UKH

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1603672546443852&id=1000040...

You still haven't explained why you haven't moved Russia if you dislike the UK (and all other western nations) so much? 

Sorry was I asked that? And what makes you think I dislike the UK (and all other western nations)? 

It's more a case of what makes me think you do. Everything about western capitalist countries is wrong, everything about Russia is right etc.. ? 

Ah so you now have the temerity to tell me what I think even though its total nonsense . OK I'm up for a wee troll. 

How is "everything", about western capitalist countries wrong?

How is everything about Russia right?

This should be excellent as I've often wondered what I currently think about these things, carry on. 

I suspect Summo is basing his assumption on the content of your posts over a long period. They suggest to me too you don't much like Britain but are very keen on Russia. 

No, no they don't. 

What my previous posts have done is present people with what we do and have done.Under the present circumstances this is what one must never do in order to hide our crimes from the world as Britain is one of the places- unlike nazi Germany--that will not face up to or admit many of its previous and current crimes. Hopefully that will change in the near future to heal properly and I think it will once the old school guard are replaced by the younger generations. 

Now to not show what we do/did or write about them etc is like living in a weird dystopian authoritarian state or living a lie but this is a "democracy" lol. So are we not free and is it not our right and duty to expose crime everywhere? Like a doctor's right to heal the sick? 

So because I do that I am hated, what do you do with hated people? Kill them or make them go away, banish them far away. 

This is my country every bit as much as yours or anyone else's. I may be a radical socialist wanting peace, no war and an end to imperialism but this is a land of radicals that inspired other radicals throughout the world and history. Its a part of being British. 

I don't think anyone here hates you. 

However, you do seem to go in for endless self flagellation over Britain's history, while whitewashing shortcomings of e.g. Russia's history. Hence the impression. 

What pisses me off is people like you who only seem to see the "wrongs" that this country has committed and cite them in pursuance of your marxist/leninist/communist/ corbynist agenda.Why do you never give credit for the many good things for which this country has been responsible?

I was. I just couldn't be bothered to reply because trying to debate with them is utterly impossible and pointless. 

Why not re-read your posts on any thread related Russia, putin, Salisbury etc. Etc.

You'll be consistently pro Russia and communism, claiming anything negative about them is a conspiracy generated by evil western democracies.

Didn't this start out a light hearted post, on British manners and idiosyncrasies?

What's it like to be on UKC? "After a couple of posts, someone will derail the thread and decide you need to be answerable for posts you've posted elsewhere"

Well apologies if I give that impression. Russia under the Tsars was practically fascist murdering Jewish folks in hellish pogroms and treating people like slaves and there were many crimes committed by both sides during the class war of 1918-1921 it really was horrific as were many of the confused mistakes made rushing to catch up with the capitalist countries. It wasn't all workers United in love, equality and peace and they did learn all of that from previous British radicals. 

I was hoping it would be but I suppose I'm too controversial for that happen, self inflicted and to be expected I suppose.

But I hope the link brought a few smiles to a few faces I know it did for me. 

Em, I'm telling it like it is, I'm not even playing devil's advocate I'm just stating what I see from what I know. 

I am a socialist, pro-trade unions, worker control etc but I do understand fully the requirements of business and the competition they face and how hard that is.

Capitalism is very tough on capitalists to. 

When it comes to conspiracies, false flags etc it is a fascinating subject that not many will touch even though we all know it goes on and has done repeatedly through the last 70 years. So no one on here touches it except me but they are the basis or justification for practically every major conflict. So why does no one go there on here? I don't know, plenty of other places have people happy to go into that. 

This seems like a thread to keep an eye on for the evening. Don't mind me...

Marxist/leninist/communist I will accept but i have nothing to do with Corbyn I'm a socialist he and his people are social Democrats. 

Socialists are anti-war, anti-explotation, anti-imperialist, pro-worker etc and the British ruling class just like the ruling class of the USA, Spain, Germany etcetera have been the main enemy of anti-imperialists its nothing personal against the British ruling class its against all ruling classes and for the British working and Middle class, you know workers of the world and all that. 

Ye know I'm tempted to say its actually the Tories who hate Britain and the British as we support the workers who are the 99% of British people and you don't. 

But anyhow, OK your message has been received and taken on board I'll change my ways. Thanks. 

  You can always spot a platitude by imagining whether anyone claims to desire the opposite. You won't hear many parties proclaiming themselves to be "pro-war, pro-exploitation, pro-imperialist and anti-worker"....

  Corbyn is of course the master of empty platitudes but you're running him a good race....

You profess to be pro-worker. Do tell me why you feel the urge to support "the workers" rather than anybody else such as the entrepeneurs who risk their capital in order to establish industries, companies, trade etc and thus provide the workers with their livelihood. Why should the "workers" have a monopoly of "support"?

Whilst I don't wish to get involved in an animated discussion,  I don't understand this comment. Could you explain the who, when and how please? 

T.

I t did, but not for the original link, the reaction on the thread are much funnier

The Chartists, the diggers, the first ever  trade union movements in the North of England who inspired Engles and the international working mens association (Marx was head at one point) which was formed in London in 1860 something and was the very 1st international. You can go back to the radicals of Paisley in Scotland as well, in fact many years ago i once went to a meeting in Paisley Town Hall on radical history in Paisley and the speaker was a guy called Leonard the new head of the Labour Party in Scotland. In Paisley to this day they have a yearly procession and at the head is a top hatted effigy of an old style capitalist ( a terrible mill owner) that gets burned at the end.

https://www.paisley.org.uk/paisley-history/paisley-radicals/

Worth a read is 'A Radical History of Britain' by Edward Valance

ISBN 978-0-349-12026-3

No but the proof of the pudding... 

You are right of course as you would never see a Tory do that. 

Thanks for the reply.

I admire the passion you obviously have for this, but I can't follow the train of thought you have here.  I fear there's a broken connection somewhere along the line though whether that's mine or yours, I can't say.

But nevertheless, thank you for replying.

T.

Im a Marxist-Leninist, means of production and all power in the hands of the workers, building a society for the workers etc. 

Having said that I should also state that I do want to protect my not inconsiderable stocks and shares investments in the city as my current portfolio is doing rather well thanks and I would not want that to change.

Seriously I do understand the massive risks people take on creating businesses, the stress, responsibility etc is hugeand I have great respect for them. I just think there is a better way. 

What’s it like to British?

Since 2016 it’s like being held hostage by a cabal of maniacs, each with their own unhinged agenda.

... and all in agreement that their own particular unicorn will emerge triumphant, indeed that their unicorn was what 52% of the electorate voted for all along.

There's not really very much there that is uniquely British - I suspect many European countries would have very similar lists. 

Any list of British characteristics must, by definition, include mention of the fact that any crisis, no matter how big or small, will be eased with copious cups of tea. 

I think the obsessive worship of tea is more English than British, isn't it?

No, I don't think tea is a uniquely English obsession. Certainly Scots drink plenty of the stuff, as do the Northern Irish. I'll admit I have less knowledge of the Welsh tea drinking habits. 

I would suggest that your suggestion is an extension of the view held by many people that British = English and vice versa. 

It's all about Marmite.  Or more precisely, having an opinion on Marmite.  

Exact opposite. That's why I made the distinction between English and British in my last post.

The Welsh definitely like their tea as well.
Maybe Gordon is referring to the type of tea that is drunk in dainty china cups and with your little finger pointing out? Elevenses with the vicar, that sort of thing. 
Now that would be very English...

Dear God someone puts up a humourous post and you go mental

No no never admit to your crimes. That's how you get caught

So you agree with me that the Soviet Union was NEVER Socialist, even though it called itself (in English) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

After all, it did invade Georgia, Finland etc.. So was definitely pro-war and pro-imperialism.

Yes. I was also hinting that maybe the Scots, for example, prefer other types of drink.

A few good ones. I never turn down a cup of tea though.

I think the English prefer other kinds of drink too but tea is not as expensive or debilitating.

Ireland drinks more tea per head than the UK, but it seems Turkey is the winner by a huge margin! ( according to Wikipedia anyway)

More like Home Counties.

Now in the South-West we drink our tea in mugs (sometimes pint mugs).

A retired doctor my Dad was on a sailing trip with did some research into the diet and health of Scottish people, to find out why Scottish people can generally tend to be as un/healthy as they are, and he worked out that it's because of the amount of tea which is drunk while having food, because there's something in tea which stops the body from absorbing the nutrients in food. According to the doctor, if you eat food you should wait half an hour before drinking tea. Presumably not drinking tea half an hour before eating would be sensible too. 

I think I'll risk missing out on a few of the nutrients in my full fry English breakfast rather than leaving it half an hour for a cuppa. 

That's why in Edinburgh we say:

'You'll have had your tea then.'

hard to imagine that is exclusive to the Scots and not the rest of the UK

I do that with toothsome snackerals, and 'follow doctor's orders' 90% of the time or more.

I think this is largely an old-wives' tale based on the observation that some forms of some tannins can bind some nutrients, like iron.  Whilst this is true, there seems to be no evidence that it has any measurable effect on overall nutrition: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5998341/.

There's better evidence that the eating of large quantities of raw eggs for long periods can lead to vitamin deficiency because avidin in raw egg white binds biotin. 

It certainly is true that elderly people who drink a lot of tea sometimes become iron-deficient, but I think this usually because they only eat toast.   

Couldn't they get around that by having Marmite on their toast?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11029010

I found the abstract interesting. 

'Iron deficiency remains a global health issue, and antinutritional factors, such as tannins, are often cited as contributors to the high prevalence of deficiency. Despite this, tannin-rich diets may have potential beneficial cardiovascular and cancer-fighting properties because of the antioxidant activity of tannins. Furthermore, epidemiologic studies and long-term trials involving participants who consumed diets rich in antinutritional factors, particularly tannins, conflict with single-meal bioavailability studies. The purpose of this narrative review is to determine the effect of tannins on iron bioavailability and status and establish whether adaptation to tannins reduces the antinutritional effects of tannins over time. We also aimed to compare tannins used in iron studies. Common themes related to iron bioavailability and iron status with tannin consumption were collected and collated for summary and synthesis based on models and subjects used. Overall, there was dissonance between iron bioavailability and status in studies. Single-meal studies with hydrolyzable and oligomeric catechin and epicatechin tannins (tea and tannic acid) generally support reductions in bioavailability related to tannin consumption but not consumption of condensed tannin, which are more commonly found in food. Long-term animal model, epidemiologic, and multimeal studies generally do not support changes in iron status related to tannin intake. Studies suggest that long-term tannin consumption may impact iron status in a different manner than single-meal studies or bioavailability iron models predict. Furthermore, iron bioavailability studies that use condensed tannins, which are more commonly consumed, may better predict mealtime iron bioavailability. More research is needed to develop representative antinutritional iron studies and investigate mechanisms underlying the adaptation to tannins and other antinutritional factors that occur over time.'

I guess about half of them could.  I'd sooner eat raw liver.

Isn't alcohol good for iron deficiencies?

Summo was bitten by a miner when he was in his pram.

Or so I'm told.

May be he was hit by a flying picket

Only you would come up with that, looking from a window above 

Good things? Like taking over and exploiting half the world? OK we built some good railways but they were to efficiently get their stuff out and our goods in. How come India suffered terrible famines under the British Empire but not one after independence. Google it and get some facts. Incidentally, your pseudonym 'phuckeu' is not funny and neither is it clever.

It is, a bit!

True India was variably governed, but it certainly wasn't all  bad.

Also Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, NZ, etc seem to have done OK under British rule. I think a balanced, pluses and minuses account is reasonable. Also worth comparing to other forms of government at the time. I don't think Britain was particularly bad, probably quite good 

Bangladesh 1974

All true. Singapore did OK too. India seems to have suffered badly from British rule - in particular, the quashing of the Indian garment industry in favour of British exports. British rule across the empire was more benign and enlightened than others - eg the Belgian Congo - but there is something unpleasant and arrogant about the whole concept of a 'British Empire'.

Your history is a little weak. Bangladesh was just as much a part of British India as India (so to speak).

Not as weak as your history! In 1974 Bangladesh was part of Pakistan which had been independent from the British Empire for many years. 

The point, surely, is that claiming that post independence the India (i.e. British ruled territory) no longer suffered famines is not true because Bangladesh has suffered at least one. 

Your general point is I think true, however, that famines are less common these days.  Whether that is due to no empires, generally better governance, or generally rising wealth, or a combination is probably open to discussion.  

Sorry to repeat myself, but the 1974 Bangladesh famine occurred as a result of a post British Empire civil war. No more replies on this one.

Most likely because of 'The Green Revolution' in agriculture, but it is interesting to check the history of famines in India during the British Empire and after. Check it out.

For comparative purposes obviously the relevant comparison is of places within British India during British rule to the same places post independence (or pre-Raj) . This would include Bangladesh.

Hmm. 25 years later? 

I have previousl.  Correlation vs causation though? Wiki suggests famines were rare by 20th century in India, due to various governance and economic changes with the Bengal famine during WW2 being an exception 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India

I have enjoyed enough of socialist goodnes in the past. Some of my relatives didin´t survive it.

People like you served as useful idiots but they rarely recived a reward

I hadn't realised that your reference to famines under British rule was solely about those that occurred within the boundaries of the modern state of India.

Both your history and your logic are weak; for the purposes of the argument, it is entirely arbitrary which part of British India retained the name India after independence.

Sorry to hear that, what happened? 

Charming, fighting for workers rights and a better way is reward enough for me thanks. I don't seek material reward over and above what is fair. 

This is getting tedious. India and Pakistan - divided into East and West Pakistan - gained independence from Britain in 1947. East Pakistan fought a civil war in 1974 with West Pakistan which resulted in a famine and became Bangladesh. British India, including what became Pakistan and Bangladesh, suffered many famines - the last in 1943. All three countries are democracies - albeit - imperfect. The point about democracies is that potential famines are identified at an early stage by the representatives of the areas involved and remedial action taken. I've not mentioned Ireland but that's another argument!

  None of which addresses the point Robert was making. But, whatever....

I suspect that I'm being trolled here...

Not at all.

Completely unrelated to the thread but your post had me raising an eyebrow and spitting my tea all over my keyboard in equal measure haha!

 As an outsider who has lived on the West Coast of Scotland for the past seven years there *****may**** be a few more lifestyle factors involved than drinking too many dried brewed leaves with yer roll 'n' square! ;p

Haha and if whats being consumed has a pretty dire nutritional content then all the tannins in a tea party won't make much difference. ;p

It's not a case I would make with any relish but couldn't it be said that the civil war that caused the famine wouldn't have occurred during British Rule.

How would we have stopped it? 

Since there was no independance to fight over it wouldn't have been a thing. Of course they could have put that energy into kicking the British out.

Maybe you're right but it's difficult to say. 

My Russian granny (mothers side) survived only because she was draaged to slave labour to Germany during the War. All her family who survived the war disappeared into the gulags without proper court after the war. (It took thirty years for her to be allowed to go to Russia and search for her family. All she found was "arrested". The reason why they were arrested is not known) Granny herself survived death march at the end of the war but was traitor in the eyes of Russian "advisers" who came to Czechoslovakia with Russian Army and had to get married quickly to the Czech man to avoid being arrested and dragged to labour camp somewhere in Siberia.

My granpa (fathers side) was arrested in 1949 because he refused to put in cooperatives his less than two acres. His family was refused all food rations and starved until he signed it.

His cousins were a violin makers. All their property was confiscated. Because they hid together some tools and strings they both were accused of speculation on coup d'état and got seven years in labour camp. One of brothers commited suicide there, the second died of untreated pneumonia

I have more stories like this if you like

What you are charming and fighting for is not a better way. It has been tried a hudred times and always ended in powetry and slaugtter

All these arguments about history, geography and the British empire are beside the point. It's become rather fashionable to look back at the empire with nostalgia and it is true that we built hospitals and schools. But in essence it was a money-making exercise and the whole concept is racist, arrogant and shameful.

At the time though it was different age in aspects of economy, political thought for the time and the way the globe worked( which was far less developed than it is now).

Some perspective on these things sometimes helps instead of calling things out with a 2019 viewpoint.

Nostalgia is not the right word.

Well how about a 1944 viewpoint? My dad served in India during the war and related tales of the starving beggars in the streets.

Probably it's longevity of the Empire rather than Empire building itself that leads to the idea that "the whole concept is racist, arrogant and shameful" Every country in existence started as someone's empire building project. To take modern China as an example; over 50 ethnic groups, 5 languages and 200 dialects, all spread over a vast territory...all those peoples didn't just get together one day and vote for China.

I was in India in 1989 and saw staving beggars in the streets.

Quite possibly and there is still much poverty in India. But at election time parties compete with each other to put forward poverty relief, food for work, farmer support programmes etc. Maybe it's an imperfect democracy but it is a democracy and way better than being in the British Empire.

And I have been to India in the last few years and am going again in the Autumn.And I will be expecting to see starving beggars on the streets and horrendous shanty towns.

And the world has again moved on from 1944.

I am really not sure of the point you are making.

I wouldn't know, I'm Welsh. "British" has always seemed like an extension of "English" to me, coming from rural North Wales. Not really something I can relate to.

You must move in different circles as I don't hear this nostalgia

Maybe so. Certainly the modern viewpoint. Certainly what the vast majority of Indians would say. Perhaps some of India's 18.4 million slaves would prefer alternate governance? Interesting to speculate whether India would be the world leader in modern day slavery if it were still part of the Empire.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/05/31/the-countries-with-th...

There's a lot of nostalgia among Brexiters for the empire. Oops, mentioned Brexit. Hundreds of posts later...

  Nonsense, it has become fashionable look back at the empire and condemn it as racist, arrogant and shameful. In schools people are barely taught that there was an empire, let alone that it is something to be nostalgic about..

  To condemn simply as a "money making" exercise is simple minded rubbish. Certainly profit was one of the drivers, the East India company being the classic example. But so was religion and Christian evangelism (which has a lot in common with the current  evangelisation of western liberal values in non-western cultures), adventure, chance, and migration of millions of people looking for a better life. In short, it was all a bit random.

  Nobody planned it. The history of humanity is of some cultures intermittently taking over others: The Huns, the Mongols, the Mughal empire, the Ashanti empire, the Zulu empire, and European empires etc etc.

  Racist? Racism was just a fact of life in many cultures. It wasn't unique to Europeans although, ironically, the intellectual developments of the enlightment and then of Darwin gave it a (mistaken) intellectual underpinning.

Shameful? By modern standards, yes. But judging people from centuries ago makes no sense. Can we predict how people will in three hundred years time will judge us and act accordingly?

And why ashamed? We weren't there, and weren't responsible?

It seems to me that it's remainers who are obsessed with 'The Empire', you're the ones continually banging on about it.

Well thank you for calling what I'm saying 'simple minded rubbish'. But saying that does not make it so. The British Empire was not a money-making exercise? It was actually about trade protected by the Royal Navy. Slaves to the Caribbean, sugar back to Britain. Colonise Southern Africa with white farmers grabbing the best land to grow maize and tobacco. In Nigeria and Ghana we simply looted the gems and precious metals. Balanced against all this was a measure of benign philanthropy compared to other empires, the building of schools and hospitals etc., but even by the standards of the time it was a somewhat shabby and hypocritical exercise.

Well someone has to explain Brexiters' enthusiasm for taking the country backwards; they don't seem to have any convincing arguments of their own.

Was the British navy ending the international slave trade also a shabby and hypocritical exercise?

What about the caste system, your potential in life decided at birth. Or women's rights? 

would probably make it into Viz

Yes, it's interesting and telling that after the collapse of the Soviet Union perhaps a dozen countries had the freedom to choose whatever system the wanted. Not one has continued with anything resembling communism. A pretty clear signal from hundreds of millions of people.

That is questionable from an efficiency point of view but perfectly legit from the point of the right to self govern.

The British Empire did some bad shit but then that is exactly the same for any empire. It's what empires do though of all of them the Spanish empire would probably come top as most humane. It is the only one that treated its conquered territories as part of its Crown (they were always Vice-kingdoms and never colonial regions, exactly like Sicily or Naples were) and the people there as subjects of the Crown, not animals to be exterminated as many others did. The Belgians were undoubtably the worse in that they contributed nothing positive to the countries they conquered.

Wow!

That's an incredible story. Two cousins given 7 years who both died in prison and your Russian grandma's family she could not find even though some were "arrested" and you say you have more stories to? How do you know your two cousins were not involved in something against the government? Some people were you know. 

Strange because I know many families in Czech Republic and I'm talking about lots of people here friends, neighbours, people in pubs, nightclubs over many many years and many of their friends also and every time I always asked them about repressions or people going missing during the times of the Czechoslovakia Socialist Republic and once and only once did I get a negative reply and that was about some neighbour who grassed my friends mother to authorities and she got a letter she was pissed off about. I'm talking about a hell of a lot of people here who have told me it was great, not perfect but compared to the shit now yes it was perfect. 

I am talking also about a  German boy whose was born in Germany, his Dad ran from the Nazis, ended up in Teresin, survived but the boy grew up in Cz as a German and got treated fine. No repercussions by the Russians, given a free house like everyone else and given free land of 2 acres by the socialist government to do what he wanted with as everyone could. 

We have chatted on here before and you don't see any good in the socialist Czechoslovakia, everyone I know that are Czech and was born during those times doesn't have a good word to say about now but looks back and wishes it were still socialist in fact that is why people are so angry there all the time because of what they threw away. 

When the great protector against the capitalist imperialists (the USSR) was taken down what choice did they have ffs. Don't be so niave, I mean when Bulgaria voted the communists back into power the USA overruled it. When the CP was about to be elected back into power in 1996 the USA subverted it. These countries didn't get a choice, sorry but you don't really know what you are talking about on that issue. 

All those issues are regularly debated in the Indian media. They are part of India's chequered history and dealing with them openly is part of the country's move into the modern world. They're currently trying to stop people defaecating in the open (Like some climbers do at the bottom of crags). Incidentally, if the Indian economy keeps performing it will soon surpass the UK's (it's already bigger using purchasing power parity). Another landmark will be going past China to have the largest population. Interesting times. Expect lots of attention in the media.

Where? Who does that? Practically all the dialogue about the empire taught by British historians is of being friendly and good and hiding practically all the truth. 

Wow! No it was to take colonies as Churchill pointed out and so did Pekkie in order to steal land, take resources, use people as slaves etc, if that is not for creating wealth then wglhat is? 

Nobody planned the British empire? Is that what you are saying? There were no orders to take this country or that? To expand and grow to attack any others that encroached? 

Why the apologise for racism, call it for what it is we were a racist country. 

Yes morality is morality then and now same thing. 

It is nothing to do with us but it is the heritage of this country which is also nothing to be proud of when it comes to the many crimes. That's not to say there were no good aspects which there were. 

That simply isn't true.  For example, I clearly remember at school studying Ghandi with the British actions strongly criticized.  There were similar discussions around race relation in South Africa.

Some of it was that.  Other bits weren't  Charachterising something with the size and longevity of the British Empire so crudely is absurd. 

But it clearly isn't.  For example homosexuality was a criminal offence, divorce was illegal, and racism was acceptable

  Well, as I said above, that was one of the drivers but certainly not the exclusive one or even the most important one. Jan Morris argued that of its many motivations, "glory" was probably the prime one.

  There's even a school of history that argues that the empire, whatever its motivations, was not profitable, more particularly that had it focused simply on trade rather than conquest and rule it would have been a lot more profitable.

  People can and will argue about the motivations and the benefits or harm done by the British empire for a long time to come. What is certain is that it was not as simple and straightforward as you seem to think.

  Given that it was maybe the inevitable outcome of a moment in time when one part of the world had the wealth, power, technology and democratic imperative to expand to the rest of the world , it could have been better but it could also have been a hell of a lot worse.

In Nigeria and Ghana the white slave traders bought the slaves off the indigenous (coastal) Nigerians and Ghanaians - most of which were traded to them by Arabs from inland where they had been captured by other (black) Africans.

Slavery was a business that had an awful lot of varying groups making a profit out of it, not just white Europeans.

I'm not saying it wasn't disgusting, just that you need to blame EVERY group involved, not just some.

 Some of what happened in Southern Africa was largely a case of the British government reacting to what adventurers like Rhodes were doing.  I'm not saying they did much to stop him but then it's not really clear they were in a position to do much.  He was acting in his own interests and those of his company. Occasionally, these coincided with the perceived interests of the empire. 

Of course this was all in a general atmosphere of colonial competition with European states like Belgium, France and to some extent Germany and Portugal.  

Utter rubbish.When being taught A Level History 40 years ago, the dark side of the Empire was well taught. This image that the rosy side of the Empire was the only thing taught at school is just a load of c##p put about by people who do not know any better or did not study History.

I suspect the view from within your bubble looks rather different to that from the outside.

Yep that's my take on it too.

I had a similar thought lurking in the back of my mind, you know, but figured a retired doctor know what they were talking about, probably more fool me.

You are projecting. 

Why you making straw men. 

Where did I say no one was taught about the British slave trade or Ghandi?

What I am saying is that British Historians and the main stream show the British empire as a good thing, do you now want to debate with what I actually write rather than what you make up? 

You could just post a snide remark rather than any constructive contribution. It's to be expected from you I suppose. 

To some degree it can depend on where one looks in the mainstream media, I've come across a few people recently, talking about the need for Britain to be more clear eyed about it's history of colonisation and how it plundered other countries. It's been not before time, though. 

Cecil Rhodes was a huge part of the British empire and worked in total partnership with the British ruling class to expand the British empire, bloody hell we are getting revisionism right here with your post. 

Yes and British slave traders made sure to supply the African slave trading tribes with plenty of guns so they could defeat the greater majority of African tribes that objected to slavery. 

The reality is it is pretty hard for an empire to develop, to provide a save land for it's population to thrive etc without oppressing others. Be it, Roman, Egyptian, Russian, Chinese, Persian, Mongolian, British, French etc.. 

Is there any empire in history that hasn't achieved it's greatness through the suffering of others? 

Proxy wars are not new. 

She can argue all she wants but the truth is that the British ruling class expanded the empire for wealth, commonwealth. 

Yes and they are wrong as we completely plundered India and China, everywhere in Africa we stole and everywhere else. Of course we weren't the only ones, all of Europe was at it, Russia Included and USA. Of course as we had over stretched it became costlier later on. That is why the Americans started a new cheaper model of imperialism. 

There are many parts that are very straightforward and some less so. 

Tell that to Indians under the Raj or Irish in 1840s etcetera etcetera and what "democracy" did Indians and Africans or Chinese or Egyptians or Iranians have under British rule? They lived in a dictatorship so its a tad really wrong to say anything about democracy. 

Probably its not longevity and more to do with complete robbery and brutal dictatorship signposted by genocides, massive famines and 300 years of slavery.

No? Just a thought, don't mind me. 

No they do not, far from it, the view that you put forward is nothing new( it has been well taught at school etc) and has been for years. It is hardly novel nor innovative r thinking.

In reality it is pretty boring and hackneyed old stuff and well discussed in mainstream media/education.

It migh not suit your particular bubble to think this.

You might be surprised at the human capacity for blind spots to do with this kind of thing, in seeing the empire one's own country developed in the past as being 'generally good'.

Yes and perhaps it was those ties around the world within the empire that helped enable the defeat of Hitler. It's not all bad. Of course ww1 started off fighting amongst two empires but that's a different argument. Even elements of ww2 with the Japanese were another old empire looking to retake old territory. 

Given that as a UK citizen you've benefited from living in a country that gained its strength from the empire, I presume you cleanse your conscience by sponsoring a school in Africa or some other similar venture?  

I thought you were talking about the USSR until I noticed the 300 years bit...

I don't see them as good, but most empires grow through oppression of others and end in mass turmoil. I don't see the future being any better or different. 

I should have added in that post - the 1996 election in Russia - that is, not the one in Bulgaria where the communists were voted into power after 1989 but Americans subverted it. 

Take out the 300 years bit (just the time frame, not the slavery) and you could include those factors in the history of the formation of just about any modern state. What differentiates the formation of the British empire from say the formation of Britain?

USSR dictatorship of the workers. 

British empire dictatorship of the capitalists. 

USSR robbery? USSR genocides? USSR slavery? Maybe some Nazis, white guard and counter-revolutionaries were worked to death I don't know if that's true or not but it would be terrible if it was , no excuses. In context Nazis starved 3.5 million Soviet POWs to death and whites were doing the same. 

True, I can't argue with that. Although I don't really think anyone could have stopped the Red Armies of the USSR and China and I mean German and European fascists+Japanese fascists. 

One of my grandfather's brothers was killed at Galipoli my father was in the British army and two of my uncles were in the British Royal Navy. 

My conscience is clear as someone Postmanpat maybe pointed out above, its got nothing to do with me. But Im not to keen on the tax I give going to fund jihadi in Syria and helping Nazis in Ukraine etc. 

Hey, my comment reflected an honest opinion based on observation. If you don't like the message you don't need to disparage the messenger.

Interesting point that haven't heard made before. A macrocosm and a microcosm from local domination to international domination yes I suppose. 

So did mine. 

Apologies, I really didn't mean it I know that was out of order, I take it back. 

Thank you.

    It's pretty much the dominant thinking in "academia" these days. Are you familiar with the Gilley/Biggar no platforming campaign?

It started when an academic journal (3rd world 1/4ly) published a paper by Bruce Gilley, an associate professor of political science at Portland State University in Oregon, called “The Case for Colonialism.” Fifteen of the thirty-four members on the journal’s editorial board resigned in protest, while a petition, with more than 10,000 signatories, called for the paper to be retracted. It was eventually withdrawn after the editor “received serious and credible threats of personal violence.”

Nigel Biggar, an Oxford academic wrote an article in the Times defending Gilley and initiated an academic project, under the auspices of Oxford University called “Ethics and Empire.” The project aims to question the notion prevalent “in most reaches of academic discourse,” that “imperialism is wicked; and empire is therefore unethical” .Biggar was confronted by a letter signed by 59 Oxford post colonial academics condemning the projects and then 200 overseas signatories condemning the university for investing resources in the project.

The tone of the "academic criticism" goes something like this, "The British empire was constitituvely racist. Its great theorists & chroniclers at the time had the virtue of never denying that it was fundamentally premised on Anglo-Saxon racial superiority. Ergo, today's apologist--including Nigel Biggar--are racists. But dishonest ones." (Priyamvada Gopal)

Academics attending Biggar's project tend to go incognito for threats to themselves or their careers.

  Fortunately Oxford unlike, for example, Cambridge, still stands for academic diversity and freedom of speech and therefore defended Biggar.

Mainstream media from the BBC, History channels to all the books spat out every year by historians from Harvard to Oxford glorify the British empire in general and cover up many of its huge crimes, this is fact.

You just need to look at the extensive work of Niall Ferguson as one example of loads.

You will occasionally get an article in the msm about a particular crime of the British empire but 95% of the time it is seen as great, all Rule Brittania, jingoism and us against the savages. I'm mean it is only and I mean only lately that some have had the balls to speak up against Churchill recently and when they do they get completely attacked. 

  Rolls eyes. Ferguson has made a career out of challenging the prevailing consensus. AKA.he is atypical.

This is just balls. Many British historians have documented the injustices of Empire. Take a trip to Bristol, Liverpool or London and you'll find plenty of space given over to documenting the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade.

http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ism/

https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/museum-london-docklands/permanent-galleri...

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/arts/design/20slav.html

I didn't think you did do.

...and I thought I was becoming cynical as I get older. I like to think there might be some improvement in how we treat one another, but that it won't happen if the people who care don't make a fuss. Human nature is the same as it's always been - with great darkness possible in that, but we can learn that people can be directed or nudged in different directions, and can potentially use that towards something good, I think it comes down to who does the convincing and nudging in the end. There's been some recognition of human rights as important following WW2 which is something. 

  She's in luck. Soon they'll be no need for her to travel that far..

https://glasgowguardian.co.uk/2018/11/04/glasgow-city-council-considering-p...

You said "Practically all the dialogue about the empire taught by British historians is of being friendly and good and hiding practically all the truth. "  So even if you are quibbling over the "practically" bit, the evidence of a various posters suggest you are wrong - a critical picture of the Empire is presented and taught by historians in schools

It hasn't always been, though, or not consistently, during the 90's at school I learnt nothing at all about the British Empire, and only learnt about how India was treated by chance while waiting in an empty classroom in college during the late 90's/early noughties when I chanced upon something on one of the walls. 

Well nothing isn't praising it either, is it?  I find it surprising it wasn't mentioned at all?

Why are you linking to something I already stated up thread? We know about the British slave trade no one has said any different so why do you say I do when I don't?

Oh and the only reason we know of it is because our whole country buildings and wealth were built on it ffs, pretty hard to hide, although if the ruling class get their way in 100 years that to will be quietly rewritten. 

Just look at the despicable official comments from the home office stating Nigerian women trafficked into prostitution go back there "wealthy" and in high regard. 

In hindsight I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned at all, but there you go. I distinctly remember the sense of learning something new, on reading about Britain colonising and using India to make wealth for itself, exploiting it and it's people.

I stated it before that the general concensus is that it was a good thing in the eyes of practically all Historians and msm. 

Yes, but as several have pointed out, despite your stating it, that isn't the case!!

Well, apart from some protesters in Hong Kong perhaps 😊.

I didn't study History post-GCSE, but I don't recall the development of the British Empire ever being on the curriculum. Pre-GCSE in Scotland it was mostly the Roman Empire, GCSE in England it was the causes and history of WW1 and the rise of the Soviet Union. That was around 1995.

Of course, there's only so much you can fit in. The thing about History is that there is quite a lot of it.

.

 As a matter of interest, what did you study in history at school?

Sure, I don't think we ever had "British Empire" lessons but we studied bits of India, South Africa, and railway building, all of which touched on the empire in various ways.  Surely WW1 brought in the role of troops from Canada, Australia etc?

Edit to say this was to age 16.

The history of medicine was what we specialised in for my GCSE, and some 'general history' bits and pieces too probably. 

I wonder if you are just chancing your luck there or something as that is most certainly not the case, why else do you think he was promoted to teaching at Harvard and NY universities then made senior fellow at the Hoover Institute for his tireless work on promoting imperialism?

Indeed he was at the forefront of a very big vanguard of imperialism that was spread by all the Tory and new Labour press and the neo-cons press in the USA. You had Paul Johnson, Angelo Codevilla, Martin Wolf, Sir John Keegan or Robert Cooper of the FO and his FPC pamphlet wanting a new imperialism. There are loads more as well from that time with the main thrust in supporting the phony war on terror and invasions by showing previous imperialism as beneficial and benign. 

But the main point is as Maria Misra an Oxford historian pointed out ' Does it matter that the British are smug about their imperial past, that British atrocities have been airbrushed out of history? Indeed it does, a worrying symptom of this rosy glossing of the imperial past is the re-emergence of a sort of sanitised advocacy of imperialism as a viable option in contemporary international relations '

There are people who think Hitler was a great man and they probably know many people who think the same. There are people (like you, I guess) who belive the one who overcame him in the number of killed was even better and they know many people who think the same. There are people who believe they have been kidnapped by aliens and they know many people with same experience. What does it mean? Absolutely nothing.  It´s just comfirmation bias

Whatever people in your social bubble assure each other about does change nothing about fact that every communist regime was and is cruel, unfair and inefficient

No, its facts and the other side of the story or do you think there is only one side of the story "in your social bubble"? 

That's quite a child like statement to make there, I don't know perhaps you want to edit it to make less silly? You know socialist countries didn't attack other countries to steal their stuff and its capitalism that requires constant wars, can you see that? I mean wtf are Czechs doing in Iraq or Afghanistan? Contributing to US wars. Your country lived in peace before and had no unemployment and all the other benefits and now you have none but you do have bananas now eh? 

Ps. I have social group in Cz but I chat to all Czechs I meet and go into detail about history, I'm nosy that way I'm not confined to a select group and none who are in my immediate family and friends have anything to do with communism. 

"What it's like to be British" - embarrassing, after Farage and his mates pulled their cunning stunt today!!

What a bunch of children.

Phew, big question there Tim but I'llbbe very brief, Berlin Wall first. 

Americans owned over 50% of the world's wealth when the guns stopped in 1945,USSR completely destroyed as was Germany, Americans and British decide to split Germany in two. Americans flood new FRG with money. Russians can't do that for DDR as they are decimated. FRG renege on promise to pay back reparations to USSR so USSR forced to take from DDR so both germanies start off from different levels of poverty. Americans come along and drop leaflets and tell DDR citizens to come over to FRG and get a big cash payment for doing so...

Poland?

There was lots of subvertion going on from Radio free Europe (cia) and Poland was seen as a weak spot especially with the huge devout Catholic population which was the majority but many Poles were happier than now, just look at the 3 or 4 million that left the place due to unemployment when before there was full employment. Poland Socialist state was brought down by the Vatican making the wee pope John Paul its leader and the cia kicking of the Solidarity movement in the early eighties. Stalin did say trying to make Poland socialist is like trying to put a saddle on a cow but it did work although they were not that good at it. Not as good as the Germans, Czechoslovakians, Hungarians, etc were at it. 

  Because he was a high profile public intellectual with interesting and provocative things to say.

 It may come as news to you but the vast majority of academics, especially in the humanities are left leaning (but fortunately not Stalinists). But then again you probably think of Jezzer Corbyn as a pro-imperialist running dog.

  "A 2016 analysis of faculty members at four-year colleges and universities found that political leanings of faculty members are lopsided, but far more lopsided in New England. The analysis, based on 2014 data, found that nationally, colleges and universities had a six to one ratio of liberal to conservative professors. In New England, the figure was 28 to one. The study was by Samuel J. Abrams, a professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University."

  So if they are so keen on imperialists it's quite odd that they are 28-1 populated by left wing academics....

He was one of many members of a new vanguard specifically pushed by the US and British ruling class to normalise imperialism in order to change public opinion on invading countries, starting wars and especially occupying them. He was basically doing a PR job which included a very positive slant on the British empire. 

What do you mean "fortunately"?!?! 

Yes well what is JC going to do but bow down to the imperialists and major capitalists and big business? He might want to tinker with some nationalisations- which are something positive - and restore some workers rights and TU power(doubtful) but it will be business as usual. 

Ah but you know there is no left wing in the US, all these liberals will be the first to want to bomb Syria and attack countries, they usually are, very misguided and easy to fool, they'll believe anything and forget everything when you show them a faked vid or made up story about some new tyrant and all the bad things he is doing. Oh don't get me wrong they mean we'll and push for carpet bombing and slaughter out of a misplaced sense of caring but they are as easy to fool as the Red necks and are quick to cheerlead for imperialism hidden as humanitarianism or democracy. 

The transatlantic slave trade, the attitudes and profits it generated, were intrinsically linked with the era of empire building.

More balls I’m afraid. Our country grew wealthy for many reasons. An industrial revolution, an agricultural revolution, 200 years of naval domination, huge coal deposits and a climate conducive to farming..primarily. Profit wise, the slave trade didn’t contribute that much, which is why Britain didn’t mind outlawing it and then spending a considerable amount of cash and sailors lives on suppressing it internationally. 

Ask yourself, if the slave trade was so profitable then why weren’t the major players in the business rolling in cash.why weren’t half the buildings in Algeria built on its profits?

I don’t think it’s British government policy to promote Nigerian sex trafficking.

You don't think it had anything (at all) to do with the climate of oppression people had to live in? In Poland, for example, the more internationally known people who spoke about wanting change, didn't fare as badly, but the people who helped them who were less well know, have spent the rest of their lives with kidney and other health problems thanks to the beatings they endured given by the authorities - or those acting on their behalf.

Edited to remove the 'Like in' preceding, In Poland for example...

 You're 'aving a larf!!...

And I already mentioned that. 

Thanks for warning me with your  "more balls I'm afraid", at the start of your paragraph as it let's me know what's coming. 

A couple of truths there but all built on the slave trade which funded the increase in the Royal navy ships, the financial sector, funded the industrial revolution as well as funding a great many of our old buildings and even entire areas, you just need to look at many street names, this is why it can't be hidden. Yet. 

They were sitting on mountains of money that built factories and cities and mansions everywhere and funded imperialist expansion. 

No!

Yes. 🙂

Kinda. 

Well yea that is nasty, no excuses. But what was that oppression really? 

Yes it's an interesting comparison - how free we are in capitalist countries to previous or current socialist countries and all the factors and context that determine levels of freedom. 

The facts of communist Czechoslovakia that matter:

Approx. 280 people executed for political reasons

Approx. 4500 - 7000 people died in labour camps and prisons because of ill-treatment

Approx. 250 000 people sentenced for political reasons

Although the Iron courtain was erected and people were not free to travel 200 000 - 300 000 people emigrated. Some 374 people were shot at the border when they tried to leave the country. No one was shot to prevent him to enter

In 1949 the GDP per capita in Czechoslovakia and Austria was equall. In 1989  the Czechoslovakian GDP per capita was a quarter of the Austrian

The Communist Party got 6.94% in last elections (and even they do not call for the full return of the old regime)

I can see 140 shot going across the border and 100 electrocuted. 

How many thousands executed at the US - Mexican border, you screaming about that I trust in some parallel thread? 

There were loads of attacks and shooting by Czechoslovak border guards of Bandera werewolf fascists coming into and going out of Czechoslovakia at the border.So why do you lie? And don't pretend you don't know as its well known over there. 

And capital punishment was legal there as it was here and under Maseryk.

Austria? Didn't you read my piece on the Berlin Wall? Austria like the FRG was pumped full of money from the only developed country in the world not destroyed by WW2. The Marshal plan rebuilt Austria, did Czechoslovakia live within their means and rebuild without the massive injection from the USA? Yes.

GDP?

There was no movement of prices in decades, pennies for a beer, food was dirt cheap(and high quality food) as was travel, education was all for free, all child care was for free, most importantly all health care was for free, bosses could not harass workers or they would be up against a council for it, loans were *interest free*(imagine that!), no invading other countries to steal their wealth and traumatise, no dying in capitalist wars, ,no capitalists taking the surplus value of all workers, free land for everyone and help to build a house on it!!!, 2 guaranteed paid holidays every year in the mountains or countryside for absolutely everyone(do you think we had that in 1970s and 80s in UK?, no homelessness. No constant worry of losing your job and getting made unemployed or homeless, no personal debt, full employment, Czech people owned everything,limits on length of working day/week. Actual police(remember them) having an actual Czech army(remember that). 

Man it's a frigging no brainer no wonder you are pissed off.

Edit: did the Austrians have all that? No, but still they came over to Cz for the better quality food. 

How are your shares and dividends going? 

Alarmingly slow so far this quarter in fact I might have to pay off some orphan workers of mine to make up the shortfall but not to worry I'll get by. Thanks. 

In your imagination - may be. It seems there is no help for you but you are lucky you are living in a free country. It would be a crime in socialist Czechoslovakia to cry up any western country like you do. Enjoy it because once people like you take power the freedom ends. History teaches us that the first victims usually are useful idiots

In no society do we have total freedom, because different freedoms can butt against one another, but I value the freedom to protest, to be self employed, to be critical of government in the media, artistic freedom, and the freedom to create political parties which we have in the UK, which were freedoms absent under communism. A relative wouldn't have created something very useful to society (arguably on a global level) if they'd not been able to create their own company. 

Thinking about how protesters helped to save a historical standing stones site in the Peak District from quarrying, and how charities often rely on volunteers, and thinking of you mentioning no unemployment, so long as it isn't long term mass unemployment, I think there may be space in society for unemployed people doing certain things which working people don't have the time or freedom to do, so long as most of one's available working life is spent working that is. 

Swap the 'c' and the 'st' around.  

You don't need to explain it Timmd

It was crass. There again when you look at the photos the rest of the MPs were either stood up or sat down looking bored. So in a way the stunt does not work because of those who did not stand.

a bit limp all round .

Well, Farage has managed to pull Ann Widdecombe into his party and you don't get much more stunning than that!

Correct. I am stunned.

I'm concussed.

Actually doesn't work if you do (not without altering all the wording)

Some of the Express comments are pure gold, fire and brimstone, spitting venom, about the EU isn't a nation, so why is there a "national" anthem, blah, blah blah.

Someone pointed out, it might have been me, that you can have anthems, for things that aren't nations, like the Commonwealth Games and the boy Scouts

When I was a wee nipper, I didn't get the Kenny Everett joke with Cupid Stunt. 

You produce no argument then I see. 

Listen I know how hard it is for you and your entire nation to have everything and now have nothing.

To have to work 2 jobs and all the hours under the sun with no safety net and in debt just to keep a roof over your head. To get a never ending procession of stoner puppets prostituting your country at the feet of the USA and Germany who now own you.

I feel your pain, you can dress it up to fool yourself that it is OK, your people know it's not, you can try and fool people but you are just fooling yourself and you know it. It was out of your hands anyway Gorbachev, Shevardnadze, Chubias and the other capitalist 5th columnists were to blame. 

Didn't you see the banners in Prague in the late 70s with pictures of James Callaghan the British Labour Prime Minister on them? 

More proof of your falsification against your own country. 

Anyway take care.

You not think it's a bit off to lecture a foreign national on the realities of their own country? and in such a patronising tone too! I can only imagine the reception a Southerner would get if they came up to Glasgow to tell you how you'd got totally the wrong idea about your home town.

I practically live in cz. the amount of time I spend there and have a great deal of family and friends there to, so it's not that straightforward. 

Practically? How much time? You speak the language? I've spent a couple of years in Spain but I wouldn't dream of correcting anyone's recollection of their experience under Franco.

4 times a year usually (take all my holidays there) but I'm not saying "oh it's like this", as if I'm saying it, what I am doing is telling it as I'm told by all the people I have come across there who did live through it. I speak some Czech yes but only a bit, I'm lazy. 

In DDR you could be self employed and there were over 150,000 SMCs but if you got to a certain size it would be nationalised. It is a myth that there were no protests about certain matters or artistic freedoms to critisize the government as people did it all the time, it was very common but what was stopped was attempts at real counter - revolution and meshing with foreign capitalist elements to stir trouble or change society in a capitalist direction. There were also different political parties you could vote for but all would be degrees of socialist just like in capitalist countries all parties will be capitalist in varying degrees. 

Well no I must disagree there as i see employment as a fundamental human right for everyone that must never be denied to a fit and able person. Ever. 

I think I had Russia in mind when talked about 'Communism', but I appreciate there would have been differences between different countries.

I was more speaking about the benefit to society of people who are able to go to protest and protect things in a manner which employed people can't do (always). The Wildlife Trust charities in the UK rely on week day volunteers too.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/protesters-win-fight...

This bronze age site wouldn't have been saved if it hadn't been for people prepared to be unemployed and to camp out there, one person stayed there for as long as six years.

Is all the other confidently (if condescendingly) spouted pish by you on various topics based  on this "depth" of insight? Just wondering.....

Uh! What is your point I don't have time to mess about with cryptic guessing games, what I said is true so what is your problem? I haven't taken a holiday anywhere other than Cz for over 10 years.

Tim. No sorry I communicate with no Czech people online other than family, I don't know where you get that from+ I don't know any Czech socialists. My partner of 12 years  is Czech.

Some wild presumptions about me being made there I would thank you not to do that, its a bit insulting and I wouldn't dream of doing that to you. 

Oh and du Bois if you want to debate about a particular point I make or whatever then feel free but providing zero to a debate and just throwing in an unwarranted insult is just childish. 

Careful! I got insulted earlier for suggesting there may be a bubble mentality at play. Clearly she talks to a full and diverse range of Czech people, takes all of their viewpoints into consideration and forms opinions accordingly.

What’s it like to be British?

this thread - rapidly divert discussion about us to discussion about some others

anyway - I seriously doubt any of the contributors are really British as no one has noticed the wrong flag being used in the OP’s link.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1603672546443852&id=1000040...

Okay, pardon me. Your points are duly noted. Not sure where I got that impression from.

Having been on the pointy end of digs on here, I've no idea (iyswim). The Brexit results probably showed that many of us live in bubbles, in real life and online too, lots of friends were posting 'Who the fuck voted for Brexit?'. I know almost no right wing people, too, in not having naturally met them through other people in the way one can make new friends. 

On a lighter note, the Chilean Blue Potato plant on a road a couple up from mine is looking pretty while in full bloom at the moment, the bees seem to like it.

At least it means you can't make the classic mistake of flying it upside down.

No problem, I would never come on here and make up some lie about myself to score silly political points. In fact there is no point in lying at all it takes away all trust and truth which I would not do. 

Thanks yes just as I stated and we have a home over in the Czech Republic but we live over here as the pay is considerably better in every line of work. 

Yes the flag in the OP appears to be the very first Union Jack(I prefer that name) from 1606 which only had the English St. George Cross and Scottish St. Andrews Cross. 

I feel guilty for leaving out my grandfather who during the second World War operated one of those big lights that searched the night sky looking for German bombers. 

No, Shona. Or Gudrun. Or whatever name you're calling yourself next time...

No point in lying at all.. 

It's a nom de plume nothing more, of course those are not my name, is your name Mr Oceanrower?

Edit: I will now look pretty daft if you say yes. Dave Oceanrower.

🙂

No. But I've had the same name on here for about 10 years now. I don't keep coming back with different persona and denying I'm the previous one.

If someone rightly gets kicked off for being a rude tw+t then comes back on again they would probably get booted off again if they used the same name or admitted they were that perso,  therefor they will use a different name and not admit to being that person just for the purposes of staying on that forum. It's not rocket science so how come you can't work that out for yoself? 

Oh I can. It was just your "No point in lying at all" bit.

Turns out you CAN think of a reason for lying....

So are you saying this is what happened to you?

No doubt you eschew some o f the legacies of the post war settlement then , such as the NHS.

Well if that person didn't then you wouldn't be arguing with them as they probably wouldn't be here. So it had a justification in this case and is by and large just a little white lie, told part in jest as everyone knows the truth and it was told bearing that in mind.

I mean are you telling me for one minute that it was not obvious when I pretended by denying it? No, you knew straight away and I knew you knew straight away and so did everyone else.

You can only hide who you are for a bit then it is blatantly obvious to all. 

What's it like to be British.....no idea.....I'm Scottish.

In reply to Timmd:

If you were born and raised in England, then you surely identify as English and have an 'English' viewpoint on life?

Don't tell me how I identify.  I'm British, because I value the Scottish and the Irish in my ancestry too, having known the relatives. I deleted because I thought this might happen.

Who you were born to, and who raised you, is at least as important as the country you were raised in.

You and I are british because it says so on a bit of paper. I don't think of myself as a nationality I think of myself as a person. Nationalism is always despicable. 

I don’t imagine you’d be so crass as to insist someone born in England of say mixed Bengali and Afro-Caribbean heritage should identify solely as English? 

Only if you identify as English or British apparently. I doubt you’d be so quick to label proud Bolivians or Nepalis as despicable.

Speak for yourself. I stand my rejection of nationalism wherever I find it.

Well, speaking for myself, nationality is part of the innate characteristics that make up my identity. Along with family, job and life experiences. 

I’d no more label someone as despicable for identifying as a national than I would someone identifying as a mountaineer, a cancer survivor or a Mancunian.

Fair enough. I've hated to be labeled by others from a pretty young age (14 ish)

Nationalism starts as pride and becomes us and them

I'm not sure you know what a nationalist or nationalism is.

What's it like to be Scottish...... no idea........ I'm British.

Wherein lies a problem I suspect we are going to have to address quite soon  

I'm not sure you read the post I was replying to.

God no.

Okay, I have now. Now I’m less sure you know what a nationalist or nationalism is.

How many times on UKC have you declared how 'Yorkshire' you are?

My Turkish friend has occasionally talked about feeling her identity shift after having spent 20 years living in England, with Turkey not feeling like the 'home' it used to be, and England being her home now but not quite home like Turkey was.

Is Timmd either of those?
No, he isn't and as I said in my direct reply to him, he's identified as 'Typical Yorkshire' many times on UKC.

Of course, but does that apply to Timmd?
I would suggest by his posting history that he is very much a product of where he was raised as opposed to by whom.

It's only ever been tongue in cheek because I was born in Derby, and have always felt less forward than Yorkshire people can tend to be.

'Feeling Yorkshire' wouldn't preclude me from feeling British rather than English, aaanyway, with identity being made up of many parts.

PS; Mr Grumpy

Well, strongly identifying with the nation of my birth would cover it, both in dictionary definition, common usage (SNP for instance) and, more importantly, the context of my reply to Dubya. If you want to insist on an alternate meaning, fill your boots, there are lots to choose from.

Edit: I'm often bemused by those who insist 'I'm an individual, I don't identify with my nationality'. Do you really think you'd have turned out exactly the same whether born in Karachi or Kent?

Touche! And I think you're right about the need to address it soon Roger!

Oxford Dictionary has it as “Identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations” and Encyclopaedia Brittanica says it’s an “ideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.” I’m not sure I’m the one using an “alternate“ definition. There are many people proud of where they’re from who aren’t nationalists.

Yeah, that’s not nationalism.

Yeah, kinda the whole basis of the nation state. Our armed forces, nuclear deterrent, trade negotiators etc. etc. whose benefit do you think they were set up for. Do you need a clue?

Edit: go on, I’ll give you a clue. They were set up to identify with their own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

yeah, didn’t say it was.

You can have all of those things and still set out to work collaboratively with other nation states for the mutual benefit of all, otherwise, by your definition, all nations are nationalist. That’s not the case.

Ah right, just riffing? The proximity seemed to suggest it was a continuation of the theme.

Ooo, do enlighten me. How would we use a trident missile ‘for the mutual benefit of all’? When was the last time the British army saw active service ‘For the mutual benefit of all’?

NATO. UN peacekeeping.

Are you saying that all nation states are nationalist?

i don’t think you understand the meaning of ‘mutual benefit’.

What? Strongly identifying with themselves to the detriment of other countries? Yeah, I do. Pick up a history book, doesn’t matter which. See if I’m wrong.

I'm Edinburgh, Scottish, British and European though most of all, just a human being.

Can't stand flag waving.

An agreement between two or more parties resulting in benefit for each. 

Nationalism is an ideology, not an inevitable condition of being a nation state. Pick up a politics book. See that you’re wrong.

You don't deploy armed men for the mutual benefit of all parties. Come on, the British army has been on the news quite a lot over the last 20 odd years, the mutual benefit of all parties hasn't really been on the agenda.

Yes nationalism is an ideology, but you didn't ask "what's nationalism". You asked- "Are you saying that all nation states are nationalist?" 

Interesting timing in mentioning that, with the anniversary of  the massacres of Kosovans being just recent, maybe a bigger NATO presence would have prevented what happened, but they did some good anyway.

In the right circumstances I think all nations are, a little bit like how all (or most) humans will do whatever it takes to survive, even if it's to the detriment of others.

Not a great time if you believe the best future by far is retaining in the EU and the eve of having an idiot right wing prime minister in Boris 'clown' Johnson !

It´s waste of time, in your case

As a libertarian I don´t agree with many opinions here but with the vast majority people here I agree with facs and it´s something necessary for any discussion. When someone - like you - simply ignores facts he doesn´t like then no arguments make sense

Easy to say but when you show it then we can discuss it. 

Like how a few weeks ago you were banging on about British historians all being biased and bigging up the Empire. I gave you a link to Eric Hobsbawm (considered one of the world's most famous historians) he specialised in the rise of modern capitalism (your favourite subject) and he was a lifelong Marxist (sounds like your kinda guy). You'd never heard of him, you disparaged him without knowing anything about him and your intellectual curiosity didn't even stretch as far as clicking  on the link.

I note you were on about British historians all being pro-capitalist and pro-empire yet again up thread. To paraphrase GOT, You Know Nothing Pefa.

I think it's just you. I've done NONE of the things you mention, and I don't recall these things happening to any of the people I know either. But then I'm Welsh, and so are the people I know.

You are responsible as soon as you refuse to give back what was stolen. 

If my grandfather stole a Picasso from someone and I then inherited it, if I chose to not give it back to it’s rightful owner, knowing full well that the painting was stolen, then I’d become an accomplice of the original theft.

Property is theft Rom! Get with the program....

 " It may come as news to you but the vast majority of academics, especially in the humanities are left leaning (but fortunately not Stalinists). But then again you probably think of Jezzer Corbyn as a pro-imperialist running dog.

  "A 2016 analysis of faculty members at four-year colleges and universities found that political leanings of faculty members are lopsided, but far more lopsided in New England. The analysis, based on 2014 data, found that nationally, colleges and universities had a six to one ratio of liberal to conservative professors. In New England, the figure was 28 to one. The study was by Samuel J. Abrams, a professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University."

  So if they are so keen on imperialists it's quite odd that they are 28-1 populated by left wing academics...."

Sometimes it's like someone stole your brain. US stats to apply to UK Unis? In any case looking at that evidence we need to remember US liberals are not always left wing in UK terms. Many Democrats regarded as liberal are in UK tems equivalent to the tory party left and a good number will be in the centre left ground. There is almost certainly a lower number of far right oriented academics in academia than far left, in any western economy but maybe that says more about the academic rigour of those with that type of politics (compared to the undeniable care of Marxist anaylsis) and the natural small c conservatism of University management, than any political unfairness in demographics. In my extensive experience most academics by far are liberal minded political centrists.

The same applies to you comment up thread on Oxford being great defenders of academic freedom unlike Cambridge. A plain stupid comparison that I expect from Daily Fail trolls not you... so shame on you.

That's what all robbers say.

  I thought academics were supposed to do research. My comment was so uncontroversial i simply picked the an easily available stat because the trends, as any fule knows, are similar both side of the Atlantic. You may also have noticed that the man being discussed , prof Ferguson, Was working in,er, New England (Harvard) and the aforesaid Hoover Institute?

 But since your brain is too big to bother with evidence ( joke). A TES survey in 2015 found only 11% of academics voted Tory and 90% voted remain. Do you think they are mainly imperialists? 

re: oxbridge. Another [sort of{joke based on the recent woke nonsense emanating from Cambridge.you may also notice

Yes my brain is big enough to realise 90 odd percent of UK academics not voting tory doesn't make the vast majority left wing. Its hardly like the party gave away fantastic reasons for academics to vote for them in recent decades. How about trying to explain the even more stupid Oxford Cambridge thing with something that might withstand any logical analysis; your 'woke nonsesne' will exist in both institutions if you look. This is gutter press crap and it's below you.

  But not big enough to surmise that they are probably not voting for anyone to the right of the Tories, or energetic enough to find any evidence that there is not a large left majority in academia. As it happens the TES survey found that 46% of academics intended to vote labour, 22% green and 6% Snp. That’s 72% voting for parties of “the left”. I await your evidence to the contrary (which doesn’t include saying Labour isn’t really left)

  As for woke nonsense. I cant believe you are actually that sensitive that you consider it worthy defending. Since academia seems to be having some sort of collective nervous breakdown I don't doubt that the Oxford is also party to it. I call Snowflake!! 😀😀

Yes of course it depends on how you define left and if anyone could define an exact line in the political sand you might even be right about most academics being on the left side of that but you said a large majority were left wing. Unlike those on the clear right or clear left who enjoy such labelling I don't like such artificial divisive positions, that writes off or misrepresents the views of most thoughtful people I know. Hence, I prefer to think of politics in a less aggresive manner and believe based on the all evidence I've seen in 40  years that there is a large liberal minded centre. Most academics know exactly what they think they are, and as I said most of those in my very wide experience are centrist. So yes a lot of academics voting Labour or SNP or Green are not clear left, as any socialists would be, they just don't currently have a centre party they can quite yet trust (especially given the Liberal's behavior towards HE in the coalition). Equally centrists sometimes vote tory (if only as an example this year left of centre liberals trying to stop the Brexit Party winning seats).  This isn't just about Universities either, it's common for well educated professionals across the UK. However, feel free to stick to your Fail stereotypes if you like. If you want some hard evidence on how far left most academics are look at strike votes in the last decade: UCU struggle to get most membes to vote (except on USS and local disputes) and never had very large majorites on pay disputes even with membership around 60% (the most left wing academics). Hence, those voting to strike on pay were always a good bit less than a quarter of academics.

I'm not defending 'woke behaviour' I'm defending the pretty equivalent record of academic freedom in two of the greatest Universities in the world. If you want true academic freedom, there will always be some stuff that any individual won't enjoy being discussed in academia  and you say snowflake about such liberal ideas... you are better than that.

Fixed that for you

If you’re trying to get PP to view the world in any other term the over simplistic  « left » and « right », dichotomy, I’m afraid you are flogging a dead horse.

  If 72% of academics are voting for parties generally regarded to be of the left then they are of the left. That they consider themselves to be centrist is irrelevant. It just demonstrates that they live in a groupthink bubble unaware of what others think, hence their shock and apoplexy at the brexit vote. They are, in the main, not socialists but they tend to embrace a set of values which include, and this it what is relevant to my initial comment, shame at Britain's imperial past and might be characterised , but not exclusively, as "liberal left" or "soft left".

  And yes ,much the same could be said but to a lesser degree of much of the educated professional classes, particularly of those in  the media.

  Regarding Cambridge wokeness: if you compare recent stories from Cambride: Peterson, Noah Carl , slavery investigation, Seresin,  Priyamvada Gopal, to Oxford's : Biggar and Rhodes must fall (in both cases stood up to the pressure), then Cambridge is well ahead in the woke olympics. It may well be Oxford (uncharacteristically) is hiding its pusillanimous light under a bushel but if so it needs to get out there and signal its woke virtue.

  But why you'd take that any more seriously than me saying that Manchester United are a bunch of overpaid cheating bastards compared to Manchester City I can't imagine.

I thought the whole point of Priyamvada Gopal's argument was that the rest of Cambridge was very much un-"woke".  I don't think anyone who knows the place very well would completely disagree, whether they thought that was a good or a bad thing.

When I was a fellow of a Cambridge college I did have a colleague who regarded himself as very left-wing, so much so that he habitually objected to being served claret at high table.  I was never entirely convinced that being brought of pint of beer in a silver beaker struck quite as much of a blow for the workers as he thought it did.

  The point is not that everyone at Cambridge is woke but people, including the university authorities, are rolling over to those who are.

  If a miner at high table preferred a beer obviously the right thing was to serve him one in the receptacle of his choice. Your colleague should have been told to stop being a posing tw*t and drink the bloody claret 😀

I really don’t see anyone “rolling over” to Gopal. If the authorities support her right to speak out that’s absolutely as it should be, that’s what academic freedom means. All the more so given the disgusting personal abuse I hear she’s been subjected to.

  No, they didn’t roll over to her. And on line abuse is obviously unacceptable. But should it be acceptable that a privileged academic of whatever background should bully junior staff of whatever background ?

It would hardly come as a surprise that a large percentage of public sector and/or educational establishment workers support a party whose policies revolve around promising the world for free, without any thought for how the private sector will generate the tax revenue (Or scale of borrowing required) to fund all those promises. You can't blame them, but it can't be a surprise either.

You won't find a Labour mp who doesn't miss a chance to reference the hard working nurses etc..they know their target audience. At least the lib dems acknowledged the nhs staff deserved 1% on the base rate of tax to improve their lot.

No, it isn’t, I’ve not said otherwise anywhere, but making rubbish promises that can’t be funded  and not giving a f*ck about those generating the taxes is certainly not limited to « the left », whatever that is.

You'll note from my post I never mentioned left or right, many mps and parties are guilty of it over the years. And not caring about how they'll fund those promises is certainly a trait of the current Labour party. 

I take it to mean that they try to think in global terms rather than nationally.  A guy I used to know who went to Spain as part of becoming qualified to teacher Spanish commented that during 'the fishing wars' between Spain and England, that the national papers of each country managed to publish articles and opinion pieces which managed to sound thoughtful and objective, while also concluding that their own nation's perspective was the logical one which most reasonable people would hold.

Labour were the only party with a fully costed manifesto last time around.

"But should it be acceptable that a privileged academic of whatever background should bully junior staff of whatever background ?" 

No of course its not OK, in fact its a disciplinary offence to bully... but you don't write off a whole institution for individual bad behaviour.

So what? 

You forgot to let me know before I read this time "More balls I'm afraid". 

Where did I ever write that every single British Historian was pro-capitalist or pro-british empire? I didn't, I even quoted one from Oxford that was decrying the British empire just upthread a bit.

But don't worry as with everything anyone says at me on here you will get 20 likes for being wrong and I'll get 19 dislikes for being right. (which I always am) 😎

Ps. What is GOT? Game of thrones? 

Liberalism is now leftwing in your mind! 

Quite interesting isn’t it, people who were hardcore tatcherites are now pushing for reduction of individual freedoms, protectionism, state intervention in the economy, and an authoritarian state.

In fact, they look a lot like the left of the 70s but still can’t help seeing « lefties » and « socialist » everywhere. Probably as a way to verbalistically delude themselves.

Who by? Diane abbot?

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-labour-manifesto

The institute of fiscal studies described their income streams to pay for the extra spending as 'highly uncertain'.

You can't just spend billions and claim or promise magic growth will cover the costs in the future.   

Oh yes you can. That's what Boris and Hunt are promising.

Well of course you can promise anything, doesn't mean it will work. 

If spending money guaranteed growth Italy, Greece or even the UK wouldn't be sitting on a pile of debt just now. 

I don’t know if you have noticed but that’s exactly what the Tory candidate are saying to justify increased deficit in their plans, « it’s fine because it will stimulate growth. »

Exactly the same argument the « left » made for decades, except worse, because they are doing this as we are about to enter a recession, which they have themselves induced.

Left.. I thought you were against such terms. Again if you read my post/s I said many mps and parties were guilty of such promises. 

The problem is when an economy is mired in debt, tied to consumer spending, the last thing it dare risk is slowing things down by taking more tax for the services the same public desperately require. It's trapped and something needs to give eventually. The UK or Europe won't be able to borrow or grow it's way out of it, our standard of living must stagnate at the very least. 

Recession... the UK has slightly better growth than much of Europe? So perhaps any recesson risk is for broader reasons? 

  Surely even you are familiar with the common American usage of the terms “liberal” and “left” which are now often also used in the UK?

Yes, even I know of the Orwellian updating of language by populist, nationalist rightwingers like you.

Left and right are really just relative terms. There isn't a party further left currently than Labour. So that's where they sit figuratively. Rightward, UKIP bnp, Brexit all lie to varying degrees just right of the Tories. And all the rest between. Liberal I would say are still the lib dems, less agenda driven than current Labour party etc. 

Fine. But lumping everyone who isn't batshit Tory brexit as "left", as PMP is trying to do is just nonsense. Just as Corbynites' attempts to lump everyone who isn't batshit socialist Corbyn messiah, as "neoliberal" is nonsense 

  Really? Did I include the libdems? No. Does the Labour party regard itself as of the "left". Yes. Does the SNP regard itself as "of the left" .Yes. Do the Greens regard themselves as "of the left" yes. You can even check on wikipedia. Maybe your problem is that you conflate "left" with "socialist".

  You really need to read some of the books I suggested. You might get beyond your cartoonish prejudices about the state of politics and political leanings.

Yes, and they don’t mean the same thing, at all.

What do they mean?