expatbrit

Joined

• started 226 topics
• posted 3,137 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by expatbrit

• 
  96

  LIBERAL PEOPLE HAVE THEIR PANTIES IN A WAD NOW!

  by dolphman in

  1. social
  2. current

  so, the iraqis did want us to liberate them.

  what are your pathetic responses to the images of cheering iraqis?.

  thank god bush knows better than to listen to you..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  When any of you can point to a country that has not violated someone's rights, let us all know; we can all move there and sing Kumbaya...

  But Liechtenstein is so boring!

  Expatbrit
• 
  96

  LIBERAL PEOPLE HAVE THEIR PANTIES IN A WAD NOW!

  by dolphman in

  1. social
  2. current

  so, the iraqis did want us to liberate them.

  what are your pathetic responses to the images of cheering iraqis?.

  thank god bush knows better than to listen to you..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  'How did Britain come to rule the world?' asks Niall Ferguson in Empire. What would today's world be like now if it hadn't? Could such an organisation – run by, according to Winston Churchill, 'the greedy trader, the inopportune missionary, the ambitious soldier and the lying spectator' – ever have been a force for good? Niall Ferguson – writer and presenter of the Channel 4 series Empire – is Herzog Professor of Financial History at New York University and Visiting Professor of Political and Financial History at Oxford University. He is the author of Paper and Iron, The House of Rothschild, The Pity of War and The Cash Nexus and editor of Virtual History. In this edited extract from the book, he explains how the British empire provided the framework for present-day globalisation.

  It has become almost a commonplace that globalisation today has much in common with the integration of the world economy in the decades before 1914. But what exactly does this over-used word mean? Is it, as Cobden implied, an economically determined phenomenon, in which the free exchange of commodities and manufactures tends 'to unite mankind in the bonds of peace'? Or might free trade require a political framework within which to work?

  Promote and imposeThe Leftist opponents of globalisation naturally regard it as no more than the latest manifestation of a damnably resilient international capitalism. By contrast, the modern consensus among liberal economists is that increasing economic openness raises living standards, even if there will always be some net losers as hitherto privileged or protected social groups are exposed to international competition.

  But economists and economic historians alike prefer to focus their attention on flows of commodities, capital and labour. They say less about flows of knowledge, culture and institutions. They also tend to pay more attention to the ways government can facilitate globalisation by various kinds of deregulation than to the ways it can actively promote and, indeed, impose it.

  The result of coercionEconomists have come to appreciate the importance of legal, financial and administrative institutions such as the rule of law, credible monetary regimes, transparent fiscal systems and incorrupt bureaucracies in encouraging cross- border capital flows. But how did the West European versions of such institutions spread as far and wide as they did?

  In a few rare cases – the most obvious being that of Japan – there was a process of conscious, voluntary imitation. But more often than not, European institutions were imposed by main force, often literally at gunpoint. In theory, globalisation may be possible in an international system of multilateral cooperation, spontaneously arising as Cobden envisaged. But it may equally well be possible as a result of coercion if the dominant power in the world favours economic liberalism. Empire – and specifically the British empire – is the instance that springs to mind.

  A Good ThingToday, the principal barriers to an optimal allocation of labour, capital and goods in the world are, on the one hand, civil wars and lawless, corrupt governments – which together have condemned so many countries in sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia to decades of impoverishment – and, on the other, the reluctance of the United States and her allies to practise as well as preach free trade, or to devote more than a trifling share of their vast resources to programmes of economic aid.

  By contrast, for much (though certainly not all) of its history, the British empire acted as an agency for imposing free markets, the rule of law, investor protection and relatively incorrupt government on a roughly a quarter of the world. The empire also did a good deal to encourage those things in countries which were outside its formal imperial domain but under its economic influence through the 'imperialism of free trade'. Prima facie, there therefore seems a plausible case that empire enhanced global welfare – was, in other words, a Good Thing.

  ZealousMany charges can, of course, be levelled against the British empire. I do not claim, as John Stuart Mill did, that British rule in India was 'not only the purest in intention but one of the most beneficent in act ever known to mankind'; nor, as Lord Curzon did, that 'the British Empire is under Providence the greatest instrument for good that the world has seen'; nor, as General Smuts claimed, that it was 'the widest system of organised human freedom which has ever existed in human history'.

  The empire was never so altruistic. In the 18th century, the British were indeed as zealous in the acquisition and exploitation of slaves as they were subsequently zealous in trying to stamp slavery out; and for much longer they practised forms of racial discrimination and segregation that we today consider abhorrent.

  When imperial authority was challenged – in India in 1857, in Jamaica in 1831 and 1865, in South Africa in 1899 – the British response was brutal. When famine struck – in Ireland in the 1840s, in India in the 1870s – their response was negligent, in some measure positively culpable. Even when they took a scholarly interest in oriental cultures, perhaps they did subtly denigrate them in the process.

  Signal virtuesYet the fact remains that no organisation in history has done more to promote the free movement of goods, capital and labour than the British empire in the 19th and early 20th centuries. And no organisation has done more to impose Western norms of law, order and governance around the world.

  To characterise all this as 'gentlemanly capitalism' risks underselling the scale - and modernity – of the achievement in the sphere of economics, just as criticism of the 'ornamental' (meaning hierarchical) character of British rule overseas tends to overlook the signal virtues of what were remarkably non-venal administrations.

  Achievements and sinsThe difficulty with the achievements of empire is that they are much more likely to be taken for granted than the sins of empire. It is, however, instructive to try to imagine a world without the British empire. But while it is just about possible to imagine what the world would have been like without the French Revolution or the First World War, the imagination reels from the counterfactual of modern history without the British empire.

  As I travelled around that empire's remains, I was constantly struck by its ubiquitous creativity. To imagine the world without the empire would be to expunge from the map the elegant boulevards of Williamsburg and old Philadelphia; to sweep into the sea the squat battlements of Port Royal, Jamaica; to return to the bush the glorious skyline of Sydney; to level the steamy seaside slum that is Freetown, Sierra Leone; to fill in the Big Hole at Kimberley; to demolish the mission at Kuruman; to send the town of Livingstone hurtling over the Victoria Falls – which would, of course, revert to their original name of Mosioatunya. Without the British empire, there would be no Calcutta, no Bombay, no Madras. Indians may rename them as many times as they like, but they remain cities founded and built by the British.

  Fingerprints of empireIt is, of course, tempting to argue that it would all have happened anyway, albeit with different names. Perhaps the railways would have been invented and exported by another European power. Perhaps the telegraph cables would have been laid across the sea by someone else. Maybe, as Cobden claimed, the same volumes of trade would have gone on without bellicose empires meddling in peaceful commerce. Maybe, too, the great movements of population which transformed the cultures and complexions of whole continents would have happened anyway.

  Yet there is reason to doubt that the world would have been the same or even similar in the absence of the empire. Even if we allow for the possibility that trade, capital flows and migration could have been 'naturally occurring' in the past 300 years, there remain the flows of culture and institutions. And here the fingerprints of empire seem more readily discernible and less easy to expunge.

  Distinctive featuresWhen the British governed a country – even when they only influenced its government by flexing their military and financial muscles – there were certain distinctive features of their own society that they tended to disseminate. A list of the more important of these would run as follows:

  • The English language
  • English forms of land tenure
  • Scottish and English banking
  • The common law
  • Protestantism
  • Team sports
  • The limited or 'night watchman' state
  • Representative assemblies
  • The idea of liberty.

  The last of these is perhaps the most important because it remains the most distinctive feature of the empire – the thing that sets it apart from its continental European rivals.

  A liberal critiqueI do not mean to claim that all British imperialists were liberals: some were very far from it. But what is very striking about the history of the empire is that, whenever the British were behaving despotically, there was almost always a liberal critique of that behaviour from within British society.

  Indeed, so powerful and consistent was this tendency to judge Britain's imperial conduct by the yardstick of liberty that it gave the British empire something of a self-liquidating character. Once a colonised society had sufficiently adopted the institutions the British brought with them, it became very hard for the British to deny them that political liberty to which they attached so much significance for themselves.

  What might have been?Would other empires have produced the same effects? It seems doubtful. In my travels, I caught many glimpses of world empires that might have been:

  • in dilapidated Chinsura, a vision of how all Asia might have looked if the Dutch empire had not declined and fallen
  • in whitewashed Pondicherry, which all India might have resembled if the French had won the Seven Years' War
  • in dusty Delhi, where the Mughal empire might have been restored if the Indian Mutiny had not been crushed in 1858
  • in Kanchanaburi, where the Japanese empire built its bridge on the River Kwai with British slave labour.

  Would New Amsterdam be the New York we know today if the Dutch had not surrendered it to the British in 1664? Might it not resemble more closely Bloemfontein, an authentic survivor of Dutch colonisation?

  ***

  For better or worse – fair and foul – the world we know today is in large measure a product of Britain's age of empire. The question is not whether British imperialism was without blemish. It was not. The question is whether there could have been a less bloody path to modernity. Perhaps in theory there could have been. But in practice?
• 
  32

  Steak And Kidney Pie.

  by Englishman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  steak and kidney pie, mushy peas and chips.

  yum!.

  ..or do you prefer your steak and kidney pie with gravy?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Yummy! With gravy and mushy peas, definitely!

  And yes it's true about the donating blood thing. I can't donate here in Canada because of my British background.

  Expatbrit
• 
  11

  Middle Ages were warmer than today!

  by ThiChi in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  another example of why the so called "environmentalists" don't know s**t!

  middle ages were warmer than today, say scientists .

  by robert matthews, science correspondent .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  "When the temperature started to drop, harvests failed and England's vine industry died.

  So this means that we can look forward to a thriving English Wine industry soon? That'll piss off the Australians....lol

  Expatbrit, amused to see the drunk potheads at the University of East Anglia screw up yet again!
• 
  102

  SEE THE REAL FACE OF THE WAR IN IRAQ, SEE THE HORROR

  by justhuman in

  1. social
  2. current

  since the media in u.s show nothing about the war in iraq, and bush's administration censor everything that is "bad' for the puplic, here are some shocking photos of how bush is setting free the iraqi people.

  similar view of how watchtower's god will treat everyone who disagrees with them in armageddon.

  bush does not care about the iraqi people.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Abaddon:

  Patriotism is a qualitative factor which makes it extremely difficult to measure quantitatively i.e. with data.

  Before discussing whether patriotism is different in the United States than Europe, you need to set some definitions e.g. what qualifies as patriotism; which nations and territories are to be accepted as "Europe" for the purposes of the discussion (I would hedge a bet that patriotism is different in the UK than in mainland Europe too).

  Expatbrit
• 
  24

  Which are you? Emotional or Intellectual?

  by Yizuman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  after observing the two sides arguing about the war with iraq, i have come to see 2 kinds of groups, not just the argument from conservatives and liberals, but from those who think with either from their intellectual or emotional standpoints...... from the emotional standpoints who oppose the war, which i would call the "oprah thinkers", these are the group of people who think with their emotional part of the brain rather than the intellectual part of the brain.

  the oprah thinkers likes to cry alot and dab their eyes with a hankerchef.

  they get outraged when a human being regardless of their background (good or evil) gets killed for whatever reason it may be.. then there are those who support the war, which i would call the "spock thinkers", who think from the intellectual part of the brain rather than from the emotional part of the brain.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Dana: Alright, I'll go and look up "materialist".

  Yizuman: I don't think you can classify anti and pro-war groupings that simply. There are emotional arguments both against (the war will kill innocents) and for (the Iraqi regime kills innocents and must be removed) the war.

  There are also intellectual arguments both against (the war will lead to international instability) and for (the war will provide an opportunity for moderation in an extreme region) the war.

  Personally, I am pro the war, but opinion on it cannot be so easily grouped, as "emotional" v. "intellectual".

  Expatbrit
• 
  24

  Which are you? Emotional or Intellectual?

  by Yizuman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  after observing the two sides arguing about the war with iraq, i have come to see 2 kinds of groups, not just the argument from conservatives and liberals, but from those who think with either from their intellectual or emotional standpoints...... from the emotional standpoints who oppose the war, which i would call the "oprah thinkers", these are the group of people who think with their emotional part of the brain rather than the intellectual part of the brain.

  the oprah thinkers likes to cry alot and dab their eyes with a hankerchef.

  they get outraged when a human being regardless of their background (good or evil) gets killed for whatever reason it may be.. then there are those who support the war, which i would call the "spock thinkers", who think from the intellectual part of the brain rather than from the emotional part of the brain.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Dana:

  Don't be emotional.

  Expatbrit (too late I have a head start.....)
• 
  11

  Totally embarrassed to be a Canadian right now

  by Lady Lee in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am listening (interpret to mean - hurting my ears and senses) to the canadian juno awards.

  i know i am considered old by many on the board here but this stuff is just awful - off key - no recognizable tune - no intelligible words.

  canada has some awesome talent.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Ah, that would confirm those rumours I hear about Canadian men, too.

  Expatbrit
• 
  102

  SEE THE REAL FACE OF THE WAR IN IRAQ, SEE THE HORROR

  by justhuman in

  1. social
  2. current

  since the media in u.s show nothing about the war in iraq, and bush's administration censor everything that is "bad' for the puplic, here are some shocking photos of how bush is setting free the iraqi people.

  similar view of how watchtower's god will treat everyone who disagrees with them in armageddon.

  bush does not care about the iraqi people.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Fortunately, we have the balanced coverage from the Iraqi Information Ministry....lol

  Iraq's Information Minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahaf, has denied US troops are in Baghdad.

  His comments were carried on al-Jazeera television, whom he accused of spreading American propaganda.

  Here is the text of what he said:

  "There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!

  "They tried to bring a small number of tanks and personnel carriers in through al-Durah but they were surrounded and most of their infidels had their throats cut. "We made them drink poison last night [Sunday] and Saddam Hussein's soldiers and his great forces gave the Americans a lesson which will not be forgotten by history. Truly.

  "On this occasion, I am not going to mention the number of the infidels who were killed and the number of destroyed vehicles. The operation continues.

  "I can say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that they have started to commit suicide under the walls of Baghdad. We will encourage them to commit more suicides quickly.

  "We defeated them yesterday. God willing, I will provide you with more information. I swear by God, I swear by God, those who are staying in Washington and London have thrown these mercenaries in a crematorium.

  "As President Saddam Hussein said: God will roast their stomachs in hell at the hands of Iraqis.

  "This is an Arab expression, because the killing which they witnessed yesterday will be a lesson to these mercenaries and to the war criminals in Washington and London.

  'Stupid' attack

  "Their infidels are committing suicide in their hundreds under the walls of Baghdad. The battle was fierce and God granted his soldiers victory. He granted heroic Iraqis victory. The battle is continuing on the main fronts.

  "Be reassured, Baghdad is safe, fortified and great.

  "The inhabitants of Baghdad are heroes. They told you that there was fighting at al-Rashid Hotel and the Information Ministry.

  "I have heard an al-Jazeera correspondent as if it was confirming that.

  "It is unfortunate. I was at the Information Ministry. I went to the al-Rashid Hotel. I salute the soldiers and I salute the Baathists, the heroes. I salute the citizens who came out of their homes with rifles.

  "Please, please! The Americans are relying on what I called yesterday a desperate and stupid method.

  'Desperate Americans'

  "Just look carefully, I only want you to look carefully. Do not repeat the lies of liars. Do not become like them. Once again, I blame al-Jazeera before it ascertains what takes place. Please, make sure of what you say and do not play such a role.

  "Search for the truth. I tell you things and I always ask you to verify what I say. I told you yesterday that there was an attack and a retreat at Saddam's airport.

  "What have the desperate Americans done? They said that their soldiers have occupied the airport since the beginning of the attack.

  "They had their forces at the VIP lounge just to say that leader Saddam Hussein used to frequent this place. See how petty and lowly these Americans are?

  "They transformed the issue into an issue of whether Saddam Hussein, this great leader, uses this building or not. Does he use this bed or not?

  'Tragedy of their soldiers'

  "I believe these servile people deserve contempt only. This is an ongoing war. They attack a country and a people. They have become involved with a brave and fighting people and a strong and ironclad national regime.

  "In order to deceive you and deceive me - they believe they can do so - they went to the VIP lounge to divert attention from their villains who were slaughtered on the ground.

  "They speak about buildings and walls instead of a VIP lounge. Instead of showing the tragedy of their soldiers, they speak about a lounge - does a lounge represent the dignity of a people?

  "Are these the Americans? People remain silent and placate the Americans. By God, they only deserve scorn. We slaughtered them yesterday and we will continue to slaughter them.

  "Therefore, please rest assured. We caused you some inconvenience because from this place we destroyed this little number of armoured vehicles and tanks, which came from al-Durah."
• 
  11

  Totally embarrassed to be a Canadian right now

  by Lady Lee in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am listening (interpret to mean - hurting my ears and senses) to the canadian juno awards.

  i know i am considered old by many on the board here but this stuff is just awful - off key - no recognizable tune - no intelligible words.

  canada has some awesome talent.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Lee:

  Chill out whatcha yelling' for? Lay back it's all been done before. Why you have to go and make things so complicated?

  Why don't any Canadian stars have breasts?

  Expatbrit