).
Which puts it at about the same time as the Act of Union. The Scots
must have been there before, right?
Regards,
Andy
Andrew Bray
>Aren't Rovers mechanically Japanese? If the company is doing better, I'll
>be the first to applaud. One sees the occasional Rover in Australia, and a
>few Jaguars, although I once met a Canberra mechanic who provided a motor
>exchange service -- ripping the cantankerous Jaguar motor out and putting a
>reliable brute-force General Motors product in.
I think the Rover/Honda association went roughly as follows:
1) Honda were mostly known for motorcycles, and wanted to break into
the car market in a big way.
2) BL (as it then was) had an aging range, but couldn't afford to design
a new range.
So they clubbed together. Their ranges were very very similar for some years,
but have since diverged. Older Rover 200's used to have Honda engines,
but nowadays they use a new Rover K series engine (their first all new engine
in about 20 years, I believe).
Jaguar are owned by Ford these days.
I think that the biggest current UK motor success story has to be Land
Rover. I heard recently that thay have had to institute shift work
to keep up with demand. In the worst recession that the UK has known
in decades.
Andrew Bray
Andrew Bray
>2. Using the term `British' is part of the problem. Britain itself is
>an imperial conquest, based on the subjugation by the English State/
>Monarchy of Wales, Ireland and Scotland. (Ireland has partially escaped.)
>The real point is, are you proud to be `English', `Welsh', `Scottish'
>and so on. You won't make much progress by sticking with the British
>stuff.
We have been `British' for about as long as the Americans have been the
USA. I am an English Briton, but a Briton none the less. Most of the
the reasons you give for being proud to be English have mostly happened
since the Act of Union, and calling them English achievements denys
the rights of Scottish Briton, Welsh Britons, and Irish Britons to
be proud of them also.
Similarly, it is wrong for Scots/Welsh/Irish Britons to blame 'the English'
for acts of the Union that were less than admirable, just because there
are numerically more English than the other sub-nationalities.
This leads to racism.
I do not deny that you have an 'English' identity, but you also have
a 'British' identity. Part of what you are comes from being born
and brought up in Britain, another part of what you are is uniquely
English, not shared by other Britons. This can also be extended to
regions, towns, your parents.
The situation is similar in the USA. Many US citizens regard themselves
as Irish Americans, Polish Americans, Native Americans, etc., but
none-the-less they also regard themselves as Americans. They all
have a stake in what the nation is, as a whole.
Regards,
Andy
Adrian Waterworth
>There are a number of alternative strategies to building more and more
>roads. Most attractive is increasing the use of public transport. I
>know this isn't a fashionable opinion in government at the moment, but
>it is still a perfectly good alternative.
>Roads only seem to be a cost effective alternative because of the huge
>subsidies they recieve from central government. This means that users
>don't pay the full cost (or anything like it) of using roads, which
>contrasts strongly with railways which recieve no subsidy. Look at
>France for an example of much superior rail network, that is given a
>chance to compete on an even footing with roads.
What? "Users don't pay the full cost (or anything like it) of
using roads"? Just out of interest, did you know that in 1991 (or
thereabouts), a comparative evaluation of expenditure on roads revealed
that the Government's annual spending on road transport (upkeep,
improvement etc.) only amounted to some 8% or so of the amount that the
Exchequer receives in Road Fund Licence ("road tax")? This is a lower
percentage than in most other European countries (with the exception of
Greece, I seem to recall).
And that is before we take account of the fact that, back when
petrol was a mere 1.80 a gallon (or so), some 1.30 of that price went
to the Exchequer as tax. God only knows how much of the per gallon price
is tax now.
So...who doesn't pay the full cost? (And you can't say that
the road hauliers get hefty benefits out of this - their tax burden is
typically higher than the average.)
Ade.
\----------------------------------------/
| Adrian.W...@newcastle.ac.uk |
/ ---------------------------------------\
Andrew Clarke
>One thing about British colonialism is the comparatively short period of
>time between the establishment of colonial government and the eventual
>independence of the colony: in India, the period between the post-Mutiny
>Raj and Swaraj (self-rule) was about a century: even in that period, much
>of India was still not under direct British rule. In parts of Africa, the
>period between colonisation and independence was only seventy or eighty years,
>and direct British authority frequently did not extend much beyond the
>main towns, the rest of the country being administered by traditional
>chieftains in consultation with a political officer.
>This is a comparitively short period of time in world history, and one
>wonders whether all the handwringing about colonialism is really justified,
>especially when it comes from the epigones of people like Kwame Nkrumah who
>exercised a far greater tyranny over his people than the British ever did.
>The latter left behind the hospitals, schools, churches, legislatures and
>railways: the corruption, nepotism and torture of political prisoners in
>many of these places, are indigenous.
>Besides, if you were a vigorous young man in an economically stagnant
>English provincial town in the late 19th century -- during, say, the
>agricultural depression in East Anglia -- what would you prefer to do? go
>slowly bust in Bury St Edmunds (e.g.) or go to the colonies? Do we have
>the right to blame them?
>
>Andrew Clarke
PS: I assume from his Email address and his postings to soc.culture.celtic
that Mr Karl Stephen feels like a Scotsman even though he doesn't feel
British. Could he please explain whether he feels guilt or otherwise about
the development of the Bengali jute industry and its association with the
city of Dundee?
Fragano Ledgister
Er, the idea that Macaoans speak _only_ Portuguese (on the basis of
which Spanish is quite easy) and English is more than mildly
ludicrous.
.
--
Dawn over the dark sea brings on the sun;
She leans across the hilltop: see, the light!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
fled...@weber.ucsd.edu
Fragano Ledgister
The Plantation of Ulster by Scotchmen took place under King James VI
of Scots in and after 1608, when there was still a Kingdom of
Scotland.
The only venture of Scotland into the colonialism business, _strictu
sensu_, occurred in the late 17th century when the Scots established
a colony at Darien in what is now Panama. This colony failed
(adventurous Scots being enticed into the English colonies of North
America or to Jamaica which, having been conquered from Spain during
the Protectorate, was the first true _British_ colony). I believe
that Alexander Patterson one of the promoters of the Darien colony
subsequently founded the Bank of England.
Steve McKinty - SunConnect ICNC
> a...@aber.ac.uk (Alan Dyke) writes:
>
> >There are a number of alternative strategies to building more and more
> >roads. Most attractive is increasing the use of public transport. I
> >know this isn't a fashionable opinion in government at the moment, but
> >it is still a perfectly good alternative.
The only snag to that argument is that people don't seem to want to use
public transport, they wnat to use the roads. Private road transport
is much more convenenient outside of large cities, and people will pay
for convenience.
>
> >Roads only seem to be a cost effective alternative because of the huge
> >subsidies they recieve from central government. This means that users
> >don't pay the full cost (or anything like it) of using roads, which
> >contrasts strongly with railways which recieve no subsidy. Look at
> >France for an example of much superior rail network, that is given a
> >chance to compete on an even footing with roads.
Others have debated the 'huge subsidies' issue, so I won't. As to French
road/rail, the French Motorway network is managed by a separate company,
AREA, and charges fairly hefty tolls, locally a 100km journey to
the airport will cost me just under #5 each way, not including the cost
of the most expensive petrol in Europe.
They still have nose-to-tail traffic, and 10-40km jams at the tollbooths,
every weekend in August.
Off the motorways the national road network, in this area at least, isn't
a patch on the UK A-road network.
Steve
--
Steve McKinty
Sun Microsystems ICNC
38240 Meylan, France
email: smck...@france.sun.com
Andrew Clarke
J Henderson
: In article <CBJoD...@festival.ed.ac.uk> jer...@festival.ed.ac.uk (J Henderson) writes:
: >Right - if you were a Macaoan, with the right to live anywhere in the EC,
: >can you think of three good reasons for choosing England?
: Because Portugal is the poorest country in the EC,
Leaving 11 others to choose from
: and English is the
: only other language you are likely to be able to speak.
That makes one (1) reason.
Chris Cooke
What? "Users don't pay the full cost (or anything like it) of
using roads"? Just out of interest, did you know that in 1991 (or
thereabouts), a comparative evaluation of expenditure on roads revealed
that the Government's annual spending on road transport (upkeep,
improvement etc.) only amounted to some 8% or so of the amount that the
Exchequer receives in Road Fund Licence ("road tax")? This is a lower
percentage than in most other European countries (with the exception of
Greece, I seem to recall).
That's nowhere near the full cost, and you know it. Do you think all the
traffic police are volunteers, paying for all their own cars? And all the
surgeons and nurses and ambulance drivers who save the lives of the idiots
who drive too fast? And what of the costs of coping with the massive
increases in asthma from car exhausts, the harm to the economy of the huge
insurance payouts because of the massive car death toll, etc. etc...
Paul Taylor <pt@acl.icnet.uk>
>only other language you are likely to be able to speak. There is quite
>a flow of immigrants from European Portugal to the UK as it is.
In my experience the Portuguese are much more likely to speak Spanish and French
than they are English. They are a nation which has a strong tradition of
economic migrants, (I have a bad memory for figures but I think the statistic is
that out of a population of 18 million, 4 million live abroad) but most go to
the Americas and almost all the others are to be found in France, where they
form that country's largest ethnic minority.
K Stephen
The Act of Union took place in 1707. 286 years ago. The Union of the
crowns took place 100 years earlier. Was the seig of Londonderry not in
1690? Are you aserting that all of those who took part in the seige were
Scots and not Irish? Can somebody confirm when the Scots did go to
Ireland?
It must have been after the Union of the Crowns otherwise it would have
been an invasion of what was then a kingdom ruled by the English
King/Queen.
Karl Stephen
K Stephen
>In article <245u9s$m...@clover.csv.warwick.ac.uk> ce...@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J W Bottomley) writes:
>>2. Using the term `British' is part of the problem. Britain itself is
>>an imperial conquest, based on the subjugation by the English State/
>>Monarchy of Wales, Ireland and Scotland. (Ireland has partially escaped.)
>>The real point is, are you proud to be `English', `Welsh', `Scottish'
>>and so on. You won't make much progress by sticking with the British
>>stuff.
>Similarly, it is wrong for Scots/Welsh/Irish Britons to blame 'the English'
>for acts of the Union that were less than admirable, just because there
>are numerically more English than the other sub-nationalities.
>This leads to racism.
And so does the denial of those who wish to to assume a non-British
identity of being Irish, Welsh or Scots!
>I do not deny that you have an 'English' identity, but you also have
>a 'British' identity. Part of what you are comes from being born
>and brought up in Britain, another part of what you are is uniquely
>English, not shared by other Britons. This can also be extended to
>regions, towns, your parents.
If someone considers themselves only English then that is up to them.
You cannot deny that. Identity is chosen, it is not decreed!
I chose to have a Scottish identity and not a British one because I feel
that is what I have. Having lived in England (the SE) for over a year, I
can see how different Scots are.
I have yet to be given proof what the similarities are in the Scottish
and English cultures that are not similar to other cultures or are
similar elements of non-culture (e.g. same food culture, ie we eat
Indian, Italian, French but not our own).
>The situation is similar in the USA. Many US citizens regard themselves
>as Irish Americans, Polish Americans, Native Americans, etc., but
>none-the-less they also regard themselves as Americans. They all
>have a stake in what the nation is, as a whole.
Yes that is true. But if one state (say Hawaii for example) chose to
become independent then they have that right too.
Karl Stephen
K Stephen
>In article <CBC5M...@festival.ed.ac.uk>, kste...@castle.ed.ac.uk (K Stephen) writes:
>|> m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>|>
>|> >In article <CBApv...@festival.ed.ac.uk> kste...@castle.ed.ac.uk (K Stephen) writes:
>|> >>It seems to me that you are arguing that Britons are absolved of guilt
>|> >>for the colonial acts committed by the Empire because
>|> >>1) not all acts were terrible,
>|> >>2) other countries committed worse acts.
>|> >>
>|> >>You do not forgove a murderer because he was once a war hero.
>|> >>You do not forgive a first time murderer because someone else has
>|> >>murdered twice.
>|> >>
>|> >And you do not punish a murderer's grandson because the
>|> >murderer himself is dead. You are falling into the classic trap
>|> >of supposing that guilt is hereditary.
>|>
>|> >Matthew Huntbach
>|>
>|> But in this case the 'muderer' is the country.
>|> The point is that you cannot wave flags for that country and speak of
>|> how great it was when it has this legacy of guilt behind it.
>|> I do not expect any person from Britain to feel guilty just because he
>|> is from Britain. He should only feel guilty if he is waving a flag, or
>|> some other nationalistic activity.
>So the murderers grandson can't feel proud of his name/family simply because his
>grandfather was a murderer, despite the fact that other relatives won the nobel
>peace price. Some people talk such a load of twaddle.
You for one!
>There is plenty to wave the
>flag about in Britain even if there have been moments in the past which we wish
>had been different,
Unfortunately, most of the things which are worth raving about were done
by individuals. The bad things were done in the name of or for the flag.
It is fine to say that there have been a lot of great individuals in
Britain but it is a fact that the country as a unit has a bad history
when looked at from outside it.
Karl Stephen
Paul Taylor <pt@acl.icnet.uk>
>
>Kirstin lodged a defence of cricket, pointing out both enjoying it,
>and that other countries play it as well or better than England.
Professional cricket as it exists in this country may be dependent upon
anachronistic sections of the educational system. However, only a philistine
would argue that this means it should be abolished as a post-imperial hangover.
Cricket still thrives at the grass-roots level as a truly popular pastime. It
is the most unambigiously English of creations and a delight which only the
aesthetically-challenged could fail to enjoy.
Chris Cooke
> The Plantation of Ulster by Scotchmen took place under King James VI
> of Scots in and after 1608, when there was still a Kingdom of
> Scotland.
... and when said Kingdom of Scotland was being ruled from London in the
interests of the Kingdom of England, which James had gone running down to in
1603 as fast as his little feet could take him. :-)
Chris Cooke
The only snag to that argument is that people don't seem to want to use
public transport, they wnat to use the roads. Private road transport
is much more convenenient outside of large cities, and people will pay
for convenience.
People want to use private transport because public transport isn't good
enough. If it was better, lots more people would use it, leaving the roads
much freer and less crowded for those that would still have/prefer to use
them.
Matthew Huntbach
>>In article <CBHJI...@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> d...@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning) writes:
>>>On the last point about Scottish colonialism, wasn't it mainly Scots who
>>>colonised what is now Northern Ireland - particularly around Belfast - at
>>>the behest of the British Government?
>>
>>the reason that the Unionists don't want to be part of a united Ireland).
>>Which puts it at about the same time as the Act of Union. The Scots
>>must have been there before, right?
>>
>of Scots in and after 1608, when there was still a Kingdom of
>Scotland.
>
narrowest, and at this time there was almost a continuum
between the two, with people regularly crossing the Irish sea.
So some of the Ulster Presbyterians, particularly those in
Antrim, derive from informal population movements and even
Protestant missionary work, rather than formal plantation.
Matthew Huntbach
K Stephen
>In article <1993Aug11....@csc.canberra.edu.au> a...@libserver.canberra.edu.au (Andrew Clarke) writes:
>>and direct British authority frequently did not extend much beyond the
>>main towns, the rest of the country being administered by traditional
>>chieftains in consultation with a political officer.
>>This is a comparitively short period of time in world history,
And how long did the Third Reich last?
>>and one
>>wonders whether all the handwringing about colonialism is really justified,
>>especially when it comes from the epigones of people like Kwame Nkrumah who
>>exercised a far greater tyranny over his people than the British ever did.
>>The latter left behind the hospitals, schools, churches, legislatures and
>>railways: the corruption, nepotism and torture of political prisoners in
>>many of these places, are indigenous.
Isn't it great. Britain is the lesser of two evils!
[stuff about bored provicial Englishmen having the right to wreck
cultures deleted]
>>Andrew Clarke
>PS: I assume from his Email address and his postings to soc.culture.celtic
>that Mr Karl Stephen feels like a Scotsman even though he doesn't feel
>British. Could he please explain whether he feels guilt or otherwise about
>the development of the Bengali jute industry and its association with the
>city of Dundee?
I don't feel like a Scotsman, I am a Scotsman!
I do not feel British.
Until 1603, Scotland was a kingdom separate from England. Only then was
it fully autonomous. After 1603, the Kings of Scotland ruled from London
and were English, in effect.
In 1707 the Act of Parliament was signed and the
parlaiments of England and Scotland became one.The British Parliament
was born. No onger was anything done in Scotlands name.
Now unless I am much mistaken, the jute industry got going after the
Act of Union. Until then, Scotland only had one colony as it were and
that failed. That colony was in Central America.
So, after the Act of Union, all acts of colonialism in which Scots
participated was done in the name of Britain and not Scotland.
Karl Stephen
J Henderson
: Yes that is true. But if one state (say Hawaii for example) chose to
: become independent then they have that right too.
I think that only a small number of states have the right of secession -
Texas being one.
Paul Taylor <pt@acl.icnet.uk>
>
>Britain (and Ireland) has more or less dominated the world music scene
>for the last 35 years and had more influence than the rest of Europe
>put together. When Belgian techno is dead, people will still be buying
>Beatles records. Makes a lot of money too.
Pop music is American. In its short history a few of the key figures were
British. Some of them even distinctively so, but very few. Calling John Lennon
British seems rather like calling Prince Philip Greek. Compare that to the
popular but distincively Gallic music of Greco, Brel, Gainsbourg or Pigalle and
the situation is more complicated than you might realise.
>There were plenty of other Newtons but it is hard to imagine any other
>country producing Darwin at the time, who would sail round the world to
>get evidence for a scientific hypothesis, while the Germans were still
>writing incoherent philosophical tracts. And don't forget Adam Smith
>and the creators of the Industrial Revolution.
A hypothesis prefigured by Malthus and elaborated by Mendel. The industrial
revolution, I agree, was an event in which Britain entered the stage early on.
Just as the Classical Age, the Renaissance and the Age of Reason were
events where we came in pretty late, if at all.
>And what about sport, which is _the_ international culture these days?
>Britain and Ireland have originated more sports than anyone since the
>Ancient Greeks - soccer, rugby, golf, hockey, tennis etc. - and are still
>well represented in all of them.
Soccer I grant you. Tennis is French. Neither rugby nor hockey count as
particularly international. And what about skiing, cycling, sailing,
motor-racing, hang-gliding, the modern Olympics etc. etc. etc.
> If you define international culture as whatever
>people in different countries are most likely to have in common, soccer of
>course but also railways, TV, a passing knowledge of the English language
>etc., then Britain comes off very well.
Railways? What about planes and cars and wind-surfers? Last week a number of
German and Italian programmes appeared on French TV along with a deluge of
Americana. Only 2 British programmes appeared: a dramatisation of Andrew
Morton's Lady Di book and an episode of Taggart. Does that make you proud to be
British?
> By contrast America's offering,
>Coca Cola, is distinctly shabby.
Well, there is CINEMA, and TELEVISION, and POP, and JAZZ. There are COMPUTERS
and JEANS and T SHIRTS and BASKETBALL and BARBEQUES and BAKED BEANS and JOGGING
and NON-STICK FRYING PANS and THEME PARKS and BARBIE DOLLS and FAST FOOD and
SKATEBOARDS.
Paul Taylor <pt@acl.icnet.uk>
>Yes that is true. But if one state (say Hawaii for example) chose to
>become independent then they have that right too.
Texas is unique in that prior to joining the US it was a sovereign state and at
its incorporation retained the right to secede. It is extremely doubtful that
it could use this right. That the other states have no such right is clearly
demonstrated by fact that an illegal attempt by Southern states to secede was
contested in war by the Northern states.
Steve McKinty - SunConnect ICNC
Yes, but would having a bus pass my front door every 20 minutes between
7am and midnight, going directly to my place of work, with a corresponding
return trip, be a reasonable thing to expect of any public transport
system, no matter how good?
It works in big cities, the London tube, Paris Metro etc. are far better
means of transport than private cars. It all falls apart once you get
outside the city boundaries. The cost of providing that kind of public
transport just isn't viable, without forcing a lot of people who never use
it to pay for it.
Rather than trying to force unwanted public transport on people, I'd rather
see some decent money invested in more practical & cleaner private
transport, like hybrid-engined cars.
Steve McKinty - SunConnect ICNC
>
> > By contrast America's offering,
> >Coca Cola, is distinctly shabby.
>
> Well, there is CINEMA, and TELEVISION
Television is British (John Logie Baird)
, and POP, and JAZZ. There are COMPUTERS
arguably British (Charles Babbage)
> and JEANS and T SHIRTS and BASKETBALL and BARBEQUES and BAKED BEANS and JOGGING
> and NON-STICK FRYING PANS and THEME PARKS and BARBIE DOLLS and FAST FOOD and
> SKATEBOARDS.
>
>
>
--