Help, please, froggies!

[Richard Barrett]

slightly less imperialist

Yes, so the victims of colonial violence there would be slightly less dead.

[ahinton]

Maybe I'm missing something here from your anti-imperialist line of thought, S_A, but isn't indirect rule of somebody else's land slightly less imperialist than direct rule?

I realise of course that you were not addressing your question to me but, if I may answer it anyway, yes, maybe you are!

[ahinton]

You've just reminded me of the "difference" we were taught at school between "direct rule", as exercised by the French over their dominions, and the "indirect rule" favoured by the British. The latter was always "explained" as accounting for the "superiority" of British colonial rule resulting in few - if any (!) - rebellions by restive natives. This was back in the 1950s, as we stared in awe at the map of the globe, with its huge land masses coloured in pink, and it wouldn't surprise me if such pro-imperialist propaganda had been inculcated into several generations of white, English school children.

Your references here remind me of a note on a spoof of an Elgarian Pomp & Circumstance March wot I wrote once (once being at least twice too many, in all probability), in which the following text occurs:

"Like so many others, Elgar had been profoundly affected by World War I and its aftermath and, in 1933, the year before his death, complained bitterly to Delius about the madness once again rearing itself in Germany as though no lessons had been learned from that "war to end all wars", as it was then widely perceived. Despite Elgar’s eventual reservations as to having consented to King Edward VII's suggestion that certain words by Arthur Christopher Benson be appended to part of his Pomp & Circumstance March No. 1, Land of hope and glory has become so firmly attached to it as to seem inseparable from it, as evident from its long established status as a staple of the last night of the Proms; it appears somehow to have prompted a kind of pacifist anti-jingoist verse to the central tune of [this spoof march] which, with due apologies to William Blake (whose Parryed Jerusalem in Elgar's orchestration is another Last Night of the Proms stalwart), runs

No land, nor hope, nor glory's to be won;
For our march is not a military one.
No! no bombs nor muskets – we disapprove of these;
No more army, no more air force – a plague on IEDs
Forever. And my sword shall sleep in someone else's hand.
No Empire; the map's not coloured pink!
Bring me my pen and ink.

The composer understandably hopes that these words "never never shall be" sung to his tune (and, in that, he is reasonably confident)..."

I've got me bullet-proof coat (and will doubtless need it)...

[ahinton]

Yes, so the victims of colonial violence there would be slightly less dead.

...or perhaps fake news rumours of their demise might be greatly exaggerated...

[P. G. Tipps]

I realise of course that you were addressing your question to me but, if I may answer it anyway, yes, maybe you are!

Any failure of comprehension on my part appears to be more than matched by an apparently complete failure of realisation on your own, ahinton ...

[ahinton]

Any failure of comprehension on my part appears to be more than matched by an apparently complete failure of realisation on your own, ahinton ...

If your reference to "realisation" on my part was down to my having carelessly omitted the vital word "not" between "were" and "addressing" (and I can only assume that it is so), all that I can do is offer you due apologies for having unwittingly misled you.

[Serial_Apologist]

I realise of course that you were addressing your question to me but, if I may answer it anyway, yes, maybe you are!

Using your monopoly position in competitive trade and sweet-talking tribal chieftains with inducements was the practice. This served the interests of the colonial ruling layers in business and law while securing an apparent semblance of self-determination through pre-existing subject loyalty whenever it suited, with external back-up when deemed necessary, as opposed to the French system of totally replacing existing tribal orders with administration, staffing etc from the colonial power. The former worked for a while - who accepts having another's power being imposed when it can be made to look like your own people's free exercise, by courtesy of one of your own? And it worked in bequeathing a number of myths about the superiority of British colonial rule that outlived the consequences of its resulting long-term complacency in British society's higher echelons filtering down to infect the way present-day social, economic and political problems are viewed, discussed and never resolved, in the characteristically British way we all experience being played out time and time again, as though in some badly scripted karmic comedy of eternal recurrence.

[P. G. Tipps]

If your reference to "realisation" on my part was down to my having carelessly omitted the vital word "not" between "were" and "addressing" (and I can only assume that it is so), all that I can do is offer you due apologies for having unwittingly misled you.

No apologies necessary, please do carry on misleading me, ahinton ...

[ahinton]

No apologies necessary, please do carry on misleading me, ahinton ...

No can (or will) do, sorry; that kind of thing happens only by accident.

[P. G. Tipps]

Using your monopoly position in competitive trade and sweet-talking tribal chieftains with inducements was the practice. This served the interests of the colonial ruling layers in business and law while securing an apparent semblance of self-determination through pre-existing subject loyalty whenever it suited, with external back-up when deemed necessary, as opposed to the French system of totally replacing existing tribal orders with administration, staffing etc from the colonial power. The former worked for a while - who accepts having another's power being imposed when it can be made to look like your own people's free exercise, by courtesy of one of your own? And it worked in bequeathing a number of myths about the superiority of British colonial rule that outlived the consequences of its resulting long-term complacency in British society's higher echelons filtering down to infect the way present-day social, economic and political problems are viewed, discussed and never resolved, in the characteristically British way we all experience being played out time and time again, as though in some badly scripted karmic comedy of eternal recurrence.

Whilst delighting in the truly "ahintonesque" nature of your last paragraph I must question the 'superiority' of British colonialism (in comparison to its many rivals) being described as a 'myth'.

Whatever one thinks is the actual legacy of the British Empire it was the largest and most widespread in human history and its eventual and inevitable decline passed extremely gradually and relatively orderly.

Without a shadow of a doubt it was certainly 'superior' and ultimately more influential than any of its main European competitors.

Surely that is beyond dispute whatever one now thinks, in our more "enlightened" age, of the very cunning/disreputable tactics of 'Divide and Rule'!

[ahinton]

Whilst delighting in the truly "ahintonesque" nature of your last paragraph

I hope that S_A doesn't take that as an insult or have reason to do so!

I must question the 'superiority' of British colonialism (in comparison to its many rivals) being described as a 'myth'.

Why in particular "must" you do this?

Whatever one thinks is the actual legacy of the British Empire it was the largest and most widespread in human history and its eventual and inevitable decline passed extremely gradually and relatively orderly.

So its mere size and the duration of its painful demise make it all OK, then?

Without a shadow of a doubt it was certainly 'superior' and ultimately more influential than any of its main European competitors.

And that makes it OK as well, does it? In the meantime, any chance of some evidence?

[P. G. Tipps]

Why in particular "must" you do this?


So its mere size and the duration of its painful demise make it all OK, then?


And that makes it OK as well, does it? In the meantime, any chance of some evidence?

Mr Hinton, there are many, many things in this life of which I do not personally approve and which, imv, are certainly not 'ok'. There are of course many other things of which I approve wholeheartedly ..,

However, I feel rather spoilt for choice when considering the legacy and influence of the British Empire on the modern world.

Apart from the obvious contributions to the modern world of so many of our Scottish forebears surely the most glaringly obvious is the establishment of English as the language of the world by way of the mightiest of our former colonies?

It is not so much a question of approving or not of what happened in past ages but simply acknowledging which Empire was the most successful at the time with lasting effects to this day?

Whatever one's political views there seems little point in even attempting to deny that!

[ahinton]

Mr Hinton, there are many, many things in this life of which I do not personally approve and which, imv, are certainly not 'ok'. There are of course many other things of which I approve wholeheartedly ..,

However, I feel rather spoilt for choice when considering the legacy and influence of the British Empire on the modern world.

Apart from the obvious contributions to the modern world of so many of our Scottish forebears surely the most glaringly obvious is the establishment of English as the language of the world by way of the mightiest of our former colonies?

It is not so much a question of approving or not of what happened in past ages but simply acknowledging which Empire was the most successful at the time with lasting effects to this day?

Whatever one's political views there seems little point in even attempting to deny that!

If you say so.

Whether or not something was or might be considered to have been "successful" in terms of achieving its avowed intent at any particular time and whether or not something was desirable and ultimately useful to society in general are two quite different and often irreconcilable phenomena.

[french frank]

I'm grateful to those who responded to my OP request for thoughts on the quotation from Camus.

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm grateful to those who responded to my OP request for thoughts on the quotation from Camus.

And we, I am sure, are likewise all grateful for the opportunities this thread has afforded for discussion on a range of pertinent topics previously not covered on this forum, if I'm not mistaken.