Search blog.co.uk

Subscribe by email

You can receive the posts of this weblog by email.

About me

evilhippy

evilhippy pro

Calendar

<<  <  July 2008  >  >>
Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

Syndicate this blog

RSS 1.0: Posts, Comments

RSS 2.0: Posts, Comments

Atom: Posts, Comments

What is RSS?

Tags

Global Patriotic

by evilhippy @ 2008-05-06 - 11:37:54

This is what happened while I tried to write the last article - I got distracted, as I so often do.
The thing that began this tangent was, of course, that strange habit that French and American people have of making fun of England - for its food.
Of course its hard to make fun of us for our military history (by the French it's kinder just to walk away, but the Yanks have a fair call on that one; but it's not like we stopped talking after the war - I think level heads all across the Atlantic would agree it was a one-nil score to the Away team, but really it hardly mattered to the Home side) and certainly difficult to make jokes at the expense of British literature, British academia, British economics or British (we are a tiny island richer than 190 other countries on the planet - which places us as FIFTH richest in the world.
We even went ahead of France this year :D

As an aside, and I promise I won't do this again in this column, all those outlying territories do not count as countries; all the little islands not already part of old colonial nations are not recognised, Greenland isn't a country of course (it's part of Denmark, as I probably didn't need to point out) and neither is Palestine, nor Puerto Rico nor are, as resognised by the UN and everyone else apparently, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland official countries.
Frankly I think is stupid, unfair and erroneous, but that's the whole `United Kingdom` thing for you - http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/numbercountries.htm
On the major plus side, we don't need to mess around with passports when we go to Glasgow, although you do have to learn a new language ;)

-

Anyway these Americans and French, they say to me - at every opportunity and often apropros of nothing - that this state of bland culinary ineptitude exists in every home kitchen and food shop and restaurant in our country.
Well, at least we know how much food a dinner plate should have upon it before it becomes a life threatening activity and needs its own special kind of insurance, and no, you French types may not act as if the world owes you its eternal gratitude (as they often do) because quite simply you rolled over like a dead dog in 1940, and your `Empire` was frankly a bit shit in the global scheme of things (and wasn't even led by a Frenchman) so take your camembert to hell, yah big cheese-eating espece d'ordures!

Sorry; I'm just a little fed up with the idea that every country is allowed to take the piss out of the British ecause of our famous sense of humour and love of self-deprecation. They seem to have missed the `self` part of that because that means we can do it but you still need permission. Now I may be an angry and very silly man at times, but, unless provoked to a degree that has never happened yet I would not go around making fun of where anyone comes from, least of all because of some unwarranted allegations, especially those that are disproved daily in all parts of the world.
All cuisine, you see my central point regarding this, is now English because everyone from the whole world has a community there - we rather enjoy being able to get food from any nation in many of our big cities - and you certainly don't find us stocking up people we don't like the look of down near the coast, and then surreptitiously boating them 26 miles away from us in the middle of the night.

I welcome them - all people from absolutely everywhere and no they don't even have to `make a contribution` yet, because they all have something to teach us and us to teach them, and one country in the world has to lead the way when it comes to accepting every human being who wants a new life with better chances; it used to be America but now it is down to us.
And it should be - we are not all equal (not by a long shot) but we all deserve equal chances and if a country has to suffer (as ours is, oh woe is England, with all those pesky immigrants taking all our taxes - please. Fuck off. Until EVERY SINGLE BRITISH CITIZEN WHO IS ABLE, who is alive and does not need governmental assistance, and at home at the moment has a job themselves, then this arguement falls flat on its ugly, racist face.

We, as the British or English or UK citizens or whatever we get called, have a unique chance to once again show that a little sacrifice can make the world a better place. Better for more people more of the time in more ways; I am proud that Britain accepts Eastern Europeans and Pakistani deportees and Chinese people who have lived in terror or squalor or misery their whole lives, we are the one country who should do this for everyone, so that others may follow.

And why the hell not?

Back in the days when these things were more acceptable (and pretty much de rigeur for any European country who could hold a gun by the right end) we conquered one quarter of the land on Earth, we effectively had dominion and sovereignty over one quarter of all people alive - and then: we gave pretty much all of it back, with very little fuss, after winning a hugely demanding war and seeing suffering because of our efforts for years afterwards; very possibly seeing a little enlightenment in this as a result; and we backed off from everywhere that could manage itself having left a damned lot of quite wonderful things behind that improved the lives and prospects of the people under our administration.

They may not have been ours by invention - a Scotsman (*argument starts sigh*) invented the telephone and the railways were pioneered by a Northerner (only joking!) and lightbulbs and a great many other things were given to us by that consumate American genius Edison, but we proliferated all this, initially under the guise of Empire and glory and eventually in the manner of a pretty benevolent land developer of a scale never seen before or since, and apart from the tragedy that has become much of Africa, we left just about everywhere in a far better state than it was before we got all happy with the Navy and the flags and the pith helmets and things.
And what's one continent between friends?
(little too outre..?)

Now one brilliant thing the French HAVE given us are all those great little phrases, like `de rigeur`, `outre`, `c'est la vie` and so on. By the way I can't do any accents or inflections on my laptop, so you have to try and remember where they all go yourselves.
The best thing the French gave us, apart from a wonderful line in cutting repartee if they ever try to make fun of us, is that other phrase up there: `espece d'ordure`.

I got this from the excellent book "A Mad World My Masters" (John Simpson) when he met a French cameraman while crossing the virtually-lethal border from Palestine into Lebanon, and he used the term to describe the Palestinian militiaman who had stabbed Simpson in the cheek with the muzzle of a machine-gun. It means `a species of refuse/rubbish` but despite its seeming innoccuouness it was a phrase the Frenchman thought such a coward deserved for attacking his friend, an unarmed bystander, with a 6-foot piece of sharpened metal.
So I guess that's a pretty good insult if you want to start a fight in France *makes a note* :>

Trackback address for this post:

authimage

Comments, Trackbacks: Hide subcomments

Me [Visitor]

2008-05-06 @ 12:25

Your a great writer - bigoted perhaps?

I think you'll find - historically, many of the low and high level conflicts, are deep rooted in the colonial era. This to me: is not a positive legacy! Conversely, there are possibly , arguably positive aspects too! However, are overridden, with the the perpetual exploitive means of the Western States.

Domination, exploitation, hunger, famine, and war,(to name a few) are not positive aspects the British Empire, or any of the other invaders too. The Western States should be answerable to the ICJ. And should financially compensate all those countries that have been left financially crippled due to absurd agreements, for example the SAP one! Germany had to cough up! financially - post WW2, so should filthy rich western nations.

Thank - you!

evilhippyevilhippy pro
2008-05-06 @ 13:23

The African debt problem - yes that is the worst thing going on in the world these days. Not wanting to point a finger - it seems I have digits aimed at the french all the time but really it is coincidence - but most of the African countries now screwed up were French colonies, although still those left by the Brits aren't exactly peachy.

Days of Empire were terrible - of course, it was just world invasion and attempted domination - but that was an age when these things didn't matter to anyone in power. I'm hardly saying it started off well!! The quality of the decisions in later years are what makes me unashamed of it all.

Think what it was like in 1750 or even 1850 - the world wasn't properly mapped yet, countries; whole landmasses; were yet to be discovered, no-one knew if, maybe, there was a great army waiting in asia, or whether there was more land in the southern oceans or the pacific each possibly threatening everyone and everything, everyone was doing what they had been doing for 1500 years - fighting each other. There was a lot of landgrabbing going on because that was what countries did at that time, to protect their own and defend against the unknown as much as to line their pockets, and service their own egos.

But Britain has, by and large but with obvious help from historical events and other nations, left the world with, for example, India, Australia, America and Canada, among dozens of other small territories, previously either almost empty, full of more or less murderous tribes and miniature warring empires of their own, and left the four major nations now as global superpowers.

No empire has ever voluntarily given back all its posessed lands except the British one. We had no chance of holding onto it - but it left massive parts - and tiny parts - of the world with things it would never have had.
Surely it would have been better to have been taken over by a group concerned less with slavery (like the portuguese and spanish and french) and more with just natural resources?

Domination, famine, war, hunger, cannabalism, ethnic cleansing, exploitation - these things were all going on in India, again for example, for centuries before the British ever got there. Slavery by the Mughal empire and all Hindu empires was ended by the British Raj.
Exploitation continued, domination was greatly reduced as the smaller empires lost their power over the peasantry to murder and enslave as they wanted, the caste system gave way a little to free enterprise - a freedom from slavery in itself - war was then limited as the country became almost wholly British ruled, and a whole shitload more people got to eat than they ever did before with organised mass farming, and even employment, albeit for either a pittance or even as slavery; but most of the people would have starved or been ethnically cleansed by the mughals or hindus anyway, that's what I saw from the people and places over there, anyway.

Anyway yes - Empire = bad!! but I am not going to be ashamed of the British empire for any reason, they did what they thought was best for England first, and the people under its control second, and did so a lot more often than other empires.

evilhippyevilhippy pro
2008-05-06 @ 13:27

PS: dunno much about the SAP agreement, other than the african countries themselves often turned against it and didn't privatise but just farmed the money from them for themselves? Like I said not sure, couldn't find anything on it really.

Oh, and Germany had to pay reperations because they were the driving force behind the murder of 50,000,000 people.
I don't think we would have had enough musket-shot ;)

Me [Visitor]

2008-05-06 @ 14:18

I think you'll find the British Empire was financially crumbling, and Britain was on the verge of Bankruptcy. India, the 'jewel in the crown' was the first of the Dominions to fall! Which was not given back! You'll find that the Britain could not financial afford to 'manage' such political identities The whole process off Imperial rule! was done through invasion, which equals deaths! thousands and millions, look at the Sepoy mutiny look at the Partition of the India! A blood bath! The transition was rushed and poorly managed The death toll! Well, I don't think I need to quote figures! It's shameful. Yes, your quite right, there were dynasties before! neither, do I defend their actions, when it comes down to War. The underlying factor remains: the vast majority of global conflicts,( today) are the result of the British policy of: divide and conquer.

evilhippyevilhippy pro
2008-05-06 @ 17:39

I know it was financially crumbling - we had just won the war after all ;) and Churchill worked out in 1947 that it had to go, it was a fair cop and while not actually `given` back it wasn't exactly resisted - they could have taken what resources were left and fought it but it didn't happen. The world changed and everyone saw it.
Imperialism means invasion, yes, but frankly everyone has done it at some point. We just did it better than anyone else, then dismantled it better than anyone else.
Never said it was a good thing to start ;) but it was finished in the most enlightened way it could have been, realistically.

Divide and conquer was Caesar's invention, everyone else used it because it worked, and conflicts today, well... the portuguese have a lot to answer for as do the Dutch, Spanish, Americans and French. And the Germans, Russians and Chinese.
And Burmese, the French and Americans again (vietnam) and a bunch of others.
Most war zones in the world are in Africa, most of them shared evenly between France, Holland, Germany and England.
And the Turkish, Italians and a large bloody part - probably most of it - by many African dictatorships and military governments, who resist most help where it is needed still and line their own pockets.

The debt SHOULD be eradicated, but rich countries like to stay that way and I think Britain is doing the best it can by being open and free for all; we still owe a few trillion dollars to the world bank like everyone does (except Sweden, I think) and at the moment, sadly, it is probably one step in the right direction too terrifying for any economy to shoulder on its own.

If the USA stopped its financial interests in Africa and South America - the grain export/cocaine situation in Latin America is frankly horrific but so self-serving it is unlikely to stop in our lifetimes - then both continents would stand a better chance right off the bat. But as the world's richest country - and biggest world bank debtor, I believe - all it wants to do is pretend the outside world doesn't exist to its own people and pretend nothing matters but their own people to everyone else.

I still maintain that many nations of great standing today would be nothing more than deserts or wastelands or extremist oppresive religious rabbles without the British empire.

evilhippyevilhippy pro
2008-05-06 @ 17:56

This argument is fun, isn't it? :D
One more thing that just ocurred to me - do remember that you're getting your education about most of this in England, where the whole educational structure is geared towards pointing out all our past wrongdoings. It is the case, everywhere, that English failures and Empirical disasters and crimes are taught in exclusive detail.
There is no point getting into a pissing contest - I win anyway, I can aim higher :D - about who killed more or whether conditions were worse under which regime - but you are not learning anything about French empirical oppression or Portuguese slave trading, or much in any detail about the Jewish holocaust or anything else.

It is British failings you're getting drummed into you, remember - and even Hitler paled next to Stalin, murdering 20,000,000 of his own people all by himself! Not to mention Leninist oppresion and annhiliation policies, or mao Zedong, who has killed so many of his own Chinese people that no-one has any figures. Honestly it might be a hundred million, it might be a quarter of a billion - no way of telling.

In all the nasty ways britain took over other countries, all of it was war, which is at least honest, if horrific. It may have amounted to massacre in many cases, but it was never genocide, nor was it dogmatic and terrifying mind control for people who's families are sent to concentration camps for torture and extermination as happens NOW in North Korea if they say or do anything unauthorised, and it certainly never involved ethnic cleansing.

It was wrong, it was arrogant and selfish and oppressive and possessive - but it was never set up to be cruel, dictatorial or in any way racist.
There are always small exceptions, but it was done for the purpose of the time - landgrabbing and glory for one's country, and there was never a fight or battle or attack intended purely to murder another people. Greed, absolutely.
Hate - never. More often than not, rather, respectful combat.

Me [Visitor]

2008-05-06 @ 19:13

Lets crank this up a notch or two!

Lets take it onto philosophical level: You state Britain had "won" the war. I have problems with this definition of winning! Who won exactly? Did the hundreds of thousands of civilians that lost thier lives? The parents, families loved ones of the dead?. Did they win???? Where the victors????

How do you define "won" it's not tangible..It's a concept. Won what exactly?.. How does one balance the financial, social and human cost? There are no winners really in war.. Every losers. That why is continues, as balance of power shifts daily, hourly for that matter. It's called nation state paranoia, fulled by need to control..

You should read about the prisoners security dilemma.. It's an insight.

How was it finished in an enlightened way? There is no such thing as enlightenment. It's a concept - as was the enlightenment period.

Your missing the main crux of my argument: If one wins wars, why is there still ongoing legacy today, that has it's root firmly planted in the colonial era? There not won - there ongoing.

Look at Afghanistan, and Iraq today! was a totally farce.

Neither mind all the other global conflicts that still remain.

Additionally, the reason I honed in on the British was: you were playing a "patriotic game".

Your missing yet another vital point: The world - (political as that) is held together by propaganda. There seems to be the thinking that if someone is called a autocratic ruler or a dictator, that makes them automatically bad. And if there is democracy, and the political leader declares war that's ok. It's NOT. Deaths carried out by all leaders, which ever label one wishes to attach to them is universal wrong. Democracy is just another form of governance. Democratic countries have and still do have civil disobedience.. This nation states have different forms of control. That just don't want to be the Bad guys! It's easier to point the finger at the different form of governance and point to all it's failings.( this does not mean i'm a advocate of any of the regimes you've mentioned). I'm merely playing devils' advocate.

There is no such thing as respectful combat. With all the guidelines that are set in out terms of engagement of war! For example, non combatants, should not be caught in the cross fire. You'll find that the US and Nato forces are breaking their own codes of conduct. It's just it's not highly published when the USA, take out in village in the North West Frontier killing hundreds of civilians.

War should not be glorified. It's not a Blockbuster movie. It's real and deadly, and there no way back for those who have lost their lives.

Me [Visitor]

2008-05-06 @ 19:19

Far too many typos, and grammatical errors.
Sorry was not concentrating,(enough).

you get the general gist.

I think were polarized on our thinking of war.

Leave a comment :

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.
Allowed XHTML tags: <!, p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, a, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small, img>
URLs, email, AIM and ICQs will be converted automatically.
Options:
 
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email & url)
Validation code:
Please enter the above code here:
For protection from spambots (case-sensitive).