The British psyche after the fall of the empire.
Discussion
I've just finished watching the BBC 1 series 'Empire' and found it fascinating.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00p1388/episodes/...
One consistent trend throughout that period of time seemed to be the lengths British Royals, the establishment and businessmen would go to in order to meet their economic and political goals. It was at times immoral, unscrupulous and ruthless yet at the same time some would argue it was admirable. They would do 'whatever it took' to get the job done.
So what changed in the British mentality after this period? Why did it soften so rapidly?
We went from a nation willing to do absolutely anything to make a quick buck or get ahead in the world to one where the rules, being seen to do the right thing, and ethics is put above everything else.
I'm not suggesting the shift is a bad thing but why did it happen so quickly, colonial guilt or did the world just change and we had to as well?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00p1388/episodes/...
One consistent trend throughout that period of time seemed to be the lengths British Royals, the establishment and businessmen would go to in order to meet their economic and political goals. It was at times immoral, unscrupulous and ruthless yet at the same time some would argue it was admirable. They would do 'whatever it took' to get the job done.
So what changed in the British mentality after this period? Why did it soften so rapidly?
We went from a nation willing to do absolutely anything to make a quick buck or get ahead in the world to one where the rules, being seen to do the right thing, and ethics is put above everything else.
I'm not suggesting the shift is a bad thing but why did it happen so quickly, colonial guilt or did the world just change and we had to as well?
te decade.http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl...
This is oddly apt. Translation is a bit clunky but you get the idea.
This is oddly apt. Translation is a bit clunky but you get the idea.
Nothing happened except Britain got a social conscience in the 20th Centuryand other countries started doing a lot of things Britain had been doing for over a century, and often better. The Empire was built by quite a small bunch of usually entrepeneurial, opportunistic, determined and frequently ruthless adventurers, crooks, merchants and soldiers, backed by an apparatus at home that fed it with the new technology, manpower, military muscle, finance and the drive to expand. AS Paxman's programme said, a lot of it was a bunch of public schoolboys going out into the world to seek their fortunes.
Then the world changed, there was nowhere else to conquer, the Empire gradually disintegrated and Britain faced competition, not in terms of Empire, but for trade and influence. Britain needed to start to compete against the economies of the emerging powers.
Meanwhile, however, the rump of the population, hitherto mainly downtrodden and poor, saw some of the benefits of Empire but then got thoroughly embroiled in two world wars. The result was the emergence of a form of Socialism that has coloured British political thought and philosophy ever since. Just as Britain had to evolve in order ot compete, the trade unions and the Labour movement, combined with the woolly-minded, somewhat guilt-ridden and probably scared establishment, ensured that britain productivity and competitiveness went through the floor. The polticians' navel-gazing, self-immolating obsession with the welfare state and the NHS, as well as state control of as much as possible meant that Britain lost what few advantages we had (we had some of the most advanced computers in the world in the late 1940s, but no entrepeneur was allowed near them to commercialise it, two cryptographers in GCHQ invented public key encryption before the RSA guys did, but were shown a copy of the Offical Secrets Act instead of a license contract).
So we relinquished our Empire, and have tried to live off the remnants ever since but even these are beginning to fade and vanish (the financial sector is imploding, our wealth is gone, industry a shadow of its former self, we can't even educate our children properly). Even the public schoolboys are taught to be nice,or at least act guilty for the silver spoon everyone else says they have in their mouths, and instead of forging new industires they go into the City or become PR spivs. The scientists get fed up of the stupidity that pervades the country and bugger off overseas, teh businessmen drown in red tape while the politicians prattle on about gay marriage, equality, diversity, bankers' bonuses and how good the EU is for us.
Oh and do catch Niall Ferguson's China, Triumph and Turmoil on 4OD - Paxman's Empire was about the past,Ferguson's series is about a serioulsy worrying future - seven-day week anyone?
Then the world changed, there was nowhere else to conquer, the Empire gradually disintegrated and Britain faced competition, not in terms of Empire, but for trade and influence. Britain needed to start to compete against the economies of the emerging powers.
Meanwhile, however, the rump of the population, hitherto mainly downtrodden and poor, saw some of the benefits of Empire but then got thoroughly embroiled in two world wars. The result was the emergence of a form of Socialism that has coloured British political thought and philosophy ever since. Just as Britain had to evolve in order ot compete, the trade unions and the Labour movement, combined with the woolly-minded, somewhat guilt-ridden and probably scared establishment, ensured that britain productivity and competitiveness went through the floor. The polticians' navel-gazing, self-immolating obsession with the welfare state and the NHS, as well as state control of as much as possible meant that Britain lost what few advantages we had (we had some of the most advanced computers in the world in the late 1940s, but no entrepeneur was allowed near them to commercialise it, two cryptographers in GCHQ invented public key encryption before the RSA guys did, but were shown a copy of the Offical Secrets Act instead of a license contract).
So we relinquished our Empire, and have tried to live off the remnants ever since but even these are beginning to fade and vanish (the financial sector is imploding, our wealth is gone, industry a shadow of its former self, we can't even educate our children properly). Even the public schoolboys are taught to be nice,or at least act guilty for the silver spoon everyone else says they have in their mouths, and instead of forging new industires they go into the City or become PR spivs. The scientists get fed up of the stupidity that pervades the country and bugger off overseas, teh businessmen drown in red tape while the politicians prattle on about gay marriage, equality, diversity, bankers' bonuses and how good the EU is for us.
Oh and do catch Niall Ferguson's China, Triumph and Turmoil on 4OD - Paxman's Empire was about the past,Ferguson's series is about a serioulsy worrying future - seven-day week anyone?
Edited by sadoksevoli on Thursday 5th April 00:24
Same reason we're getting more and more screwed now. We nationalised it, then politicised it, then abolished it, and finally threw our hands up and blamed the government, expecting the next one to do something about it. All the while reveling in our own stupidity and lionising the likes of Gandhi. It's a familiar pattern.
Once the East India Company was done away with in 1874, it was pretty much all downhill. Burma was annexed in a very modern, political intervention around election time, and nothing much new happened from then on.
Unfortunately we never quite through off the hangover of feudalism. Of looking to the government to solve our problems and improve our lot. The Empire bloomed after the Royalists were defeated in the American colonies, private companies developed the eastern empire and the government were kept busy fighting Napoleon and containing civil unrest at home. Once they had their hands free to meddle with the rest of the world, we were doomed really. The few decades leading up to WW1 were the sort of inflationary boom before the bust - lots of grandiose gestures, lots of pomp and ceremony but not much in the way of real growth.
Once the East India Company was done away with in 1874, it was pretty much all downhill. Burma was annexed in a very modern, political intervention around election time, and nothing much new happened from then on.
Unfortunately we never quite through off the hangover of feudalism. Of looking to the government to solve our problems and improve our lot. The Empire bloomed after the Royalists were defeated in the American colonies, private companies developed the eastern empire and the government were kept busy fighting Napoleon and containing civil unrest at home. Once they had their hands free to meddle with the rest of the world, we were doomed really. The few decades leading up to WW1 were the sort of inflationary boom before the bust - lots of grandiose gestures, lots of pomp and ceremony but not much in the way of real growth.
Victor McDade said:
We went from a nation willing to do absolutely anything to make a quick buck or get ahead in the world to one where the rules, being seen to do the right thing, and ethics is put above everything else.
I'm not suggesting the shift is a bad thing but why did it happen so quickly, colonial guilt or did the world just change and we had to as well?
At my school, a fee-assisted grammar school, in the 50s and 60s we used to offer up prayers and sing hymns for the glorification of Empire, the fact that it no longer existed as such not being relevant it would appear. Our history teacher, a fabulous chap whose excitement in his chosen area of expertise has left me with a life-long interest in it, was less than enamoured by empire, a trait which must have caused problems, I realise now, with the more staid teachers.I'm not suggesting the shift is a bad thing but why did it happen so quickly, colonial guilt or did the world just change and we had to as well?
His point of view was that empire cost more than it delivered and took great joy in proving it. He was of the opinion that its greatest feat was to give rise to the middle classes, an utterly pointless group, but one that stabilised the country.
We did a fair bit on the slave trade. I thought it horrible but I realise now it was toned down for us. We were told that Wilberforce ‘started’ the anti-slavery movement but that, rather pointless, accolade has a number of claimants. What is true was that reformers in this country were a brave bunch. Its abolition cost the rich considerable income and they didn’t let go without a fight.
This was the beginning of the end of empire as the state started to take an interest. Up to then entrepreneurs were allowed to do their own thing. Much of their own thing was cruel and rapine. It was also in reality the start of the British Empire as up until then it was largely independent.
It brought little to the average bloke/family in this country, just new ways to die and new places to do it in. Very little of the vast income taken from the empire made its way down to the workers. Rural Rides described England for the next century.
The world wars were, in many ways, the final battles of empire.
We had a map in the assembly hall at school which was painted pink where the empire used to be. This included Canada, the USA, India, Oz, all by then going their own way. Rather strange.
I think the only group to still suffer from the loss of empire are those in government who seem frightened of admitting that we are just a small island that should stick to what we do well. It would seem that they have it stuffed into them with their songs in Latin, just like I had, but they seem to believe it all.
The British Empire was the biggest in acreage the world has even seen. It wasn’t me who organised it all so there is nothing I can be proud of. I didn’t enslave millions so I have nothing to be ashamed of. I do wish, however, that we put it behind us. It is gone and good riddance. Let us talk about it but not worship it. It cost this country and we are paying the price now.
Derek Smith said:
We did a fair bit on the slave trade. I thought it horrible but I realise now it was toned down for us. We were told that Wilberforce ‘started’ the anti-slavery movement but that, rather pointless, accolade has a number of claimants. What is true was that reformers in this country were a brave bunch. Its abolition cost the rich considerable income and they didn’t let go without a fight.
There is a film about it, which shows just how disinterested everybody else in power was in abolishing the slave trade. Disinterested, amused, then horrified, then outraged, and then furious at the idea.
But it is still not over, as we have yet to 'apologise' for the slave trade, as a rather large group of African American people are still calling for.
But I assume ridiculously large sums of compensation will make everything okay, though I am not sure who will pay, and to whom the compo will go.
currently reading a book called the politically incorrect guide to the british empire. its not really politically incorrect but tries to present the other side of the story from what we are taught in school, ie. the notion that many at the time saw empire as a means of advancing civilisation, liberal ideals and democracy, even if they did accumulate vast wealth for themselves and use tactics we dont like today. no doubt historians would deride it as simplistic but its a very easy read and makes a change to reading about how evil we are.
Victor McDade said:
It was at times immoral, unscrupulous and ruthless yet at the same time some would argue it was admirable. They would do 'whatever it took' to get the job done.
You can do 'whatever it takes' if you do it on the far side of the world and your side is the only version that gets out.You can't do that in an era of TV reporters and mass media.
Derek Smith said:
I do wish, however, that we put it behind us(Empire). It is gone and good riddance. Let us talk about it but not worship it. It cost this country and we are paying the price now.
Paying the price? I could argue that much of what you enjoy today is a legacy of that very empire you seem to condemn. Do you think your standard of living, current technology, etc would be anywhere near what it is today had their never been an empire??Jimbeaux said:
Paying the price? I could argue that much of what you enjoy today is a legacy of that very empire you seem to condemn. Do you think your standard of living, current technology, etc would be anywhere near what it is today had their never been an empire??
Are you suggesting that the empire brought about the current standard of living for the majority of the country? If so then I would disagree most strongly.The history of Britain is one of invention, of exporting ideas a methods to the world. Canals, manuracturing, rail and refinement is what brought a spread of money into this country. All of a sudden there was manufacturing and these people needed someone to sell such things to. I would put someone like Trevithick much higher in the scale of use to this country than, for instance, Rhodes.
There is of course much else I could bring up.
Without getting into Monty Python, ask yourself what the empire did for the poplulation at large. Compare the standard of living for the general population at the time of empire with that after. I'm not suggesting cause and effect, what I am suggesting is that the vast wealth that the empire supposedly brought into this country did not make its way down to the population at large. Just the reverse in fact. The vary rich, who made their fortunes via the empire, were able to control - the main purpose of wealth for most it seems - the direction of this country.
When WWII cost this country its remains of empire then, all of a sudden, things changed. The 60s was as much about the loss of control of the population as anything else.
The empire might have been many things, but what it wasn't was a route to a reaised standard of living for the general population. Many could argue that it was, in fact, just the opposite.
Derek Smith said:
The empire might have been many things, but what it wasn't was a route to a reaised standard of living for the general population. Many could argue that it was, in fact, just the opposite.
Hmmm. What about all the British people who went to the 'white' colonies for a better life? USA, Canada, Australia, NZ etc. Or the People who went to India and other places to make their fortune (wasnt Clive of India just a clerk before going?)And I simply do not believe that the economy of the UK wasnt boosted by the Empire for the bulk of the 18th and 19th centuries. In which case many people in the general pop would have benefited. It would have been worse in the UK during that period without it. Arguably in the 20th century the Empire may have been a net cost, but without it we would all be speaking German.
This seems to agree with me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapow...
Edited by s2art on Thursday 5th April 19:01
Derek Smith said:
Jimbeaux said:
Paying the price? I could argue that much of what you enjoy today is a legacy of that very empire you seem to condemn. Do you think your standard of living, current technology, etc would be anywhere near what it is today had their never been an empire??
Are you suggesting that the empire brought about the current standard of living for the majority of the country? If so then I would disagree most strongly.The history of Britain is one of invention, of exporting ideas a methods to the world. Canals, manuracturing, rail and refinement is what brought a spread of money into this country. All of a sudden there was manufacturing and these people needed someone to sell such things to. I would put someone like Trevithick much higher in the scale of use to this country than, for instance, Rhodes.
There is of course much else I could bring up.
Without getting into Monty Python, ask yourself what the empire did for the poplulation at large. Compare the standard of living for the general population at the time of empire with that after. I'm not suggesting cause and effect, what I am suggesting is that the vast wealth that the empire supposedly brought into this country did not make its way down to the population at large. Just the reverse in fact. The vary rich, who made their fortunes via the empire, were able to control - the main purpose of wealth for most it seems - the direction of this country.
When WWII cost this country its remains of empire then, all of a sudden, things changed. The 60s was as much about the loss of control of the population as anything else.
The empire might have been many things, but what it wasn't was a route to a reaised standard of living for the general population. Many could argue that it was, in fact, just the opposite.
Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 5th April 19:03
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff