|
24 Apr 02 - 01:08 PM (#697587) Subject: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: bill kennedy In studying history, I am continually struck by how many of today's problems can be traced directly back to the Empire, caused by a tiny nations over-reaching ego, fed by the jingoistic political rhetoric of its 'leaders', for the financial benefit of a few industrialists and capitalists. India/Pakistan, most of Africa, the Middle East, Ireland, etc. Why I bring this up is not to inflame fellow 'Catters from across the pond, or throw bricks, but to remark that the US is, in recent years, following the same course, and we will all suffer for it later, when the 'lingua franca' of business and culture is not American English, but maybe Chinese, or Indonesian or sonething else, and the center of Government is no longer NYC or Washington. Did anyone in Britain believe that London and Westminster would someday be relegated to second class status? As Rome passed, so will the 'good' old USA. The sooner the better, I feel. Our foreign policy is driven by oil, not by the dissemination of Democratic ideals. The alliances formed by the identification of "America's" best interests short-term are at best short-sighted. We have been on the wrong side in almost every conflict I can think of, supporting right-wing death-squad dictators, who, it is thought, create a stable environment for 'business' over the rights and freedoms of the impoverished people. Don't know that there is an answer, just as the thread on peace in the Middle East seeks solutions without an answer, but there is a root cause of the current situation in the Middle East, that in part goes back to Britain's Imperialism, the First World War and all its Nationalistic folly & Imperialist desires, American so-called 'non-interventionist' policies, and now the Corporatocracy that rules the US today. Can there ever be Peace without justice? IMHO NO. If not then unchecked Capitalism, which is by nature & design unjust, must be replaced with a system of distribution of resources and goods and services that is. Yes I am a dreamer. But, 20th c. American Capitalism was not created by God on the day after he rested, it is just another system invented by men, and can be replaced. After the Berlin wall and Soviet Communism fell, Charles Krauthammer in the Washington press actually said that humans need never have to think again about these things. That American Capitalist Democracy had demonstrated that it is the finest system ever devised, proven by Communisms failure. Krauthammer is an ass. Read him for laughs, and to be able to respond to his rhetoric clearly. Study history, and don't give up thinking of a better way. The most recent study of the State of Ohio, USA, where I am from, says that between the 1970s and 1990s inflation- adjusted income for the poorest fifth of the population fell even further by 5.4 percent or $830. while for the richest fifth it grew 43.1 percent or $43,020. Fair? Everyone has an equal chance? market forces? should anyone go to sleep hungry tonight? children included?
|
|
24 Apr 02 - 03:41 PM (#697687) Subject: RE: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: GUEST,Roger O'K Hear hear, Bill. I'm not a visceral Brit-basher, but it does gall me to see the US compounding some of the crass injustices already perpetrated by Britain, especially linked to oil in what used to be called the Near East and Middle East. They established and deposed régimmes on the basis of their own interests, and the US is still doing it (I'm still waiting to hear who was the ugly American in Venezuela recently). The ease with which the British abused their League of Nations mandate to pursue their oil interests in the region is appalling, and Bush's propensity to tear up any treaty or wreck any iternational organisation that doesn't suit him is frightening. Hence my beleif that the UN must be maed workable again: it has been left laughably under-resourced - not least by the disgraceful way in which the US refused for years to pay its dues until on 12 September it woke up and thought a bit of international cooperation mightn't be a bad thing. I came across a fascinating quote in the (UK) Guardian newspaper recently, and am frustrated that I threw it out as I'd like to be able to cite it verbatim. It cited a British Government Minister in **1926** referring to the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine as giving "us our own little Ulster over there" - i.e. a numerically inferior but privileged ethnic group which could be used to control the more numerous (Arab) natives. It struck me as the kind of thing that a propagandist blinded by anti-British sentiment might allege, but we're talking about the Guardian, not the National Enquirer. |
|
24 Apr 02 - 03:49 PM (#697696) Subject: RE: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: John Routledge As a Brit I find many of the actions taken by Britain in the days of the Empire are indefensible. However the really sad thing is the failure to learn. |
|
24 Apr 02 - 04:48 PM (#697737) Subject: RE: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: Shields Folk As a Brit I find Americans constantly harping on about how bad the British were, whilst totally ignoring how bad America can be, slightly annoying. |
|
24 Apr 02 - 04:53 PM (#697746) Subject: RE: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: Shields Folk Present company excepted of course.. Don't want to offend anyone. |
|
24 Apr 02 - 04:55 PM (#697748) Subject: RE: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: CarolC You're just not paying attention Shields Folk. There's plenty of us here in the US who don't "ignore how bad America can be". |
|
24 Apr 02 - 04:56 PM (#697750) Subject: RE: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: CarolC (Looks like we cross posted) |
|
24 Apr 02 - 04:58 PM (#697751) Subject: RE: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: GUEST,Dagenham Doc Britain was once the greatest manufacturing country in the world. What Britain made the world wanted. Now it's just being turned into a giant runway and carpark. Choked up with concrete and cement it will eventually sink beneath the waves and people will say " Britain? I remember them didn't they used to make Beatrix Potter tea towels??! Doc. |
|
24 Apr 02 - 05:27 PM (#697767) Subject: RE: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: Marcus Black Wolf What we should remember of course is that, ironically while Britain was at the height of it's power it had huge slums in many of it's major cities. Take for example East London where I live which had in the late Victorian Era a massive number of brothels, hugely out of proportion to it's size, with a high percentage of child prostitutes - and the average life expectancy for the people of the area was only around 40 or so. On the whole British Imperialism benefited an elite, who by constant rhetoric and jingoism managed to convince the other sections of society to some extent at least of how great Britain was for civilising everywhere. Also, in all fairness some of the local rulers were eager to jump into bed in some areas with the British-especially some of the minor rajahs you found in India, who thought they could invite Britain in, but then found they couldn't get em to leave. A good synopsis of how the English lower classes suffered themselves is presented in Shaw's, "John Bull's Other Island" where an Irish character is explaining the tragic history of Ireland after British occupation to which the English character responds,"Oh do stow it Paddy", and tells him about his wife died in a rented room with no heat when they couldn't pay the landlord and how his father lost his business for been a few weeks behind on bills. That is why to me James Connolly's socialist republicanism is more informed and intelligent than the simplistic Irish Nationalism as preached by other movements.
|
|
24 Apr 02 - 05:32 PM (#697770) Subject: RE: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: McGrath of Harlow Being ruthless cynical bastards isn't particularly Briish or American or Ancient Roman for that matter. It's a style that goes with running the big Empire of the day, whichever day that may be.
And that's what I read Bill Kennedy as saying. Getting knotted into squabbles around ethnicity is a waste of time. The guys in charge may have English accents or American accents, or Texan accents - but home is where the geart is, and their heart isn't in England or America, it's in the corridors of power. |
|
24 Apr 02 - 05:35 PM (#697772) Subject: RE: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: Shields Folk Yes all of the luck Irish left to go to New York slums. |
|
24 Apr 02 - 06:13 PM (#697799) Subject: RE: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: Herga Kitty I'd just like to mention, if we're talking about abuse of power by "the British" that women in Britain didn't have a vote until after the First World War. And a lot of men didn't either until the 19th C. Kitty |
|
24 Apr 02 - 06:17 PM (#697803) Subject: RE: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: Shields Folk Who gets the vote in our great ally in the middle east Saudi Arabia? |
|
24 Apr 02 - 06:29 PM (#697811) Subject: RE: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: Shields Folk When did women get the vote in the worlds greatest democracy? |
|
24 Apr 02 - 06:34 PM (#697813) Subject: RE: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: McGrath of Harlow "the worlds greatest democracy" - does that means largest population, largest area, wealthiest, or most democratic?Because they'd all be different countries. |
|
24 Apr 02 - 06:40 PM (#697818) Subject: RE: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: Shields Folk Get away? |
|
24 Apr 02 - 07:06 PM (#697840) Subject: RE: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: DougR Excuse please, but everyone has a right to an opinion. My opinion is Horse Feathers! It is so easy to look at history and second guess the decisions made at a different time under different circumstances. If you folks find satisfaction in bashing the country in which you live, so be it, but I don't think anyone needs to use hindsight to realize that, in fact, we have it pretty good in the U. S. and in Great Britian. If you doubt it, I'm sure there are several third world countries you could visit to see how well you do have it. Just my opinion of course. DougR |
|
24 Apr 02 - 07:10 PM (#697845) Subject: RE: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: Shields Folk Thank you DougR. After a bit of common sense I'm of to bed. |
|
24 Apr 02 - 08:23 PM (#697897) Subject: RE: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: Troll There are people living in 3rd-world countries who would look at our so-called "slums" in New York, Chicago, L.A., And London, and consider them to be the lap of luxury. Why do you think they risk their lives ,in some cases, to get here or to England or Germany or France. When was the last time the navy of China stopped a shipload of American refugees from trying to slip into that country? Are the sweatshops of Hong Kong crowded with Australians who work for substandard wages? Hindsight is an exact science but even so, the second-guessing decisions that the bashers make could be dead wrong too and the results even more disastrous than the origional decision. If you don't like a decision, voice your opposition. I certainly intend to. But don't talk about what should have been done after the fact. You have no way of knowing how your decision would have turned out. You only know how you hope and think it would have gone. troll |
|
24 Apr 02 - 09:02 PM (#697928) Subject: RE: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: DougR I'll drink to that, Troll. There are those who know me well that would say I will drink to about anything, but it's nice to see a sensible post on this subject, and very shortly I will hoist my glass and drink a toast to you and to Shields Folk. At least the three of us know when we are well off. Susan started a new thread today titled (I think) "We are Blessed" or something similar. I would recommend the many posters who are so negative in this thread peek in on that one. DougR |
|
24 Apr 02 - 11:02 PM (#697973) Subject: RE: BS: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: sophocleese So we should all cheerfully head to bed glad in the knowledge that no matter what the sufferings of others in other lands we at least are comfortable? Screw that selfish crap for a load of donkey's doos. Doug R. and Troll need to go to remedial reading and re-read the first post which a was not a self congratulatory little paen to the "I'm all right Jack and fuck the rest of you" school(?) of thought. Have fun counting your blessings but also spend time counting your sins, of omission and comission, too. Then see what you can do about them. Go to bed cheerful in the knowledge that all may not be right with the world but at least you've attempted to alleviate its horrors for some. Its time better spent than counting your pennies. |
|
25 Apr 02 - 12:21 AM (#698008) Subject: RE: BS: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: DougR You're a piece of work, aren't you Soph? I will go to sleep and I will sleep soundly. Safe and secure in a country that I would not trade for any other. To each his own I suppose. DougR |
|
25 Apr 02 - 12:33 AM (#698011) Subject: RE: BS: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: Troll Sophoclees, where in the world did you come up with the idea that I thought that the initial posting was "a self congratulatory little paen to the "I'm all right Jack and fuck the rest of you" school(?) of thought." If I don't happen to agree with something, it is no indicator that I didn't understand it when I read it. No matter HOW self-evident it appears to you because it happens to support your own personal bias, others are allowed to differ with it in part or wholly. While I freely admit that there have been times when I have mis-understood postings, this is NOT one of those times. troll |
|
25 Apr 02 - 03:57 AM (#698091) Subject: RE: BS: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: Terry K I've tried and tried but can't get past the basic misconception in bill kennedy's opening sentence. Whether or not you buy into the smokescreen of fairly jaundiced remarks "...over-reaching ego...jingoistic political rhetoric" etc etc is not really the issue. The issue here is that bill's basic assumption, that the problems were caused by the Empire, is seriously flawed. These days it is more widely acknowledged, among those close to these situations, that the present problems in, for example, India/Pakistan, most of Africa and the Middle East, all started when Britain pulled out of those areas. Independence has not settled well in many of those places. So colonialism was not ideal, but in the grand order of things we may well look back on those times as representing a far better period than the present. And though I think I understand the point bill is really making, viz, that US adventuring around the world will eventually have its own, negative, payback in the future, I think it is basically wrong to imply that the actions of Britain as a colonial power in the past can be directly compared with US incursions into, for example, Central America or even (dare I say) Afghanistan. cheers, Terry P.S. another little wobbler that bill included as a passing point - "...Capitalism, which is by nature and design unjust..." - only in popular left wing political rhetoric, I'm afraid. Capitalism - "an economic system designed to maximise creation of wealth for redistribution back to society as a whole through a system of taxation" - is in no way unjust in its design, whether you agree with it or not. |
|
25 Apr 02 - 06:28 AM (#698133) Subject: RE: BS: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: greg stephens It's intersting, Bill's thesis that capitalism was "designed". I think of the word capitalism more as a description of how things work in some societies, rather than something designed, like the jet engine or the Spinning Jenny. I think someone deserves a plaque on the wall somewhere: it's totally repellent, but it's certainly worked, is self-regenerating, capable of reacting to chaging circumstances...a remarkable piece of design. So who did head up the design committee? |
|
25 Apr 02 - 07:20 AM (#698151) Subject: RE: BS: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: GUEST,Declan Terry, Much of the trouble that has started in post-colonial independent countries arises from divisions in the societies there which were fomented and exploited by the colonial power in order to help 'rule' the 'natives'. Someof these divisions were artificially created by the colonial powers. Divide and Conquer was a well known tactic in the ruling of foreign lands by whatever empire. It is nonsense to blame only the British for this type of behaviour - most of the powerful western European countries had their empires in the past and they all ran them the same way. Having said that there are many ex British colonies that have their current troubles - mostly manifested in the forms of sectarian violence of one form or other. Those of you going to your beds contented at the great country you live in should consider the fact that a lot of the wealth which provides that comfort was/is generated by the exploitation of others. This is not your personal responsibility (at least not directly), but it doesn't do to get too smug about it either. |
|
25 Apr 02 - 08:23 AM (#698177) Subject: RE: BS: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: GUEST,T-boy "Most of Africa" ? I think the French, Germans, Dutch, Belgians, Italians and Spanish and Portuguese may have had a toe in there too. As for "right-wing death-squad dictators", are they any worse than left-wing death-squad dictators, e.g. Mugabe and the rest. |
|
25 Apr 02 - 12:07 PM (#698348) Subject: RE: BS: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: DougR Guest DeClan: Since your last paragraph is obviously directed at me, I'll direct my comments to you. If you think creating jobs so that people can work and earn a living wage is exploitation, I suppose there is little reason to argue about it. You are of the school, I take it, that favors government taking care of everybody. If so, I hope that you live in a country with a socialistic economic system because everyone knows, socialism doesn't exploit anyone, right? I have the same opportunity as anyone else in this country to be successful as anyone else. If my goal is to be rich, and if I am willing to work hard, I can be rich. No one can prevent me from it because of my race, creed, or religion. I know of no system that provides that opportunity other than capitalism. Capitalism has made it possible for this country to come to the aid, when needed, of any country in the world, and we have been able to do that, because this is a wealthy country filled with people that are generous with their wealth. DougR Maybe colonialism wasn't so bad after all. There were far fewer killings in those days, weren't there? DougR |
|
25 Apr 02 - 12:35 PM (#698381) Subject: RE: BS: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: Scabby Douglas I'm assuming DougR's last comment was "tongue-in-cheek" because if we follow that logic, there would not be any USA as we know it. on the general topic... WHatever benefits may trickle down to other parts of the world as a result of the colonial and imperial imperatives of Britain, the US, France, Belgium, Portugal, the Netherlands, Spain, etc, etc, etc..., we should not ever make the mistake that the nations or regimes at the top of the heap act altruistically. >br> Call me an old bitter cynic, but even where governments talk about "stability" or "war on terror", they are at heart protecting our/their own interests - the status quo of Western culture. No-one wants the boat to be rocked.
Cheers Steven |
|
25 Apr 02 - 12:46 PM (#698396) Subject: RE: BS: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: Troll Well, DUH! troll |
|
26 Apr 02 - 04:23 AM (#698933) Subject: RE: BS: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: Teribus From Guest Declan above: "Much of the trouble that has started in post-colonial independent countries arises from divisions in the societies there which were fomented and exploited by the colonial power in order to help 'rule' the 'natives'. Someof these divisions were artificially created by the colonial powers." This when applied to former African colonies is an extremely niaive view and implies that all was sweetness and light prior to the arrival of the Europeans. Historically, Ethiopia apart, there were no countries in the modern sense, only nation-tribes. At any given time what land was theirs, was what land they could control. Examples of the more successful tribes were: Zulu, Ashanti, Matabele, Masai, Ndebele. They ruled areas by subjugation of lesser neighbouring tribes. Along come the Europeans and when the predominating tribes found themselves in conflict they lost. Generally, when this happened the lesser tribes found the "new kids on the block" did not drive off their cattle, did not slaughter their menfolk, did not carry away or destroy their crops, did not abduct their women and children - They were a damn sight more benign than their previous conquerors. Once the areas were divided into countries by the colonial powers, no consideration at all was paid to the ethnic make up. This was not something that was done deliberately to screw the place up in years to come, it was done for purposes of administration and commerce. When the colonial powers set up their colonies, they needed "locals" to assist them. The people required, generally were found from among the lesser tribes, not from the former ruling tribes. When independence came along, the descendents of those people were the obvious choice to rule and administer the newly independent state. Colonial power leaves, new administration is set up. Now former dominant tribe, says "Bugger this" we're not being ruled by the ......(whatever the tribal name is of the lesser tribe) - "We're going to take back what was ours". The sectarian divisions were there before the colonial powers came along, the colonial powers did not create them. Now some examples:
South Africa:
Rhodesia/Zimbabwe: Rwanda: enough said. DougR's comment: "Maybe colonialism wasn't so bad after all. There were far fewer killings in those days, weren't there? " May not be as tongue in cheek as you think. Post WWII how many droughts, famines and natural disasters have there been in Africa? What have they resulted in? Now as these are "natural" catastrophies they must have occured during the colonial era - they definitely did but were far less severe in result because the colonial power had a vested interest in looking after the place. Now-a-days basically the IMF and World Banks don't give a toss, they just want their loans repaid - a balance sheet has no compassion. To Bill Kennedy: The British Empire was not the only one around at that time - you also had a Dutch Empire, Spanish, French, Begian, German, Portugese. The British one was the one that basically kept the peace (for damn near 100 years) - because that was what was good for business. And by the by, the 'Great' that appears before Britain comes from the description of a geological feature, not from any desire on the part of the inhabitants to inflate the political nature, or status, of the place. Another interesting exercise for you would be to establish just how few colonies Britain actually had, how few places Britain actually conquered, the number of places Britain got involved with through trade, where, when challenged by another of the European powers, the indigenous people fought alongside the British (In Canada the Indian nations fought with the British forces against the French and later against the Americans - Same happened in India against the French).
|
|
26 Apr 02 - 05:47 AM (#698962) Subject: RE: BS: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: Wolfgang From what I know "far fewer killings in those days" also applies to Great Britain's North American colonies... The idea to put the 'Great' in Great Britain in inverted commas reminds me that some time soon I'll be citizen of Lower Saxonia. I think I should consider protesting that name. Same as everybody English should protest against the not-PC name of the Scottish 'High'lands. And think of the wrong impression the name 'Ire'land gives... Wolfgang |
|
26 Apr 02 - 06:00 AM (#698966) Subject: RE: BS: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: Teribus Hi Wolfgang, LOL - nice one!!! Cheers, Bill. |
|
26 Apr 02 - 07:43 AM (#699002) Subject: RE: BS: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: kendall It's interesting that whenever someone points out a flaw in our system of government, Doug calls it "bashing". Telling the truth is hardly "bashing" in my not so humble opinion. I dont blame the U.K. for what happened 100 years ago anymore than I blame my ancestors for slavery. My own ancestors had nothing to do with either. Now, as far as the USA being at the top of the food chain kicking ass all over the world, it's just our turn thats all! Rome had her time, England had hers, Egypt etc. just remember Doug, The Past Is Prolog. |
|
26 Apr 02 - 12:54 PM (#699159) Subject: RE: BS: 'Great' Britain's responsibility From: DougR Kendall: what "flaw" are you referring to? I don't recall suggesting that one should NOT bash our government. If that's what turns you on, okay by me. You have that right. I am just not a "basher" myself. I happen to think that we have the best system going. Everyone else to their own opinion. DougR |